Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . 1. Smt. P.M. Singh, Ias (A1), on 31 July, 2013
1
CBI case . No.27/11
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, CBI,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CBI Case No. 27/11
Date of Institution: 28.09.2006
Date on which Judgment Pronounced: 23.07.2013
Date on which Order on Sentence announced : 31.07.2013
CBI case no. : 27/11
FIR no. : RCAC2/2003/A 0003
CBI/ACU.II/New Delhi
In the matter of:
CBI versus. 1. Smt. P.M. Singh, IAS (A1),
The then Chairperson,
NDMC, New Delhi.
W/o Sh. Mandeep Singh,
R/o 7/17, Delhi Admn. Flats,
Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3),
The then Architect, NDMC,
New Delhi.
S/o Late Sh. SR Sharma,
R/o 12/78, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi18.
3. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4),
The then Assistant Engineer,
UACC, NDMC, New Delhi.
S/o Late Sh. Kanti Prasad,
R/o 7Savita Vihar, Delhi92.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 1 of 223 pages
2
CBI case . No.27/11
4. Kasturi Lal Bhatia (A5),
(died on 23.10.2012 and proceedings
against him abated)
The then Proprietor of
M/s Centre Point, 13 KG Marg,
New Delhi.
S/o Sh. L.C. Bhatia,
R/o 10Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi01.
.............Convicts
O R D E R O N S E N T E N C E
1. By this order, I shall dispose off the contentions, raised on
behalf of the parties, on the point of sentence.
2. In the present case, convicts, namely, Smt. P. M. Singh
(A1), Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3) and Subhash
Chandra Aggarwal(A4) have been convicted for the
offence punishable under section 120B IPC read with
section 418 IPC read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 and, in addition, under section
418 IPC read with section 120B IPC. The above said
convicts, namely, Smt. P. M. Singh (A1), Navinder Kumar
Sharma (A3) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4) have
also been convicted for the offence punishable under
section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 2 of 223 pages
3
CBI case . No.27/11
3. It has been strongly contended on behalf of the State by
the Ld. PP for the CBI that this is a corruption case, in
which, the convicts have been convicted, as they were
involved in the conspiracy and that in pursuance to the
well organized, systematic and wellknit criminal
conspiracy, they flouted all the rules and regulations,
provisions of NDMC Act, Master Plan of Delhi to attain
illegal object i.e. to regularize the unauthorized
construction in the garb of residential property whereas
the same was actually being used as a hotel by accused K.
L. Bhatia (since deceased), illegally.
4. The State has further contended that the maximum
prescribed substantive punishment with fine be handed
over to all the convicts, so that enough and clear message
goes to one and all and especially to the potential
offenders, who are in the waiting to commit such like
crimes so that the punishment act as a deterrence and the
intent of the legislature is fulfilled.
5. Convict, P. M. Singh (A1), has prayed that a lenient view
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 3 of 223 pages
4
CBI case . No.27/11
be taken on the ground that she is a senior citizen and
retired from the service. That she was the Financial
Commissioner of Delhi State. That she has unblemished
record. That her both children are living abroad. That
she has an old mother of 88 years of age residing in
Chandigarh and nobody is in the family to look after her.
That the convict is afflicted with hypertension. That her
husband is also of old age, who retired from army and is
residing with her in Delhi. That she remained co
operative during the long trial of the case. She further
submitted that there is no case of illegal gratification of
money. That she is not the beneficiary of any gain. That
she is not a previous convict. She has prayed that a
lenient view may be taken.
6. Convict, Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3) has submitted
that he is under dialysis and is required to undergo
dialysis thrice a week. That he is seriously afflicted with
various diseases like diabetes and kidney failure with high
susceptibility to infections and is at terminal stage. That
he has faced long trial. That he is not a convict in any
other case. He has prayed for leniency.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 4 of 223 pages
5
CBI case . No.27/11
7. Convict, Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4), has also
prayed for a lenient view. He submitted that he is junior
most officer in the present case. That he has two sons,
who are of marriageable age and used to stay out of
station. That he is alone in the family and is the sole bread
earner for his family. That there is no male member in
his family to support his wife. That he is a patient of
hypertension. He prayed for minimum sentence.
8. The above said convicts have, thus, prayed for taking a
lenient view.
9. The contentions, raised by the convicts, have met stiff and
very strong opposition on behalf of the State. It has been
urged that convict, P. M. Singh, who has been convicted in
this case, was the then Chairperson, NDMC and was duty
bound to protect the interest of the Central Government
and NDMC. She has mischievously cheated both the
Central Government and NDMC by dishonestly allowing
issuance of health licence fraudulently to accused K. L.
Bhatia (since deceased) on 15.1.2003 and then
fraudulently approved compounding of unauthorized
construction subsequently on 13.2.2003, knowing it fully
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 5 of 223 pages
6
CBI case . No.27/11
well that the residential premises earmarked for group
housing was being illegally used as a full fledged hotel by
accused K. L. Bhatia (since deceased) contrary to the
interest of the leassor i.e. Govt. of India (the property had
been reentered and vested in the President of India) and
against the public interest. It has, therefore, been urged
that this convict deserves maximum and exemplary
punishment.
10. Regarding the convicts, Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3) &
Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4), it is stated that they
criminally misconducted and abused their power and
position. That under criminal conspiracy, they joined the
convict P. M. Singh in attaining the illegal object i.e.
compounding of unauthorized construction in the
premises contrary to the terms of lease deed Master Plan
of Delhi, Building Bye Laws, etc., and as a result thereof,
they caused substantial undue pecuniary gains to accused
K. L. Bhatia (since deceased) against public interest.
That they are not entitled to any mercy or compassion.
11. It is further urged on behalf of the State that most of the
pleas taken by the convicts are routine and stock pleas
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 6 of 223 pages
7
CBI case . No.27/11
and in any case, in the case under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, these pleas taken are not considered as
mitigating circumstances. It has, therefore, been prayed
that appropriate punishment be awarded to the convicts
herein.
12. The defence has contended that despite the alleged
fraudulent approval accorded by convict P. M. Singh on
13.2.2003, the compounding and regularization of the
unauthorized construction did not take place as convict P.
M. Singh was transferred from NDMC on 31.3.2003. That
it has not been regularized till date, admittedly, which is
not disputed by the State. It has, therefore, been urged
that this may be taken as mitigating circumstance among
others while awarding sentence to the convicts.
13. On behalf of the CBI, following case law have been cited:
(i) State of Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar, AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 261
(ii) Bikram Dorjee Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2009
Supreme Court 2539
(iii) State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2009 Supreme
Court 391,
(iv) Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR
2009 Supreme Court 2609
(v) Ammavasai Vs. Inspector of Police, Valliyanur, AIR 2000
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 7 of 223 pages
8
CBI case . No.27/11
SC 3644
(vi) State V A Parthiban, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 51,
(vii) State V Ratan Lal Arora, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2364
&
(viii) Ram Narain Poply Vs. CBI, AIR 2003 Supreme Court
2748
(ix) State of J & K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC 611.
(x) State of Madhya Pradesh V. Sheikh Shahid, AIR 2009 SC
2951
(xi) Shiv Raj Singh vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 SC
1419.
(xii) State of A. P. Vs. S. R. Rangadamappa, AIR 1982 SC
1492
14. On behalf of the convicts, following case law have been
cited:
(i) Ram Lal Dogra Vs. State (CBI), 2001 (2) JCC (Delhi) 239
(ii) C. B. Rai Vs. CBI, 2013 (2) JCC 1241
15. At the very outset, it is observed that there is no quarrel
over the settled propositions of law discussed in the
aforesaid case law, cited by the parties.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case law, reported as Dr.
Subramanyam Swami Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh, 2012,
AIR(SC) page 1185, has observed that :
"The magnitude of corruption in our public
life is incompatible with the concept of
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 8 of 223 pages
9
CBI case . No.27/11
socialistic secular democratic public. The
duty of the Court is that any anti
corruption law has to be interpreted and
worked out in such a fashion as to
strengthen to fight against corruption."
17. It has further been observed in the same case that "In a
situation where two constructions are eminently
reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to
eredicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate
it."
18. It has been held in case reported as Narendra Champak
Lal Trivedi Vs. State of Gujrat, 2012 (7) SCC page 80 that:
"Corruption at any level does not deserve
either sympathy or leniency."
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case law, reported as State
of Madhya Pradesh V Sheikh Shahid, AIR 2009 SC 2951,
has observed that :
"Justice demands that Courts should
impose punishment befitting the crime so
that the Courts reflect public abhorrence
of the crime. The Court must not only keep
in view the rights of the criminal but also
the rights of the victim of the crime and the
society at large while considering the
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 9 of 223 pages
10
CBI case . No.27/11
imposition of appropriate punishment."
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan
Vs. Vinod Kumar, decided on, 18th May, 2012 (Criminal
Appeal No. 1887) reiterated the law laid down in State of
J&K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC P 611, and observed
that superannuation of the convict and the pendency of
criminal trial for over a period of time cannot be treated a
special reason to reduce the sentence.
21. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the cases
reported as Jai Bhagwan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2008
150 DLT 46 (Delhi) and Ravinder Kumar Arora Vs. CBI
Manu/DE/8816/2007 (Delhi) , that :
"It is a normal thing that 'trial' of the
person is considered a period of 'agony'
undergone by him. But we tend to forget
the agony of the society and the
complainant who dared lodge the
complaint. The entire purpose of the
legislature of sentencing the offenders
stands defeated and that is the one reason
that wages of corruption are considered
more attractive in this country. The
person caught is not always a firsttimer
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 10 of 223 pages
11
CBI case . No.27/11
corrupt. He may have been indulging into
corrupt activities / practices for a long
number of years. It is to his advantage
that the trial is prolonged. He spends a
fraction of amount, earned by corrupt
practices on litigation and professionals to
see that ultimately he makes Criminal
Justice System a laughing stock. In this
process, the entire legislative purpose of
punishing a corrupt stands defeated.
22. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Court in the
aforesaid case that :
"Accused facing trial since long; amount
allegedly misappropriated already been
deposited; undergone departmental
punishment; only bread earner in family;
wife and three children's dependence on
him are the circumstance which do not
constitute 'special reasons'."
23. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
reported as State of M. P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar,
(2006) 8 SCC P 693, that :
"Corruption by public servant has become
gigantic problem. It has spread
everywhere. No facet of public activity has
been left unaffected by the stink of
corruption. Large scale corruption retards
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 11 of 223 pages
12
CBI case . No.27/11
the nation building activities and everyone
has to suffer on that count."
24. In the same appeal quoting 'M B Joshi Vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2001 SC 147' the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed that:
"It is the defect of the system that longevity
of the cases tried under the Prevention of
Corruption Act is too lengthy. If that is
regarded as sufficient for reducing the
sentence mandated by the Parliament
legislative exercise would stand defeated."
25. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
reported as State of J & K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC P
611, that :
"Corruption at any level, by any person, of
any magnitude, is condemnable, which
cannot be ignored by the Judicial Courts,
when proved. No leniency is required to be
shown in proved cases under the
Prevention of Corruption Act which itself
treats the offences under it of a special
nature to be treated differently than the
general penal offences. The convicts of the
offences under the Act are to be dealt with
heavy hand and deterrant rod. No
populous or sympathetic approach is
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 12 of 223 pages
13
CBI case . No.27/11
needed in such cases."
26. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the case
reported as AIR 1961, Mysore P 49, that:
"Infliction of a lenient sentence will defeat
the purpose of the P. C. Act."
27. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
reported as State of T. N Vs. Kaliaperumal, (2005) 12 SCC
473 and State Vs. Ratan Lal Arora, (2004) 4 SCC 590 that
:
"Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders
Act specifically bars the offence under PC
Act from the purview of the Act."
28. The convicts, therefore, cannot be enlarged on probation
in this case relating to serious offences.
29. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
reported as State of M. P. Vs. Ram Singh, AIR 2000 SC
870, that:
"Corruption in a civilised society is a
disease like cancer, which if not detected
in time is sure to maliganise the polity of
the country leading to disastrous
consequences. It is termed as plague which
is not only contagious but if not controlled
spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is
compared with HIV leading to AIDS being
incurable. The sociopolitical system
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 13 of 223 pages
14
CBI case . No.27/11
exposed to such a dreaded communicable
disease is likely to crumble under its own
weight. Corruption is opposed to
democracy and social order, being not
only anti people, but aimed and targeted
against them. It affects the economy and
destroys the cultural heritage."
30. Further, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case law reported as Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2609 that:
" The social impact of the crime e.g. where
it relates to offences against women,
decoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of
public money, treason and other offences
involving moral turpitude or moral
delinquency which have great impact on
social order, and public interest cannot be
lost sight of and per se require exemplary
treatment. Undue sympathy to impose
inadequate sentence would do more harm
to the justice system to undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law and
society could not long endure under such
serious threats."
31. In the case of Siddarama and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka,
2006 IV AD (Cri.) (SC) 78, it was held that:
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 14 of 223 pages
15
CBI case . No.27/11
"Undue sympathy to impose inadequate
sentence would do more harm to the justice
system to undermine the public confidence
in the efficacy of law and society can no
longer endure under such serious threats. It
is, therefore, the duty of every court to
award proper sentence having regard to
the nature of the offence and the manner in
which it was executed or committed etc."
32. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
reported as Mohd. A Hussain Vs. Asstt. Collector, Custom
(Prevention) Ahmedabad, AIR 1998 SC 2143, that :
"If a given transaction constitutes two
offences under two enactments generally, it
is wrong to have consecutive sentences.
But this rule has no application if the
transaction relating to offences is not the
same or the facts constituting the two
offences are quite different. Sentencing
judge should try to ensure that the totality
of the sentences is correct in the light of all
the circumstances of the case."
"In arriving at an appropriate sentence,
the court must consider, and some times
reject, many factors. The court must
'recognise, learn to control and exclude'
many diverse data. It is a balancing act
and tortuous process to ensure reasoned
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 15 of 223 pages
16
CBI case . No.27/11
sentence."
33. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
reported as A. B. Bhaskara Rao vs. Inspector of Police,
CBI, Vishakapatnam, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 290 (SC)
that :
"In the case of corruption by public
servant, long delay in disposal, quantum of
amount of bribe and that the delinquent
lost his job due to conviction etc., are not to
be taken as mitigating circumstances for
reduction of the sentence".
34. It was further held in the case law reported as Kishan
Dayal vs. State, 1958 Raj LW 596 that:
" A corrupt official is a menace to the
society and far from helping in the proper
functioning of the Government and
implementing of the laws, brings the
Government and the society at large into
disrepute. It is through the agency of the
public servants that the policy of the
Legislature as well as of the Government is
implemented. It is through the public
servants that crimes are detected and
offenders are brought to book. It is through
strictly honest and incorruptible public
servants that the welfare of the society can
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 16 of 223 pages
17
CBI case . No.27/11
be ensured. If such public servants are open
to corruption and coerce the public into
paying them illegal gratification, the whole
structure of the society would be upset and
the policy of the Government and of the
Legislature, howsoever, beneficial it may
be, would gravely suffer. A public servant,
therefore, once he is found to be guilty of
accepting or obtaining illegal gratification,
deserves no soft corner or indulgence from
the Courts of Law."
35. It was held in the case reported as Madhukar Bhaskarrao
Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 Cr. LJ 175(SC): that:
"When corruption was sought to be
eliminated from the polity all possible
stringent measures are to be adopted
within the bounds of law. One such
measure is to provide condign
punishment. Parliament measured the
parameters for such condign punishment
and in that process wanted to fix a
minimum sentence of imprisonment for
giving deterrent impact on other public
servants who are prone to corrupt deals.
That was precisely the reason why the
sentence was fixed as seven years and
directed that even if the said period of
imprisonment need not be given, the
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 17 of 223 pages
18
CBI case . No.27/11
sentence shall not be less than the
imprisonment for one year. Such a
legislative insistence is reflection of
Parliament's resolve to meet corruption
cases with very strong hand to give signals
of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of
sentencing of corrupt public servants. All
public servants have to face very serious
consequences. If on the other hand any
public servant is given the impression that
if he succeeds in protracting the
proceedings that would help him to have
the advantage of getting a very light
sentence even if the case ends in
conviction, its fallout would afford
incentive to public servants who were
susceptible to corruption to indulge in
such nefarious practices with immunity.
Increasing the fine after reducing the
imprisonment to a nominal period can
also defeat the purpose as the corrupt
public servants could easily raise the fine
amount through the same means."
36. I have thoroughly and carefully considered the rival
contentions. I have also examined the asserted mitigating
and aggravating circumstances, pointed out by the
parties. I am of the considered opinion that considering all
the aspects of the matter, the following sentence shall be
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 18 of 223 pages
19
CBI case . No.27/11
appropriate to meet the ends of justice :
(i) The convicts herein, namely, Smt. P. M. Singh
(A1), Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3) and Subhash
Chandra Aggarwal (A4) are awarded sentence of two
years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/
(Rupees Five thousands only), in default, one month's
simple imprisonment, each, for the offence punishable
under section 120B IPC read with section 418 IPC and for
the offence punishable under section 418 IPC, read with
section 120B IPC, sentence of three years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten
thousand only), in default, two months simple
imprisonment, each, is awarded.
(ii) The convicts, namely, Navinder Kumar Sharma
(A3), who is afflicted with terminal kidney disease and has
to undergo dialysis thrice a week with very high
susceptibility of infections and Subhash Chandra
Aggarwal (A4), who was subordinate/junior to convict
Navinder Kumar Sharma, are hereby awarded a sentence
of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Rs25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands only), in
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 19 of 223 pages
20
CBI case . No.27/11
default, six months simple imprisonment, each, for the
offence punishable under section 13 (2) read with section
13 (1) (d) of the the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(iii) The convict, Smt. P. M. Singh (A1), a very
senior and experienced IAS Officer and being Chairperson,
NDMC at the relevant time, was the custodian for
implementation of the provisios of NDMC Act as also to
protect the interest of the Central Govt. and public
interest but she ruthlessly violated the provisions of
NDMC Act (including sections 18, 235, 241(g), 327, 331 &
333) besides other enactments. On the notings put up to
her by her subordinates, in this case, she accorded
fraudulently the approval in this case on 13.2.2003 being
fully aware that the premises in question were illegally
used as a Centre Point Hotel by accused K. L. Bhatia (since
deceased on 23.10.2012) illegally, as about a month earlier
on 15.1.2003 she had approved fraudulently the grant of
health licence for running a Guest House having 31 rooms
and 62 beds (which, in fact, was a hotel). She, therefore,
was thus all out to help K. L. Bhatia (since deceased) a
private person, to make commercial / pecuniary gains.
Besides this, she is convict in two cases. Under these
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 20 of 223 pages
21
CBI case . No.27/11
circumstance operating, she is awarded sentence of four
years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs25,000/
(Rupees twenty five thousand only), in default, six
months simple imprisonment, for the offence punishable
under section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
37. All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.
38. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. is extended to the convicts.
39. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to
all the convicts, free of cost, forthwith.
40. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( N. K. Kaushik )
st
on 31 July, 2013 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 21 of 223 pages
22
CBI case . No.27/11
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, CBI,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CBI Case No. 27/11
Date of Institution: 28.09.2006
Date on which Judgment Pronounced: 23.07.2013
Decision: Conviction/Acquittal
CBI case no. 27/11
FIR no. RCAC2/2003/A 0003
CBI/ACU.II/New Delhi
In the matter of:
CBI versus. 1. Smt. P.M. Singh, IAS (A1),
The then Chairperson,
NDMC, New Delhi.
W/o Sh. Mandeep Singh,
R/o 7/17, Delhi Admn. Flats,
Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Tribhuvan Singh (A2),
The then Chief Architect, NDMC,
New Delhi.
S/o Late Sh. Mahavir Singh,
R/o A45, Sector51, Noida, UP.
3. Sh. Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3),
The then Architect, NDMC,
New Delhi.
S/o Late Sh. SR Sharma,
R/o 12/78, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi18.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 22 of 223 pages
23
CBI case . No.27/11
4. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4),
The then Assistant Engineer,
UACC, NDMC, New Delhi.
S/o Late Sh. Kanti Prasad,
R/o 7Savita Vihar, Delhi92.
5. Kasturi Lal Bhatia (A5),
(died on 23.10.2012 and proceedings
against him abated)
The then Proprietor of
M/s Centre Point, 13 KG Marg,
New Delhi.
S/o Sh. L.C. Bhatia,
R/o 10Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi01.
6. Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia (A6),
W/o Late Kasturi Lal Bhatia,
R /o 10Tolstoy Marg,
New Delhi01.
.............Accused persons
JUDGMENT
1. This is a corruption case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered by the CBI, relating to illegal regularization/compounding of unauthorized construction at 13, K. G. Marg, New Delhi which premises was misused for commercial purpose as a hotel, by the accused persons, in pursuance to an organized & systematic criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched by the accused persons.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 23 of 223 pages 24 CBI case . No.27/11
2. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed by the prosecution, are that in the year 20022003, accused P. M. Singh(hereinafter referred to as 'A1'), the then Chairperson, New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), New Delhi, in connivance with other accused persons, namely, Tribhuvan Singh(hereinafter referred to as 'A2'), the then Chief Architect, Navinder Kumar Sharma, (hereinafter referred to as 'A3'), the then Architect, Subhash Chandra Aggarwal(hereinafter referred to as 'A4'), the then Assistant Engineer, entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves and with accused K. L. Bhatia (hereinafter referred to as 'A5') (since deceased) and his wife, Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia (hereinafter referred to as 'A6') and by abusing their official positions as public servants, showed gross undue favour to the accused persons, K. L. Bhatia and Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia and caused undue pecuniary advantage to them by approving their fraudulent claim of compounding/regularizing the unauthorized structure raised long back in the year 1985, by them at 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
3. That the accused Tribhuvan Singh (A2), the then Chief Architect, NDMC, accused N.K. Sharma (A3), the then CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 24 of 223 pages 25 CBI case . No.27/11 Architect, Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4), the then Assistant Engineer, NDMC, while posted and functioning as public servants during the period 20022003, committed criminal misconduct by abusing their official positions as public servants and illegally processed and recommended the regularization of huge unauthorized construction at 13, K.G. Marg, New Delhi, which were dishonestly accepted and approved by accused P. M. Singh (A1), the then Chairperson, NDMC and thus they all caused substantial undue pecuniary gains to the accused K. L. Bhatia (A5)(since deceased) and accused Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) attorney of G.P. Kedia and others (not accused in this case).
4. It is further alleged that a perpetual lease deed was executed on 08.04.1932 between the Chief Commissioner of Delhi, on behalf of Secretary of State for India in Council and Mr. MisbahUlIslam, in respect of plot of Nazul Land, measuring 1.357 acres in Block no. 134, being one of the building sites in new capital of Delhi. That Keeling Road (now known as Tolstoy Marg) was on the northern side of the land and Curzon Road (now known as Kasturba Gandhi Marg) was in eastern direction. That a service lane CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 25 of 223 pages 26 CBI case . No.27/11 was on western side, with the land leased to one Sardar Jagjit Singh on the southern side. That the said plot was leased in favour of Mr. MisbahUlIslam in perpetuity from 28.05.1927 against consideration of Rs.4,100/ with yearly rent of Rs.205/. That the said plot was later on numbered as 13 Curzon Road, and is presently known as 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
5. It is further alleged that the said perpetual lease was subject to the compliance of certain conditions, including prohibition of erection of any building or carrying out of any trade or business, without prior consent in writing of the lessor. Further, with the condition that all such persons to whom this property will be transferred, shall also be bound by all the said covenants and conditions of the said lease.
6. It is further alleged that during the years 1927 to 1977, the lease in respect of this property, was transferred/re transferred in favour of various persons and lastly, it was transferred in the name of Shri Ganga Prasad Kedia and his family members, on 04.11.77.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 26 of 223 pages 27 CBI case . No.27/11
7. It is further alleged that the records of L&DO, nowhere recognizes further transfer of title of this property. However, an agreement to sale was entered into between Sh. Ganga Prasad, Smt. Munni Devi and Sh. Rajinder Kedia, in favour of accused K. L. Bhatia (A5) (since deceased) besides, a General Power of Attorney, issued in favour of accused Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) on 02.05.84, which documents were filed with NDMC, when construction plans along with other related papers were submitted.
8. It is further alleged that in April 1981, inspection of the said premises was conducted by officers of L & DO and it was reported that part of main building and servant quarters were being used as Tourist Home in the name and style of M/s Centre Point Tourist Home. It was also reported that commercial lodging was also carried out, besides serving cold and hot drinks there.
9. It is further alleged that the said premises was again inspected in April, 1982, which was found running a tourist home. That when clarification was sought, Medical Officer (Health), NDMC, New Delhi, informed the L & DO, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 27 of 223 pages 28 CBI case . No.27/11 vide letter, dated 20.09.83 that no license was issued for running a guest house on the aforesaid plot. That on 08.12.83, a notice was issued by L&DO to the lessee, calling upon him to remove/remedy the breaches within thirty days, failing which premises would be reentered.
10. It is further alleged that on 19.12.84, plan for carrying out additions/alterations on the ground/first floor of the building were submitted by accused Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) as GPA for Ganga Prasad Kedia. That plans were approved by NDMC on 15.02.85 subject to submission of mutation deed from L & DO and with the condition that area of the first floor shall be used for residential purpose only. That since aforesaid conditions were not fulfilled, as such, sanction plan did not become effective. That no completion or occupancy certificate was issued in respect of said property by NDMC.
11. It is further alleged that in August, 1985, premises was inspected by P.K. Bajaj, the then Junior Engineer, Unauthorized Construction Cell (UACC), who had noticed various aspects of unauthorized constructions. That notice under section 195A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (in CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 28 of 223 pages 29 CBI case . No.27/11 short the Municipal Act) was issued on 14.08.85 for demolition of unauthorized construction. That on 02.09.85, another notice under section 195 of the Municipal Act was issued by NDMC, calling upon the lessee to demolish entire unauthorized construction, within a period of 24 hours. That instead of carrying out demolition, accused Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) submitted revised plans on 06.11.85, as communicated to the lessee on 21.11.85.
12. It is further alleged that there does not exist any sanction plan in respect of entire building at 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. That even otherwise, sanction plan, dated 15.02.85 was no more valid on account of non fulfillment of conditions, detailed therein.
13. It is further alleged that on 22.01.86, L&DO reentered the premises and thereafter, premises vested with President of India. That copy of communication, dated 03.02.86 was endorsed to Secretary, NDMC, New Delhi. That since the exlessee failed to hand over possession of the premises, L&DO initiated eviction proceedings through Estate Officer. That consequent to eviction proceedings, accused CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 29 of 223 pages 30 CBI case . No.27/11 Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) offered to compromise the issue. That as per terms set up for compromise, she made certain part payments in installments during 1992 to 1999, however, order of reentry was not withdrawn.
14. It is further alleged that on 30.01.86, a complaint under section 195A of the Municipal Act was filed by NDMC in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, against accused Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia (A6). That she filed a suit before Hon'ble High Court, claiming perpetual and mandatory injunction, which was contested by the NDMC. That later on, the said suit was transferred to District Judge, Delhi, which was dismissed on 14.08.01 with the directions to agitate the matter before Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
15. It is further alleged that thereafter, an application was filed by accused Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) before MCD Tribunal, which decided the same vide order, dated 15.01.02. That the said Tribunal held that notices of demolition issued were passed without offering an opportunity of being heard and accused Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia was directed to file a reply to the notices earlier CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 30 of 223 pages 31 CBI case . No.27/11 issued and to submit her documentary evidence in support of the case, pertaining to unauthorized construction, besides revised plans. That the said accused was directed to appear before the then Chief Architect, MCD, on 11.02.02, who was asked to dispose of the matter within two months. That the appellants were directed to maintain status quo in respect of construction and possession of premises and not to carry out further construction or not to assign or part with possession and alienate the premises during pendency of the proceedings.
16. It is further alleged that on 08.03.02, accused K.L. Bhatia (A5) (since deceased) appeared before Sh. R.L. Aggarwal, the then Chief Architect, NDMC and submitted that construction had been undertaken long back and may be regularized. That he undertook to submit sanctioned plans and plans of construction, actually carried out, on 05.04.02. That certain plans, showing additions/alterations were submitted, thereafter, to Sh. R.L. Aggarwal, on 24.04.02/01.05.02, however, no further action was taken in the matter.
17. It is further alleged that on 01.11.02, accused Smt. PM CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 31 of 223 pages 32 CBI case . No.27/11 Singh took over as Chairperson of NDMC. That accused Tribhuvan Singh took over as Chief Architect in October, 2002. That accused N.K. Sharma and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal were already working as Architect & Assistant Engineer, respectively, in UACC, NDMC, New Delhi, during that period. That thereafter, matter of disposing of the above mentioned pending issue was taken up and that concerned officials of UACC were directed by the then Chairperson and Chief Architect to take steps for regularization of unauthorized construction. That accordingly, a new file was opened with a note, dated 10.01.03, under the signatures of P.K. Chandra, the then JE, UACC. That in the said note, there were recommendations for compounding the unauthorized construction after charging of penalty @ Rs.100 per square meter, which penalty came to Rs.3,54,869/, besides betterment charges of Rs.4,81,437/. That penalty was calculated, taking the property as residential property. That it was mentioned in the note that the plot was ear marked for Group Housing by New Delhi Redevelopment Advisory Committee and height of the property was 14.94 meters as against permissible height of 15 meters. That it was not mentioned in the note that vide communication CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 32 of 223 pages 33 CBI case . No.27/11 dated, 03.02.86. the premises was reentered upon by L & DO and it vested with the President of India. That there was no mention in respect of subsequent letters, dated 02.08.99, written by L & DO to NDMC, apprising that it was used as Centre Point Hotel, in violation of the Master Plan and building bye laws. That note did not disclose previous irregularities committed by the applicants. That the matter was finally discussed by accused Tribhuvan Singh (A2) and Smt. PM Singh (A1) on 13.02.2003, who thereafter, accorded her approval to the above mentioned proposal for regularization of unauthorized construction. That this approval of Chairperson, NDMC, was communicated by accused Tribhuvan Singh (A2) to accused Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia (A6), vide letter, dated 14.02.03 and on 13.03.03, penalty & betterment charges were deposited.
18. It is further alleged that the said regularization of the unauthorized construction was fraudulent for the reasons that there did not exist any sanctioned plan in respect of the entire building of 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. That the earlier sanction of plan, dated 15.02.85 was subject to fulfillment of certain prerequisite conditions, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 33 of 223 pages 34 CBI case . No.27/11 which were not fulfilled and hence, plans for ground floor and first floor were no more valid and plans for second & third floor were already rejected by NDMC for the said reason; that the property had been in use without issuance of completion certificate from NDMC; that unauthorized construction was not within competence of NDMC for regularization, since premises was reentered by L & DO; that as per relevant building bye laws, 'use' of the building and 'total permissible height' are not compoundable; that the building was being used as a hotel, which was well within the knowledge of NDMC and height of building was found to be 16.45 meters as against 14.94 meters, as per recorded note, dated 10.01.03. That no stipulated clearance was obtained from L&DO, DDA/NDRAC as per relevant provision of Building Bye Laws; and that plan for ground floor was intentionally prepared for giving existing structure the colour of a residential plot. That on that count, false information was furnished by accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) (A5).
19. It is further alleged by the prosecution that accused persons, namely, Smt. P.M. Singh (A1), Tribhuvan Singh (A2), Navinder Kumar Sharma(A3), Subhash Chandra CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 34 of 223 pages 35 CBI case . No.27/11 Aggarwal (A4) (all public servants) and accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia (A5) and Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) (private persons), entered into criminal conspiracy and aforesaid accused persons (public servants) by abusing their official positions illegally and dishonestly showed gross undue favour and caused huge pecuniary gains in favour of the coaccused persons, Kasturi Lal Bhatia (A5) and Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) by allowing their fraudulent claims, by regularizing the huge unauthorized building illegally constructed, which was being used for commercial purposes as a hotel without any legal title over the said property, which had actually been reentered upon by the L & DO, and was vested with the President of India.
20. It is further alleged that, sanction for prosecution of the accused persons, namely, P. M. Singh (A1), Tribhuvan Singh (A2), N. K. Sharma (A3) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4), who are public servants, have been obtained from the respective competent authorities.
21. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the month of October/November, 2002, till March, 2003 in Delhi, accused Smt. PM Singh (A1) along with the other co CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 35 of 223 pages 36 CBI case . No.27/11 accused persons, namely, Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3), Tribhuvan Singh(A2), Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4), Kasturi Lal Bhatia (A5) (since deceased) and Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) entered into a criminal conspiracy to get building plans of premises no. 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, regularized, in violation of terms of lease deed executed in respect of aforesaid premises, master plan of Delhi and building byelaws, and that in furtherance of the said conspiracy, building plans of the aforesaid premises were regularized, knowing well that regularization of the said plans were violative of terms of the lease deed, Master Plan of Delhi and Building Byelaws and caused wrongful loss to NDMC, despite the fact that they were under an obligation to protect the interest of NDMC. All the accused persons, thus, are alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 120 B read with section 418 of IPC.
22. Further, accused Smt. PM Singh (A1) along with the other co accused persons, namely, Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3), Tribhuvan Singh (A2), Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4), Kasturi Lal Bhatia (A5) (since deceased) and Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) during the aforesaid period and CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 36 of 223 pages 37 CBI case . No.27/11 place, although were under an obligation to protect the interest of NDMC but in furtherance of the said conspiracy they, knowingly and intentionally acted in the manner to cause wrongful loss to the NDMC, when penalty and betterment charges were calculated in respect of premises no.13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, taking that building as residential premises, while approving the building plans in violation of terms of the lease deed, Master Plan of Delhi and Building ByeLaws, despite the fact that it was being used as running a 'Centre Point Hotel', besides the guest house, and thus, all the accused persons caused wrongful loss to NDMC. All the accused persons, thus, are alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 418 read with section 120B IPC.
23. Further, during the aforesaid period and place, accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4), in the month of October/November, 2002, till March, 2003, in Delhi, the then Assistant Engineer of NDMC, New Delhi, abused his official position as such public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage in favour of accused Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) and Kasturi Lal Bhatia(since deceased) (A5), CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 37 of 223 pages 38 CBI case . No.27/11 when building plans of premises no. 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, were approved in violation of terms of lease deed, Master Plan of Delhi and Building Byelaws, taking that building as residential premises, despite the fact that it was being used in running a Centre Point Hotel and a guest house. Accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal(A4), thus, is alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
24. Further, accused Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3), in the month of October/November, 2002, till March, 2003, in Delhi, being posted as Architect in NDMC, New Delhi, abused his official position as such public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage in favour of accused Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) and Kasturi Lal Bhatia (A5) (since deceased), when building plans of premises no. 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, were approved in violation of terms of lease deed, Master Plan of Delhi and Building Byelaws, taking that building as residential premises, despite the fact that it was being used in running a Centre Point Hotel and a guest house. Accused Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3), thus, is alleged to have committed CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 38 of 223 pages 39 CBI case . No.27/11 an offence, punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
25. Further, accused Smt. P.M. Singh (A1), the then Chairperson of NDMC, New Delhi, in the month of October/November, 2002, till March, 2003, in Delhi, abused her official position as public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage in favour of accused Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) and Kasturi Lal Bhatia(since deceased)(A5), when building plans of premises no. 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, were approved in violation of the terms of lease deed, Master Plan of Delhi and Building Byelaws, taking that building as residential premises, despite the fact that it was being used as Centre Point Hotel and a guest house. Accused Smt. PM Singh (A1), thus, is alleged to have committed an offence punishable, under section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
26. Further, accused Tribhuvan Singh (A2), the then Chief Architect of NDMC, New Delhi, during the aforesaid period and place abused his official position as such CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 39 of 223 pages 40 CBI case . No.27/11 public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage in favour of accused Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) and Kasturi Lal Bhatia(A5), when building plans of premises no. 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, were approved in violation of terms of lease deed, Master Plan of Delhi and Building Byelaws, taking that building as residential premises, despite the fact that it was being used in running a Centre Point Hotel and a guest house. Accused Tribhuvan Singh (A2), thus, is alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
27. Primafacie, offences under section 120B IPC read with sections 418 IPC against all the accused persons and substantive offences under section 418 IPC read with section 120B IPC and under section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in addition, against accused persons namely, Smt. PM Singh (A1), Tribhuvan Singh(A2), Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4) were made out.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 40 of 223 pages 41 CBI case . No.27/11
28. Charge, accordingly, was framed against the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
29. During the course of the proceedings, accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia died and proceedings against him abated, as per law.
30. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its claim and contentions, examined as many as 54 witnesses.
31. Thereafter, accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr. P.C.
32. Defence has also produced five witnesses, in support of their defence.
33. The prosecution, has contended that the case of the prosecution has been squarely proved, in view of the documents, circumstances and other material that has appeared on record. That the prosecution witnesses have supported and proved the prosecution version beyond any pale of doubt.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 41 of 223 pages 42 CBI case . No.27/11
34. On behalf of the defence, on the other hand, it has been stated that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
35. On behalf of the parties, written arguments have also been filed, which have been placed on the record.
36. At the very outset, it is to be noted that there is no dispute over the propositions of law enunciated in the case law, mentioned in the written submissions filed by the parties.
37. I have carefully gone through the entire relevant material appearing on record and have given considered thought to the same. I have also considered the rival arguments that have been advanced, at the bar. My findings are as under:
38. PW1, Sh. P.K. Sharma was working as Additional CMO, North, during the year 19981999. He has proved the file(D7), pertaining to Hotel Centre Point, as Ex.PW1/1, which contains a note, dated 20.11.79, wherein it has been mentioned that there was a lodge named Centre Point, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 42 of 223 pages 43 CBI case . No.27/11 which had 10 rooms and 20 beds. He has deposed that the said lodge belonged to accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia (since deceased), which was run, without license.
39. PW1 has further proved the application, which was moved for renewal/grant of lodging house license in NDMC, as Ex.PW1/2, bearing the signatures of Dr. G.S. Thind, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
40. PW2, Sh. Vijay Kumar was posted as Under Secretary in Administrative Vigilance Division in the department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi, during February, 2006, where he used to deal with disciplinary matters of IAS Officers, including cases of sanction for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act.
41. PW2 has deposed that vide sanction order, Ex.PW2/A, he had accorded sanction for prosecution, in respect of accused Smt. PM Singh. He has also identified his signatures, at pt. A, on each page of the said sanction order, which is running into four pages. Nothing appeared in his cross examination to show that the said sanction was without application of mind. The sanction order, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 43 of 223 pages 44 CBI case . No.27/11 proved on record is, therefore, valid.
42. PW3, Sh. Hoshiyar Singh was posted as Assistant Director in the Vigilance Department during the relevant period. He has deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 14.07.03, copy of which is Ex.PW3/A, seven files were seized from him, which memo is running into two pages, bearing his signatures at pt. A and which have been duly proved by him.
43. PW3 has further deposed that vide seizure memos, dated 21.07.03 & 11.08.03, copies of which are Ex.PW3/B & Ex.PW3/C, files were seized from him. The said seizure memos bear his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified and proved by him.
44. PW4, Sh. SP Satsangi was posted as Senior Architect in DDA, in September, 2004. He has deposed that in pursuance to letter, which was received from CBI, premises Centre Point, at 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, was inspected and a report/memorandum in this regard was prepared, copy of which is Ex. PW4/A(D20), running into three pages. He has duly identified his signatures at pt. A, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 44 of 223 pages 45 CBI case . No.27/11 on the same. He has further deposed that the inspection report of the inspection of the site in question, was also prepared, copy of the same has been proved as Ex.PW4/B, consisting of four pages. He has duly identified his signatures at pt. A, on each page of the said inspection report. He has further deposed that he had sent the said inspection report, dated 01.09.2004 to the then SP, ACUII, CBI, New Delhi, vide covering letter, copy of which is Ex.PW4/C, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
45. PW5, Sh. JB Khadkiwala was posted as Senior Architect, West Zone, Dwarka, on 01.09.04. He has deposed that he had inspected the premises i.e. Centre Point Hotel, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi along with PW4, Mr. S.P. Satsangi and Mr. Chaman Lal. He reiterated report, Ex.PW4/A and has duly identified his signatures, at pt. B, that of PW4, Sh. S.P. Satsangi, at pt. A and that of Sh. Chaman Lal, at pt. C, on the same. Similarly, he has reiterated inspection report, Ex.PW4/B and covering letter, Ex.PW4/C.
46. PW6, Sh. R. K. Gaur was working as Assistant Engineer in CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 45 of 223 pages 46 CBI case . No.27/11 'Misuse Cell', NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi, on 31.07.03. He has deposed that accused N.K. Sharma was the Architect and Incharge of the said Misuse Cell and that of 'Unauthorized Construction Cell'.
47. PW6 has deposed that the premises no. 13, KG Marg Road, New Delhi was a leasehold property for residential purposes and that as per his knowledge, the said property was being misused for residential cum commercial purposes.
48. PW7, Sh. Sher Singh was working as Assistant Engineer in the Unauthorized Construction Cell, NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi, on 31.07.03. He has deposed that he used to report to accused, N.K. Sharma, the then Architect, who was the Incharge of Unauthorized Construction Cell.
49. PW7 has deposed, in detail, about the procedure, which ought to have been followed after finding out unauthorized construction.
50. PW8, Sh. Arun Kampani was posted as DCP, Licensing, in October, 2004. He has deposed that in pursuance of letter CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 46 of 223 pages 47 CBI case . No.27/11 received by him from CBI, pertaining to certain queries about Hotel Centre Point, he gave reply, which has been proved as Ex.PW8/A, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that along with the said reply, he had enclosed certain documents, which are contained at page no. 2 to 36.
51. PW9, Sh. Mohit Mathur was working as Senior Architectural Draftsman in Architectural Department of NDMC, on contractual basis, during the period from 1999 to 2002. He has deposed that he did not remember anything about the file, pertaining to Centre Point, due to lapse of time.
52. PW9 has further identified his handwriting and signatures at pt. X to X on note, dated 08.12.1999, in file, Ex.PW2/1(D7), copy of which is Ex.PW9/A. He has deposed that the letter, dated 02.08.1999, which is Ex.PW2/6, is the same letter, which has been mentioned in his note, Ex.PW9/A.
53. Similarly, PW9 has identified his handwriting and signatures at pt. X1 to X1 on note, dated 02.02.2002, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 47 of 223 pages 48 CBI case . No.27/11 contained in file D6, copy of which is Ex.PW9/B.
54. PW10, Sh. Raman Dhingra was posted as Junior Assistant in the Office of Chief Architect, Unauthorized Construction Cell, Palika Kandra, Parliament Street, New Delhi, during March, 2004.
55. PW10 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW10/B, diary register of unauthorized construction cell of NDMC for the period from 30.06.99 to 14.03.2000, containing 1 to 249 pages, was seized from him, which has been proved as Ex.PW10/A. He has duly identified his signatures at pt. A, on the same.
56. PW10 has further deposed that in the said register, Ex.PW10/A, there is an entry at page no. 184, at point A, which is in the handwriting of Sh. Kishore Prashad, the then Jr. Assistant. The said entry has been proved as Ex.PW10/B, vide which the file, pertaining to property no. 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, was sent to the office of Chief Architect on 17.01.2000 and then it was received from the office of Chief Architect and went to the office of Dy. Chief Architect on the same day.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 48 of 223 pages 49 CBI case . No.27/11
57. PW10 has further deposed that file (D9) in respect of regularization/compounding of plot no. 13 at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, was dealt by him, which is Ex.PW10/C. He has identified his note at pt. A, on page 9 of the said file, which has been proved as Ex.PW10/D.
58. PW10 has further deposed that the aforesaid file, contains a letter, which was dispatched to the accused Prem lata Bhatia on 14.02.03, which is Ex.PW10/E.
59. PW10 has further deposed that file (D8) in respect of case, titled as Ganga Prashad Kedia vs. NDMC, was received from Law Department, on 25.01.2002, vide entry no. 165/CA/UC/N, which was marked to Sh. P. Chandra, the then JE. He has duly identified the said entry of Sh. Kishore Prasad, at pt. A, at page no. 1 & 4, of note sheet, which are collectively Ex.PW10/F.
60. PW11, Sh. R.P. Singh was posted as Assistant Settlement Commissioner in the Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, during December, 2000.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 49 of 223 pages 50 CBI case . No.27/11
61. PW11 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 17.10.03, Ex.PW15/A, files pertaining to the property no. 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, were seized. He has duly identified his signatures at pt. A, on the said seizure memo.
62. PW11 has further deposed that notification, which is Ex.PW17/A, was supplied by him to the CBI, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
63. PW11 has further identified the signatures of Mr. D.K Bajaj, at pt. A, on letter, dated 02.08.99 as he was his predecessor and had dealt with the files, which were earlier dealt by his predecessor. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW11/B.
64. PW11 has further deposed that the letter, which is Ex.PW11/C was sent by Mr. M.R. Mehmi, the then ACP, HQ, Delhi Police to Deputy Land and Development Officer. He has duly identified the signatures of Mr. Bajaj, at pt. A, on the said letter.
65. PW11 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW20/A, he had handed over files to CBI. He has duly CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 50 of 223 pages 51 CBI case . No.27/11 identified his signatures at point A, on the same. He has also identified the signatures of Mr. S.L. Tejwani, the then L & DO, at point A, on letter, dated 03.02.1986, which is Ex.PW27/A5 and on note, dated 22.01.86.
66. PW11 has deposed that the file volume 20 (D46), which is Ex.PW11/D contains copies of sanction plans, which were sanctioned by NDMC, vide resolution no. 24, dated 15.02.85, in respect of property no. 13, KG Marg. He has further deposed that the file no. L19/134(II), volume no. 18 (M 450/2003), which is Ex.PW11/E contains note sheets. He has further deposed that file volume 10 (D45) also contains note sheets and correspondences. He has further deposed that file volume 6(D41), which is Ex.PW27/A4 contains perpetual lease deed, executed between Secretary of Estate of India and Mr. MisbahUl Islam, Baratlaw, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He has further deposed that the files no. L19/134(II), volumes no. 7 and 8 which are Ex.PW11/G (D42) and Ex.PW11/H (D123) contain correspondences. Similarly, he has deposed that files no. L19/134(II)/99, 13 Curzon Road, re entered volume no. 9 and L1/9/134(II)/70, Volume 1, which are Ex.PW11/I(D44) and Ex.PW11/J(D40) also contain CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 51 of 223 pages 52 CBI case . No.27/11 correspondences.
67. PW11 has further deposed that the aforesaid files were maintained in his office, during the course of official business and were handed over to the CBI, on requisition.
68. PW12, Sh. R.K. Singh was posted as Nodal Officer in Bharti Cellular Ltd, at the relevant time. He has deposed that vide letter, Ex.PW12/A, he had provided mobile numbers along with the name and address of the subscriber. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on the same.
69. PW12 has proved the call details, pertaining to mobile no.
9810077165 w.e.f 01.12.2003 to 28.03.2003, running into 70 pages, as Ex.PW12/B, bearing his initials along with his official seal, on all the pages at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
70. PW12 has further proved the call details, pertaining to mobile no. 9810077096 w.e.f 01.12.2002 to 28.03.2003, running into 47 pages, as Ex.PW12/C, bearing his initials along with his official seal, on all the pages at pt. A, which CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 52 of 223 pages 53 CBI case . No.27/11 have been duly identified by him.
71. Similarly, PW12 has proved the call details in respect of mobile no. 9810136312 for the period from 01.12.2002 to 28.03.2003, running into 26 pages, as Ex.PW12/D, bearing his initials along with his official seal, which have been duly identified by him.
72. PW13, Sh. Arvind Prakash had worked in the Luxury tax department for three months during August, 2004 till October, 2004. He has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW13/A, six luxury tax assessment files for the year 19961997 to 20012002 and luxury tax folder, in respect of Centre Point Hotel, were handed over by him to the CBI.
73. PW14, Sh. V.K. Bansal was posted as Deputy/Additional Chief Architect in NDMC, during the relevant time. He has further deposed that vide noting, dated 30.09.85, at pt. A, on note sheet page 5 of file (D10), he had recommended to the Chief Architect for approval of initiating demolition action but in the meanwhile party had submitted fresh plans for approval of the construction and that the Chief Architect noted that he would like to inspect the case. The CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 53 of 223 pages 54 CBI case . No.27/11 said noting has been proved as Ex.PW14/A.
74. PW14 has further deposed that he made a note, dated 28.10.85, wherein he mentioned that since the unauthorized construction was not removed, the case was ripe for demolition, if approved. The said note has been proved as Ex.PW14/B, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that through the said note, he had forwarded the matter for demolition, if approved and for putting up the matter in the next meeting of building plan committee as the party had submitted fresh plan.
75. PW14 has further deposed that thereafter, the matter was put up before the building plan committee. He has further deposed that in noting, dated 25.11.85, he had mentioned that the committee had resolved that the 'plans be rejected and the action for unauthorized construction be taken'. That the party was conveyed the decision of the committee, vide letter, dated 21.11.85 and that it was a case of major demolition and that the help of Chief Manager (Civil) & Chief Engineer (Electrical) was required. The said noting has been proved as Ex.PW14/C, bearing CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 54 of 223 pages 55 CBI case . No.27/11 his signatures pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
76. PW14 has further deposed that after the noting of Chief Architect, dated 28.11.85, wherein he had mentioned that he would like to discuss the case with him and administration, there is a noting dated 28.11.85, at pt. X to X, made by him, which has been proved as Ex.PW14/D, bearing his signatures, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
77. PW14 has further deposed that vide note, dated 27.12.85, at page no. 8 & 9, which is Ex.PW14/E, he had referred the matter to the Chief Architect for perusal of the detailed report, submitted by his subordinates and for further orders and that the matter be discussed with the Administrator as it involved major demolition and that it might not be too late as the construction work was going on.
78. PW14 has further deposed that after the matter was referred to Assistant Architect, who put up his views at page note sheet no. 10 & 11 and he made a note, dated CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 55 of 223 pages 56 CBI case . No.27/11 27.11.86, at pt. Z, commenting that ' in addition to what has been stated above, he thought it was not within the competence of NDMC to sanction or regularize the structure . The said noting has been proved as Ex.PW14/F, bearing his signatures at pt.A, which have been duly identified by him.
79. PW14 has further deposed that the matter was again put up before the then Chief Architect regarding administrator's remarks. He has further deposed that on 05.02.86, the then Chief Architect gave a noting in respect of point wise comments, NDMC action to demolish the structure, shown in yellow colour, action already taken by the Law Department to prosecute the party.
80. PW14 has further deposed that on 14.02.86, he gave a noting at page no. 15, at pt. A to A vide which he had forwarded the matter to Chief Architect for necessary action in regard to unauthorized construction at main block by almost 14 feet outside the envelope(the portion beyond which the construction is not allowed) and the same was unauthorizedly constructed. He could not say whether deviations could have been regularized or CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 56 of 223 pages 57 CBI case . No.27/11 compounded in the absence of NOC from L & DO as their main concern was to find out if there was any unauthorized construction in the premises beyond the sanctioned plan and NDRAC envelope. He has further deposed that in this case, L&DO was the lessor and lessee was the owner/party.
81. PW15, Sh. V.K. Kaushik was posted as Assistant Engineer in unauthorized construction cell from November, 1985 till September, 1988. He has deposed that he had never visited property no. 13, K.G. Marg, New Delhi.
82. PW15 has proved the note of P.K. Bajaj, the then JE, dated 16.08.1985, regarding inspection of premises no. 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, known as 'Centre Point Hotel, New Delhi', as Ex.PW15/1. He has duly identified the signatures of said Sh. P.K. Bajaj at pt. A, on the said note, as he had worked with him and was acquainted with his signatures and handwriting.
83. PW15 has further deposed that vide the aforesaid note, Sh.
P.K. Bajaj had requested for approval to serve a notice, under section 195(a) of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 upon CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 57 of 223 pages 58 CBI case . No.27/11 accused Mrs. Prem Lata Bhatia, attorney of 13 KG Marg, New Delhi.
84. PW15 has further deposed that in the aforesaid note, Mr. P.K. Bajaj had also mentioned about the unauthorized construction, which was carried out in the premises, without getting the plans sanctioned under the building bye laws. He has also identified the endorsement, at point X on the said note sheet, showing the service of notice on 19.08.1985.
85. PW15 has proved the note, dated 06.02.1986, which is available at page no. 12 of the file (D10), as Ex.PW15/2. The said note bears the signatures of Sh. Dharam Dutt, the then Administrator, NDMC, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has deposed that in the said note, it has been mentioned that 'whatever was out of the purview of the sanctioned plan, it had to be removed by the party, failing which NDMC ought to have carried out the job' and that 'whether formal notices had been issued to the party'. He has further deposed that the said note was marked to the then Chief Architect on 06.02.1986, who marked the said file to the then Dy. Chief Architect Sh. V.K. Bansal, on CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 58 of 223 pages 59 CBI case . No.27/11 14.02.1986.
86. PW15 has identified the handwriting & signatures of Sh.
V.K. Bansal, at pt. A, in the note, dated 14.02.86, which has been proved as Ex.PW15/3. He has further deposed that vide the said note, Sh. V.K. Bansal had specifically mentioned about the service of proper notice under section 195 & 220 of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and that the aforesaid note was thereafter, put up before the then Chief Architect.
87. PW15 has identified the signatures of Sh. Jeet Malhotra, the then Chief Architect, at point A, on the note, dated 14.02.1986, wherein it has been mentioned that "should we call the party and inform it to find out if the party is willing to demolish the unauthorized construction on its own" and that "if the party agrees to do so, should we deal the case accordingly" and that he asked for examination and its report. The said note has been proved as Ex.PW15/4.
88. PW15 has further deposed that aforesaid note was further marked to the then Assistant Architect (Building Plans, North) to do the needful by Sh. V.K. Bansal, on 17.02.86.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 59 of 223 pages 60 CBI case . No.27/11 He has identified the signatures of said Sh. V.K. Bansal, at pt. B.
89. PW15 has further deposed that the para wise comments, regarding writ petition (civil) no. 109/1986, which were filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, bears his signatures pt. A and that of Mr. P.C. Dixit, the then Assistant Architect, (Building Plans, North) at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him. The said notes have been proved as Ex.PW15/5.
90. PW15 has further proved the resolution no. 15, dated 06.11.85, which is running into two pages, as Ex. PW15/6.
91. PW16, Dr. V.N. Reu had joined NDMC as Assistant Surgeon, GradeI, during the year 1971. He was working as CMO(Headquarter) at Palika Kendra, New Delhi, during the year 2003 but not with the Licensing Department.
92. PW16 has deposed that he was aware of the procedure of processing and grant/renewal of health licenses by the NDMC, which he explained in detail. He has further deposed that the property in question, fell within the jurisdiction of Sanitary Circle no. 5.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 60 of 223 pages 61 CBI case . No.27/11
93. PW16 has proved the note of Sh. R.C. Kapoor, the then Sanitary Inspector, dated 20.11.79, as Ex.PW16/A. He has deposed that in the aforesaid note, Sh. R.C. Kapoor had mentioned that during inspection of the area on 13.11.79, a lodge was found running in the name and style of Centre Point, at 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, consisting of 10 rooms, having 20 beds, which belonged to accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia. That the said lodge was being managed by Sh. R.K. Seth, without any license and as such, a notice in the name of Manager was submitted for signatures. He has further deposed that consequently, a notice, dated 04.12.79 was issued, which has been proved as Ex.PW16/B.
94. PW16 has further proved the note of the then Sanitary Inspector, dated 25.08.80, as Ex.PW16/C. He has deposed that in the said note, it has been mentioned by the said Sanitary Inspector that accused K.L. Bhatia had replied that he had already applied to the concerned authorities on 16.08.79 for grant of license in respect of guest house in the above mentioned premises.
95. PW16 has further proved the note of Sh. M.S. Chadha, the then Enforcement and Sanitary Officer, dated 08.06.82, as CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 61 of 223 pages 62 CBI case . No.27/11 Ex.PW16/D, wherein it has been mentioned that the said case deals with the issuance of no objection certificate, under the provisions of Health Bye Laws, in respect of Centre Point Tourist Home at 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg.
96. PW16 has further proved the note, dated 11.11.82, as Ex.PW16/E, wherein it has been mentioned by Sh. K.L. Shukla, the then Medical Officer of Health that 'the case was discussed with Administrator along with CA and that it might be treated as a case of Guest House accommodation for the Asiad'.
97. PW16 has further proved the note of Sh. M.S. Chadha, dated 15.02.83, as Ex.PW16/F, wherein it has been mentioned by him that the 'Centre Point Tourist Home had to be tolerated for the duration of Asiad 82'.
98. PW16 has further proved the note of the then Medical Officer of Health, dated 15.02.83, as Ex.PW16/G, wherein he had remarked "processed as per rules".
99. PW16 has further deposed that letter, dated 28.08.80, was sent by Sh. S.S. Saini to Sh. K.L. Bhatia, wherein it has been mentioned that the aforesaid premises i.e. 13 Kasturba CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 62 of 223 pages 63 CBI case . No.27/11 Gandhi Marg had been registered under the Sarai Act, 1867 with immediate effect under the name and style of 'The Centre Point' and that he was directed to maintain the register of visitors, certified from the Office of Deputy Commissioner before use and to inform the police, regarding any person of suspicious character and also to obtain license under section 421 of DMC Act, 1956, after fulfilling the licensing condition of Guest House. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW16/H.
100. PW16 has further proved the letter of DCP Licensing, dated 28.12.81, as Ex.PW16/J, wherein it has been mentioned that accused K.L. Bhatia had applied for license and that he was required to get the premises inspected under intimation to their office, regarding suitability of person/owner/fitness of place/risk/danger or annoyance to the residence of locality. He has further deposed that copy of the said letter was forwarded to Health Officer, NDMC with the request to intimate, if the premises was suitable and whether it was in conformity with the plan approved by MCD/NDMC and the number of bed which can be allowed as per yardstick or bye laws for trade license.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 63 of 223 pages 64 CBI case . No.27/11
101. PW16 has further deposed that the plans, copies of which are Ex.PW16/K, Ex.PW16/L and Ex.PW16/M bear the signatures of accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that the said plans were not sanctioned by competent authority.
102. PW16 has further deposed that DCP Licensing had sent a letter, dated 22.02.82 to the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, requesting him to send the requisite report positively, within a fortnight. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW16/N.
103. PW16 has further deposed that subsequently, reply to the aforesaid letter was sent by Sh. M.S. Chadha to the DCP Licensing, which has been proved as Ex.PW16/P, wherein it has been mentioned that a request for issuance of health license to run a guest house in the name of Centre Point was received from accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased).
104. PW16 has further proved the letter, dated 20.09.83, which was sent by Dr. A.L. Shukla to the then Director Health Services, mentioning therein that no license was issued by CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 64 of 223 pages 65 CBI case . No.27/11 their department for running a guest house on plot no. 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg.
105. PW16 has further deposed that the letter, dated 25.05.83, copy of which is MarkPW16/X1 was sent by Sh. R.P. Mishra, DCP (Licensing) to accused, K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), mentioning therein that he had neither applied for registration of hotel nor any of his representative had attended their office in this regard and that he was advised not to use the premises till its registration.
106. PW16 has further deposed that letter, dated 12.05.83, was sent by Director Health Services to the Secretary, NDMC, which is Mark PW16/X2, vide which letter, dated 12.04.83, copy of which is Mark PW16/X3, was received from L&DO was forwarded for necessary action. He has further deposed that in the said letter, L&DO had requested Director General Health Services and the Director of Shop Establishment Department to intimate them the date of commencement of the tourist house and to intimate the date of issuance of license by his department. He has further deposed that in the said letter, it was also mentioned that the premises in question, was CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 65 of 223 pages 66 CBI case . No.27/11 inspected on 21.11.79 & 25.04.81 and use of part of the building was reported as tourist home and regarding intimation of some unauthorized construction on the said premises, which constituted breach of terms of lease deed.
107. PW16 has further deposed that in the note, dated 22.06.83, it has been mentioned that the premises had been registered under the SARAI Act, 1867 by the Commissioner of Police but the said department had not issued NOC and license as the party did not furnish requisite information/documents. He, however, could not identify the signatures and writing of the officer on said note, which is Mark PW16/X4.
108. PW16 has further proved the note of Sh. M.S. Chadha, the then EF & SO, dated 02.07.83, as Ex.PW16/R, bearing his handwriting and signatures, which have been duly identified by him. He has deposed that in the said note, it has been mentioned that as per their file, the guest house at 13, Kurzon Road, was started in 1979 and first inspection of the premises was carried out on 20.11.79 and that they did not issue any license as the Chief Architect, NDMC had not cleared this guest house from land point of CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 66 of 223 pages 67 CBI case . No.27/11 view and approval was sought that no license was issued by the department. He has further deposed that the note, Ex.PW16/R was approved by the then Medical Officer of Health, Sh. K.L. Shukla, on 08.07.83, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him as he had seen him writing and signing during official course of his duty.
109. PW16 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW23/Z1, he had handed over book no. 6 to CBI, which bears his signatures at pt. A and that of the IO at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.
110. PW16 has further deposed that the license, which contains original cancelled license of the premises M/s Centre Point, situated at 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, at serial no. 42, was handed over by him, which has been proved as Ex.PW23/Z2. He has identified his signatures on the back of cancelled license, at pt. A.
111. PW16 has further deposed that certain documents were handed over by him, vide Ex.PW23/U, which includes certified copy of council's resolution, item no. 3 (XVI) of various trades, directly related to the Health of the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 67 of 223 pages 68 CBI case . No.27/11 Community and Technical Instructions and bye laws in respect thereof, which is Ex.PW23/Z3.
112. PW16 has further deposed that noting, which has been proved as Ex.PW23/Z4 in the file, Ex.PW4/A is in respect of secret complaint that a large number of suppliers of food material in NDMC have not been granted Health License for movement in NDMC. The said noting bears the signatures of Sh. B.P. Joshi, Director (Vigilance) which, have been duly identified by PW16.
113. PW16 has further deposed that the note, which is Ex.PW23/Z5 was made by him, recommending that the license for the premises, situated at plot no. 11, Block no. 134, known as 13 Curzon Road, New Delhi, might not be renewed for the year 19992000. The said note bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
114. He has further deposed that his aforesaid recommendation was accepted by the then MOH, Lt. Col. Gurang and Secretary, Mr. Marwah, on the note which has been proved as Ex.PW23/Z5, bearing his signatures at pts. A and B, respectively, which have been duly identified by him.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 68 of 223 pages 69 CBI case . No.27/11 115. PW16 has further deposed that in the note, which has
been proved as Ex.PW23/Z6, he has mentioned the reason for cancellation of renewal, which has been disclosed by the Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, that 'the premises was reentered and vested with the President of India' and that the use of the said premises was residential but it was being used as Hotel, which was the violation of Master Plan & Municipal Bye Laws also' and that thereafter, the file was sent for information to the Chairman as well as Ministry of Urban Development, regarding the action taken by NDMC. He has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the said note.
116. PW16 has further deposed that Lt. Col. Gurang had also made a note in his hand, which has been proved as Ex.PW23/Z7, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. The said note also bears the signatures of Mr. Marwah and that of Mr. B.P. Mishra, the then Chairperson, NDMC, at pts. C & D, respectively, which have also been duly identified by PW16.
117. PW16 has further proved the letter, dated 28.01.86 as Ex.PW23/Z8 vide which, Dr. Sudhir Kumar, AMOH(LIC) CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 69 of 223 pages 70 CBI case . No.27/11 NDMC, had informed accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) to obtain a fresh no objection certificate from DDA, for further running the guest house for consideration of a case under the bye laws by NDMC.
118. PW16 has further deposed that the notification, which is Ex.PW23/Z9, was issued by Government of India in which the criteria for modification in respect of guest house etc, has been mentioned.
119. PW16 has further deposed that the license, which is Ex.PW23/Z10 was issued to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), proprietor of M/s Centre Point, situated at 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, on 27.01.03 by G.S. Thind, the then Licensing Officer, NDMC, which bears the signatures of said G.S. Thind, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW16.
120. PW17, Sh. K.C. Dwivedi was posted as DCP, Licensing at Police Head Quarters, ITO, New Delhi, at the relevant time.
121. PW17 has proved the notification no. H11017/7/91DDIB, dated 07.05.1999, which contains the guidelines for CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 70 of 223 pages 71 CBI case . No.27/11 issuance of licenses to the guest houses/lodging houses/hotels in residential areas, as Ex.PW17/A.
122. PW18, Sh. Girish Chand Dwivedi was posted as DCP Licensing at the relevant time.
123. PW18 has proved the notification, dated 19.12.1980, which is running into 21 pages and is Ex.PW18/A(D61).
124. PW18 has proved the letter, dated 13.04.96, which was issued by Smt. Vimla Mehra, the then Addl. CP Licensing, Delhi, as Ex.PW18/A1.
125. PW18 has further proved the letter, dated 18.08.03, which was issued by him, as Ex.PW18/A2. The said letter was sent to Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACUII, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW18.
126. PW18 has further deposed that the letter, dated 30.09.03, addressed to Superintendent of Police, ACUII, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, which is Ex.PW18/A3, was issued by PW18, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW18 .
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 71 of 223 pages 72 CBI case . No.27/11
127. PW18 has proved the application, which was moved by accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) for grant of license under Entertainment Regulation for guest houses in residential area, which was received in the office on 25.09.2000, as Ex.PW18/A4, bearing the seal of office, at pt. A, which has been identified by PW18.
128. PW18 has proved the letter, dated 16.09.02, which was received from Sh. R.P. Singh, the then Assistant Settlement Commissioner, L & DO as Ex.PW18/A5.
129. PW18 has further deposed that on the basis of aforesaid letter, dated 16.09.02, an order was passed by him, regarding which noting was made, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW18. The said note has been proved as Ex.PW18/A6.
130. PW18 has further proved the note sheet at page no. 10 of the file (D62), as Ex.PW18/A7, which bears his signatures, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
131. PW18 has further proved the note sheet made by him, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 72 of 223 pages 73 CBI case . No.27/11 N35, dated 18.12.2002, as Ex.PW18/A8, wherein it has been mentioned that accused K.L Bhatia (since deceased) had appeared before him, submitted his reply and asked for grant of some more time. The said note sheet bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW18.
132. PW18 has further proved the note, dated 09.04.03, as Ex.PW18/A9, wherein it has been mentioned that accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) had furnished documents along with copy of Trade License of NDMC, which was accordingly sent to L & DO for their comments. The said noting bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
133. PW19, Sh. Sunil Dutta, was working in the Guest House Centre Point, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, at the relevant time.
134. PW19 has deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 04.09.03, copy of which is Ex.PW19/A, documents mentioned at serial no. 1 to 8 were handed over to CBI, The said seizure memo bears his signatures, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 73 of 223 pages 74 CBI case . No.27/11
135. PW19 has further deposed that the guest ledger no. 1 for the period 1st April to 20th May, 2000, which contains 1 to 100 pages, has been certified by the Accountant, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gola, whose signatures have been identified by him, at pt. A, on each page, he being acquainted with his signatures. The copy of said register is Mark A.
136. Similarly, PW19 has identified the signatures of accountant, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gola, at pt. A, on guest ledger nos. 2 to 8, copies of which are mark B to mark H, respectively.
137. PW20, Sh. G.S. Rawat was working as Superintendent in LeaseII section of L &DO, during the year 2003.
138. PW20 has deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 21.07.03, documents mentioned at serial no. 1 to 20 were handed over by Sh. R.P. Singh, the then Assistant Settlement Commissioner, L & DO Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi to the CBI. The said seizure memo has been proved as Ex.PW20/A, which bears the signatures of said Sh. R.P. Singh, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by the PW20.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 74 of 223 pages 75 CBI case . No.27/11
139. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 24.10.80, was written by Sh. R.L. Gupta, the then Assistant Settlement Commissioner to Ganga Pd. Kedia and Ors, which is in respect of premises, situated at plot no. 11, Block no. 134, known as Centre Point Tourist Road for Banquets, Meetings and Conferences. The copy of said letter is Ex.PW20/A1, on which PW20 has identified the signatures of Sh. R.L. Gupta, the then Assistant Settlement Commissioner, at pt. A, at page no. 105 in the file Volume7 (D42).
140. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 26.03.81, the copy of which is Ex.PW20/A2, was written by Sh. Swaran Singh, the then Assistant Engineer to Sh. Ganga Pd. Kedia, wherein the name of Sh. ID. Gupta has been mentioned for inspecting the premises on 25.04.81. The said letter bears the signatures of said Sh. Swaran Singh, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW20.
141. PW20 has proved the inspection report, at page no. 109/C, dated 25.04.81, which is running into 3 pages, as Mark AX.
142. PW20 has further deposed that in the letter, dated CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 75 of 223 pages 76 CBI case . No.27/11 12.04.83, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A3, at pt. A, it has been mentioned that premises at plot no. 11, Block no. 134, Keeling Road, known as Tolstoy Marg and Kurzon Road now known as K G Marg corresponds to 13, KG Marg, was earlier leased out to M. Misbah Ul Islam.
143. PW20 has further deposed that the Perpetual Lease Deed, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A4, bears the signatures of Misbah Ul Islam, the lessee and Land & Development Officer, New Delhi.
144. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, at page 6 of Volume1(D40), copy of which is Mark PW20/AX1, is in connection with building at plot no. 11, Block No. 134, Kurzon Road, New Delhi.
145. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, at page no. 10, Volume1 (D40), addressed to Narayan Dass, copy of which is Mark PW20/AX2, is in connection with plot no. 11, Block no. 134, New Delhi.
146. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 18.10.78, at page no. 89, Volume7 (D42), which is addressed to heirs and executors of Estate of Late Sh. Ganga Prasad Kedia, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 76 of 223 pages 77 CBI case . No.27/11 copy of which is Ex.PW20/A5, was sent by the then Assistant Engineer, vide which Sh. I.D. Gupta of L & DO Office was deputed to visit the premises at 39, Kurzon Road, on 07.11.78, at 11.30am.
147. PW20 has further deposed that the inspection report, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A6, was prepared by Sh. I.D. Gupta, mentioning about the misuse by Dr. N.N. Barry.
148. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 26.03.81, which is addressed to Ganga Prasad Kedia & another at 13, Kurzon Road, New Delhi, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A7, was sent by Sh. Swaran Singh, vide which, it was informed that Sh. I.D. Gupta of L & D was deputed to inspect the premises on 25.04.81, at 10.30am.
149. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 17.09.81, which is in connection with premises at plot no. 11, Block no. 134, known as Kurzon Road, New Delhi, was sent by Sh. I.D. Sharma, which has been proved as Ex.PW20/A8. Vide the said letter, Sh. Ganga Prasad Kedia was asked to furnish documentary proof i.e. rent deed, duly certified in support of commencement of misuse and unauthorized structure to enable them to work out the charges.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 77 of 223 pages 78 CBI case . No.27/11
150. PW20 has further deposed that a reminder, dated 07.10.82, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A9, was issued by Sh. I.D. Sharma.
151. PW20 has further deposed that the report of Sh. ID. Gupta, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A10, is in respect of existence of misuse of property.
152. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 20.09.83, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A11, was sent by Sh. Dr. K.L. Shukla to the Director, Health Services, Delhi Administration, copy whereof was also endorsed to Land & Development Officer, informing that no license was issued by their department for running a Guest House, at plot no. 134, Kasturba Gandhi Marg.
153. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 08.12.83, initialed by Land & Development Officer, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A12, was addressed to Ganga Prasad Kedia & Anr. He has further deposed that vide the said letter, breaches of unauthorized constructions/misuse were notified and 30 days time was given to the party to remove the breaches from the date of receipt of the said letter.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 78 of 223 pages 79 CBI case . No.27/11
154. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 12.11.83, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A13, was sent by Sh. BRK Bhatnagar to Land & Development Officer, requesting him to confirm if the building plan, submitted by Sh. R.K. Kedia, was in conformity with approved building plan.
155. PW20 has further deposed that vide letter, dated 28.12.83, which is addressed to Competent Authority, Urban Land (Sealing & Regulations Act, 1976), it was replied that the copy of plan attached with the letter was not correct plan of whole premises and was not in conformity with the approved plan. Copy of said letter is Ex.PW20/A14.
156. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 31.12.83, copy of which is Mark PW20/AX3, was sent by Sh. Ganga Prasad Kedia to Land & Development Officer, requesting to depute Senior Most officer for inspection of the premises with prior appointment.
157. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 03.02.86, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A15, was sent by Land & Development Officer, running into 3 pages, regarding CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 79 of 223 pages 80 CBI case . No.27/11 premises at plot no. 11, Block no. 134, known as Kurzon Road, New Delhi and vide which a decision to reenter the aforesaid premises was taken.
158. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 28.08.99, copy of which is Mark PW20/AX4, was sent by Dy. Commissioner of Police to Dy. Land & Development Officer, confirming that party had applied for renewal of license as the said license was valid upto 31.12.98.
159. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 28.08.80, copy of which is Mark PW20/AX5, is the another letter, annexed with the aforesaid letter, Mark PW20/AX4, vide which accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) was informed to obtain the license under section 42 of the DMC Act.
160. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 06.10.99, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A16, was sent by L& D Department to Dy. Commissioner of Police (Licensing), communicating that license might not be renewed beyond 31.12.98 as the property stood reentered. The said letter bears the signatures of Sh. D.K. Bajaj at pt. A, which have been identified by him.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 80 of 223 pages 81 CBI case . No.27/11
161. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 06.10.99, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A17, was sent by Sh. D.K. Bajaj, the then Dy. L& DO to Licensing Officer, NDMC, requesting them to intimate as to how the license was issued and renewed every year, in violation of these terms. The said letter bears the signatures of Sh. D.K. Bajaj at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
162. PW20 has further deposed that the letters, dated 27.03.2000 and 27.04.2000, copies of which are Ex.PW20/A18 & 19, respectively, were sent by Sh. D.K. Bajaj, the then Dy. L& DO, vide which reminders were sent to DCP (Licensing) enquiring that whether the license had been cancelled or not as Medical officer of Health Licensing, NDMC had already cancelled the license. The said letters bear the signatures of Sh. D.K. Bajaj at pt. A, which have been identified by PW20.
163. PW20 has further deposed that the reply received by Land & Development Officer from DCP (Licensing), vide letter, dated 09.05.2000, copy of which is also Mark PW20/AX5, wherein it has been mentioned that a show cause notice for cancellation of license in respect of premises no. 13, KG CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 81 of 223 pages 82 CBI case . No.27/11 Marge, New Delhi, was issued to accused K.L. Bhatia(since deceased).
164. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 02.03.2000, copy of which is Mark PW20/AX6, was sent by NDMC to Land & Development, Ministry of Urban Development, regarding cancellation of license for running the hotel.
165. PW20 has further deposed that the letters, dated 03.07.2000, 22.09.2000, 09.04.2001, 21.09.2001, 16.09.2002 and 08.01.2003 of L & D Officer, copies of which are Ex.PW20/A20 to A25, respectively, were sent by Sh. D.K. Bajaj, Sh. R.P. Singh and Shalin Kabra, respectively, bearing their signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW20. Vide the said letters, police authorities were requested to intimate the present position.
166. PW20 has further deposed that the note, dated 01.08.84, which is in respect of inspection of the property by Sh. C.S. P. Shastri & L & DO, on 09.03.84, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A26. He has identified the signatures of said Sh. C.S. P. Shastri, at pt. A, on the said note, which have been duly identified by PW20.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 82 of 223 pages 83 CBI case . No.27/11
167. PW20 has further deposed that the note, dated 22.01.86, pertaining to reentry of the property, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A27,bears the signatures of Sh. S.L. Tejwani, the then L & DO, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW20.
168. PW20 has further proved the letter, dated 03.02.86, as Ex.PW20/A28.
169. PW20 has further deposed that the letter, dated 20.05.86, which is Ex.PW20/A29, was sent by Sh. S.L. Tejwani to the Administrator, NDMC, mentioning therein that the property had been reentered by lessor. The said letter bears the signatures of said Sh. S.L. Tejwani, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW20.
170. PW20 has further deposed that the note of Sh. S.L. Tejwani, dated 05.06.86, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A30 was put up to the Ministry of Urban Development, regarding reentry in the premises made by the lessor. The said note bears the signatures of Sh. S.L. Tejwani, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW20.
171. PW20 has further proved the letter, dated 17.06.86, which CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 83 of 223 pages 84 CBI case . No.27/11 is addressed to L& DO and received in their office, as Ex.PW20/A31. He has identified the signatures of accused Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia on the said letter, which is regarding request for compromise.
172. PW20 has further proved the letter, dated 27.06.86, addressed to accused Prem Lata Bhatia, which is in respect of reply to the letter, dated 17.06.86, as Ex.PW20/A32, bearing the signatures of Sh. Tejwani, the then L & DO, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW20.
173. PW20 has further proved the letter of accused Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia, dated 10.07.86, addressed to Sh. S.L. Tehwani which was received in L & DO Office and vide which she had requested for compromise, as Ex.PW20/A33.
174. PW20 has further proved the letter in respect of inspection of the property, bearing plot no. 11, Block no. 134, known as 13, Curzon Road, which was issued by him to Sh. Ganga Prasad Kedia, Rajender Prasad Kedia and Smt. Gindori Devi (Exlessee) and vide the said letter, Sh. Biri Singh, oversear was deputed to inspect the said premises, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 84 of 223 pages 85 CBI case . No.27/11 on 05.09.2000, as Ex.PW20/34. The said letter bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
175. PW20 has further proved the inspection report, dated 22.08.01, which is running into three pages, as Ex.PW20/35. He has further deposed that the said inspection report is in respect of inspection of plot no. 11, Block no. 134, 13 Curzon Road, wherein misuse and unauthorized construction on the said land, has been mentioned. The said report bears the signatures of Sh. S.R. Bhola, the then Technical Assistant, at pt. A and that of Sh. R.L. Singla, the then Building Officer, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.
176. PW21, Sh. Amit Kumar Dass was working as Joint Director (Planning), Monitoring Department, DDA, Vikas Minar, Delhi, at the relevant time.
177. PW21 has deposed that the plot no. 13, KG Marg was a part of residential land use, as shown, at pt. A, in the Zonal Development Plan of Zone D of Delhi Development Authority (D.31) (Text & Plan), which has been proved as Ex.PW21/A. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 85 of 223 pages 86 CBI case . No.27/11
178. PW22, Smt. Sindhushree Khullar was posted as Chairperson, NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi, at the relevant time.
179. PW22 has proved the sanction, dated 20.10.05, which was accorded by her against accused N.K. Sharma, the then Architect and accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, the then Assistant Engineer, NDMC, New Delhi, as Ex.PW22/A, bearing her signatures at pt. A and initials at pt. B, which have been duly identified by her.
180. PW23, Sh. A.K. Khanna was posted as Sales Tax Officer in Delhi Sales Tax Department, during the period from 20002005.
181. PW23 has reiterated documents, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B, Ex.PW17/C and Ex.PW17/D.
182. PW24, Sh. Rajesh Joshi was posted as Sales Tax Inspector during the period from 2001 to 2005.
183. PW24 has also reiterated documents, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B, Ex.PW17/C and Ex.PW17/D. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 86 of 223 pages 87 CBI case . No.27/11
184. PW25, Sh. Desh Raj Singh was working as Sub Registrar III, at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
185. PW25 has further deposed that the General Power of Attorney, copy of which Ex.PW25/A, was executed between Ganga Prashad Kedia & Smt. Munni Devi, r/o 13, Curzon Road, New Delhi, in favour of accused Smt. Prem Lata Bhatia, wife of Sh. K.L. Bhatia, r/o 3, Navjeevan Vihar, New Delhi, in respect of property no. 13, 13A and 13B, Curzon Road, Delhi and 10, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi and which was registered in the Sub Registrar Office, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, on 02.05.84.
186. PW26, Sh. Ram Ji Lal was posted as Office Superintendent in the Land and Development Office, in the year 1998. He has deposed that the property bearing no. 13, Curzon Road was reentered due to certain breaches, which include unauthorized construction, misuse of property/premises as it was meant for residential purpose but a hotel was being run in the said property. That the case under PP Act was processed before the Estate Officer and notices were also issued. He has further deposed that CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 87 of 223 pages 88 CBI case . No.27/11 the said property was alloted for residential purposes only, which has been mentioned in the Perpetual Lease, Ex.PW27/A4.
187. PW27, Sh. Pravir Jain was working in the sales tax department from May, 2003 to 2007. He has reiterated the file proved as Ex.PW17/A.
188. PW27 has deposed that the note sheet, which is Ex.PW27/A and registration orders, which are Ex.PW27/B and Ex.PW27/C, were prepared during the official course in his office. He, however, could not identify the signatures on these documents.
189. PW28, Sh. P.K. Bajaj was posted as Junior Engineer in Unauthorized Construction Cell, NDMC, at the relevant time.
190. PW28 has deposed that on 09.08.1985, he had inspected the property 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, which is also known as 'Centre Point Hotel' along with the then Deputy Architect, Mr. R.M. Khanna, where some unauthorized construction was being carried out, which deviated from the sanctioned CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 88 of 223 pages 89 CBI case . No.27/11 plan. That a report in this regard, was prepared, after inspection of the said property, which has been proved as Ex.PW28/A.
191. PW28 has further deposed that on 16.08.85, he had again conducted inspection of the property in question, and found that the party had not stopped the construction and unauthorized construction was also not removed. He has reiterated report, Ex.PW15/1(D10), contained in file, Ex.PW14/B, which was prepared by him, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
192. PW28 has further deposed that thereafter, another notice, under section 195 PM Act was issued, on 02.09.1985. He has further deposed that on 04.09.1985, he made a note to issue another notice under section 220 of PM Act for demolition of the unauthorized construction in the said property. He has identified his signatures at pt. C on the said note, which is available at pt. B, on page no. 2 of file, Ex.PW14/B(D10). He has also identified the note of Mr. IP Malik, the then AE, UACC, at pt. D, bearing signatures of said Sh. I.P. Malik at pt. E. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 89 of 223 pages 90 CBI case . No.27/11
193. PW28 has further deposed that subsequently, on 12.09.85, a notice under section 220 of PM Act was issued, which bears the writing & signatures of Sh. RM Khanna, the then Deputy Architect, at pt. F, which have been duly identified by him.
194. PW28 has further deposed that the unauthorized construction was not compoundable, as per building bye laws.
195. PW29, Sh. P.C. Dixit was posted as Deputy Architect in the Design Section and Building Plan, NDMC, at the relevant time.
196. PW29 has proved the the resolution no. 24, dated 15.02.85, as Ex.PW29/A, vide which a proposal was made for addition/deletion, in respect of premises 13 KG Marg, through scheme no. 159, which was approved by the Building Plan Committee and Administrator for the construction of first floor on the main building, subject to certain conditions.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 90 of 223 pages 91 CBI case . No.27/11
197. PW29 has identified his notings at points A, on page no. 10 & 11, contained in the file Ex.PW14/B. He has further deposed that the property in question, was reentered by the L&DO.
198. PW30, Sh. Sanjib Sengupta, was posted as Chief Architect in the NDMC. He has deposed that file, which is Ex.PW14/B, was being maintained in the NDMC in the official course of business.
199. After going through the record, PW30 has deposed that the area of the property in question, was more than 1000 square meters and that as per Building Bye Laws and Master Plan of Delhi, 2001, guest house was permitted only on a plot, measuring between 209 sq. meters to 1000sq. Meters and that the said property was re entered property by L & DO and there were some unauthorized constructions and that the building bye laws, 1983 were applicable for the said area, at the relevant time.
200. PW30 has proved the Master Plan for Delhi, 2001(D29), which was applicable for the said area, during the relevant period as Ex.PW30/A. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 91 of 223 pages 92 CBI case . No.27/11
201. PW30 has further proved the appendix Q of the Building Bye Laws, 1983 (D30), which contains that any construction beyond the permissible limit of FAR, ground coverage (on any floor), are not compoundable and the misuse of such building also are not compoundable, as Ex.PW30/B.
202. PW31, Sh. V.K. Singhal was posted as Junior Engineer(civil) at the relevant time. He has deposed that on 01.09.2004, he along with SP Satsangi, the then Sr. Architect, DDA, Vikas Minar, Delhi, Sh. JB Khadkiwala, the then Sr. Architect (WZND) DDA, Vikas Minar and Sh. Chaman Lal, the then Sr. Architect (R&N) DDA, Vikas Minar, had inspected the premises 13 KG Marg, New Delhi and a report in this regard, was prepared, which has been proved as Ex.PW6/C(D80). He has identified his signatures at pt. D on the said report. He has further deposed that a memorandum (D79) was also prepared by the IO SC Dandriyal in presence of aforesaid witnesses, which contains details of the inspection. The said memorandum has been proved as Ex.PW6/A, which bears his signatures at pt. D, which have been duly identified by PW31. He has also identified the signatures of Sh. R.K. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 92 of 223 pages 93 CBI case . No.27/11 Sharma, the then Chief Accounts Officer and Sh. Sunil Dutta, the then Front Office Manager of Hotel Centre Point, 13 KG Marg on the aforesaid memorandum, at points E and F, respectively, as they were also present throughout the inspection.
203. PW32, Sh. Karam Chand, was posted as Deputy Architect, Building Plan, NDMC, during the period from 198586. He has identified his note, at pt.A, on page no. 8 & 9 of file, Ex.PW14/B, which bears his signatures at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him. He has deposed that the said note is regarding addition/alteration in respect of 13, KG Marg, New Delhi, known as Centre Point Hotel. He has identified another note of Sh. P.C. Dixit, at pt. A on page 10 of the aforesaid file, which bears his signatures at pt. X, which have been duly identified by him.
204. PW32 has further deposed that the note at page no. 8 in the file Ex.PW10/C (D9) was made by accused Tribhuvan Singh, at pt. A, who signed it at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him. The said note was thereafter, dealt by accused Smt. P.M. Singh, whose signatures appear at pt. C, which have also been duly identified by PW32.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 93 of 223 pages 94 CBI case . No.27/11 205. PW32 has further deposed that on 13.03.2003, accused Tribhuvan Singh again made a note, at pt. C in the
aforesaid file, which bears his signatures at pt. A and the said note was thereafter, signed by accused Smt. P.M. Singh, at pt. A. Signatures of both these accused persons on the said note, have been duly identified by PW32.
206. PW32 has further deposed that vide the aforesaid note, at pt. A, accused Tribhuvan Singh had recommended for compounding and approval of the plan, which proposal was approved by accused, Smt. P.M. Singh, on 13.02.03, who signed at pt. E, which have been duly identified by him.
207. PW32 has further deposed that the compounding charges, regarding the property in question, were deposited vide receipts, dated 13.03.03, which have been marked as Ex.PW32/A and Ex.PW32/B, respectively. Originals of Ex.PW32/A and Ex.PW32/B were not produced. These challans were not proved by calling some one from the treasury for the reasons best known to the CBI. These documents were, thus, not proved, as per law. Further, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 94 of 223 pages 95 CBI case . No.27/11 PW32 was not competent to prove these two documents.
208. PW32 has further deposed that a letter, dated 14.03.03/14.02.2003, was sent by accused Tribhuvan Singh for depositing penalty etc. to accused Prem Lata Bhatia, which has been proved as Ex.PW32/C.
209. PW33, Sh. P.K. Batra was working as manager at Canara Bank, Circle Office, Nehru Place, Delhi. He has deposed that on 10.07.03, he had visited the residence of accused Smt. PM Singh, at 7/17, Delhi Administration Flats, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi, along with his colleague, Raghuvir Chandra and other officials of CBI. He has further deposed that a search list, regarding the said search was prepared, which has been proved as Ex.PW33/A, which is running into two pages. The said list bears the signatures of PW33, at pt. A, that of Sh. Raghuvir Chandra, at pt. B, that of accused Smt. P.M. Singh at pt. C and that of IO, Sh. S.C. Dandriyal at pt. D, which have been duly identified by PW33.
210. PW34, Sh. R.S. Salariya was a witness, in whose presence as well as in presence of Sh. Taranjeet Singh, video graphy CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 95 of 223 pages 96 CBI case . No.27/11 of premises Hotel Centre Point, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, was conducted. He has identified his signatures, at pt. A and that of his colleague, Sh. Taranjeet Singh, at pt. B and that of Sh. S.K. Sharma, Inspector, CBI, at pt. C, on the video graphy memo, which has been proved as Ex.PW37/A. He has further deposed that the aforesaid video graphy was done by Sh. Prem Nath, SI, CBI, who also signed the said video graphy memo, at pt.D, which have been duly identified by him.
211. PW34 has further deposed that the video cassette, which was used to record the aforesaid videography, which is Ex.PW37/B, bears his signatures at pt. A and that of Sh. Taranjeet Singh, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.
212. PW34 has further identified the envelope, containing the above said cassette, which is Ex.PW37/C.
213. PW35, Sh. V.K. Kandpal was posted as Luxury Tax Officer in the office of Excise Entertainment and Excise Tax, department of NCT of Delhi, from 1996 to 2000.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 96 of 223 pages 97 CBI case . No.27/11
214. PW35 has deposed that the file, which is Ex.PW40/A1 was maintained in respect of registration of hotel, Centre Point, 13, KG Marg, New Delhi, contains the application, which was moved for registration of Hotel Centre Point, at page 14/C to 18/C along with annexures from page 1/C to 13/C.
215. PW35 has deposed that the note containing recommendation of Mr. Deepak Virmani, which is Ex. PW40/A2, bears the signatures of said Deepak Virmani at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that the said note was marked to him for issuance of Registration Certificate for the hotel, Centre Point, 13, KG Marg, New Delhi.
216. PW35 has further deposed that registration certificate, dated 19.02.97, copy of which is Ex.PW40/A3, was issued by him for the hotel, Centre Point, which bears his signatures, at pt. A and that of Mr. Deepak Virmani, who signed in token of having allowed for opening of another branch of hotel at E73, Kalkaji, New Delhi, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him as he had worked with them and had seen them writing and signing, in the official course.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 97 of 223 pages 98 CBI case . No.27/11
217. PW35 has further deposed that report, regarding registration of the hotel Centre Point, at page 26/C of the file, Ex.PW40/A1, which is Ex.PW40/A4 bears the signatures of the then Luxury Tax Inspector, Sh. Adheswar Kant, at pt. A and that of Sh. Raj Pal Singh, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him as he had worked with them and had seen them writing and signing, in the official course.
218. PW35 has further deposed that during the processing of application, dated 09.01.97, which was moved for registration of Hotel Centre Point, a note was put by Raj Pal Singh, regarding forms and documents, submitted on behalf of Hotel to the concerned Luxury Tax Officer, which is Ex.PW40/A5 . The said note bears the signatures of said Raj Pal at pt. A and that of Sh. S.S. Gill, the then Luxury Tax Officer, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by PW35 as he had worked with them and had seen them writing and signing, in the official course of business.
219. PW35 has further deposed that in file, Ex.PW38/J(D113A), relating to Hotel Centre Point, at page 1C, there is a notice for assessment for the year 19961997, which is CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 98 of 223 pages 99 CBI case . No.27/11 Ex.PW40/A6. The said notice bears the signatures of Deepak Virmani, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW35 as he had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing, in the official course of business.
220. PW35 has further deposed that the assessment order, which is Ex.PW40/A7, bears the signatures of Sh. Deepak Virmani, at pt. A, on both the pages, which have been duly identified by him as he had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing, in the official course.
221. PW35 has further deposed that at the time of assessment, the parties had produced L2 Register (page 20C to 31C), L3 Register (page 32C of file Ex.PW38/J), which bears the signatures of Sh. Deepak Virmani, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by PW35 as he had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing, in the official course.
222. PW35 has also identified the signatures of Sh. Deepak Virmani, at pt. A, on the order sheet, dated 29.01.99.
223. PW35 has further deposed that the file of Hotel Centre Point for the assessment year 19971998, which is CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 99 of 223 pages 100 CBI case . No.27/11 Ex.PW38/L contains a note, at pt. B, which is Ex.PW38/L1, bears the signatures of PW35 at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.
224. PW35 has further deposed that assessment order, pertaining to the Hotel Centre Point, for the year 19971998, which is Ex.PW40/A8, bears his signatures at pt. A, on the second page, which have been duly identified by him.
225. PW35 has further deposed that the summary sales, which were submitted by the party and are available at page 36 & 37 of file Ex.PW38/L, are Ex.PW40/A9, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
226. PW35 has further identified his signatures at pt. A, on the notice, dated 18.02.2000, copy of which is Ex.PW40/A10,
227. PW35 has further deposed that the assessment order, pertaining to the Hotel Centre Point, for the year 19981999, which is Ex.PW40/A11, bears his signatures at pt. A, on the second page, which have been duly identified by him.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 100 of 223 pages 101 CBI case . No.27/11
228. PW35 has further deposed that the summary of sales, which are collectively, Ex.PW40/A12, pertains to Hotel Centre Point.
229. PW35 has deposed that at the time of assessment, copy of audit report, which is at page 85 to 87C, was obtained, which is Ex.PW40/A13.
230. PW35 has further deposed that assessment order, pertaining to the Hotel Centre Point, for the year 19992000, which is Ex.PW40/A14, was passed by the then Luxury Tax Officer, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, which bears the signatures of said Sanjeev Kumar, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by PW35.
231. PW35 has further deposed that the notes, which are Ex.PW38/M1 and Ex.PW38/M2 bear the signatures of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, at points B, which have been duly identified by him.
232. PW35 has further deposed that the assessment file, which is Ex.PW40/A15, pertains to the Hotel Centre Point, for the year 20012002.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 101 of 223 pages 102 CBI case . No.27/11
233. PW35 has further deposed that the note sheet, which is Ex.PW40/A16, bears the signatures of Sh. C. Arvind, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
234. PW35 has further deposed that the file, pertaining to the Hotel Centre Point, for the year 20022004, which is Ex.PW40/A25, contains the returns submitted by the said hotel, at pt. A, which are collectively, Ex.PW40/A17 to Ex.PW40/A24. The said returns bear the official stamp, which has been duly identified by PW35.
235. PW36, Sh. V.K. Gulati, was posted as Executive Engineer in NDMC, Bengali Market, New Delhi. He has proved the building plan sanction, in respect of property no. 13, KG Marg, New Delhi, as Ex.PW36/A (D46), collectively, which bears his signatures at points A1 to A4, which have been duly identified by him.
236. PW36 has deposed that before sanction of the aforesaid plan, party had submitted proposal, which was processed and thereafter, concerned property was inspected by him and a report in this regard, was submitted and that thereafter, building plan committee under the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 102 of 223 pages 103 CBI case . No.27/11 chairmanship of Administrator, had approved the proposal, vide resolution no. 24, dated 15.02.1985, subject to some conditions. He has reiterated, resolution, Ex.PW29/A, vide which building plan was sanctioned.
237. PW36 has further deposed that the plans were rejected, vide resolution no. 15, dated 06.11.85, the copy of which is Ex.PW36/B.
238. PW36 has further deposed that the file, pertaining to New Delhi Redevelopment Advisory Committee, which is Ex.PW36/C, contains a map, showing details of area, in which 13 KG Marg is built up. He has further deposed that as per the said document, residential area is shown but he could not tell exactly which portion shown in the plan was residential.
239. PW37, Sh. Rajender Kumar Sharma was working as Chief Accountant in Centre Point, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, at the relevant time.
240. PW37 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 01.08.03, Ex.PW38/A (D16), documents mentioned at serial no. 1 to 33 were seized, which bears his signatures, at CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 103 of 223 pages 104 CBI case . No.27/11 points A1, A2 & A3 and that of Sh. S.C. Dandriyal, the IO, at pts. B1 and B2, which have been duly identified by him.
241. PW37 has identified his stamp and signatures, at pt. A, on each page of documents, which are Ex.PW38/B1 to Ex.PW38/B3 (D17 to D20).
242. PW37 has also identified his stamp and signatures on document D21, which is Ex.PW12/A.
243. PW37 has also identified his stamp and signatures on the documents D22 to D48, which are Ex.PW38/B4 to Ex.PW38/B30.
244. PW37 has further reiterated document, D49, which is Ex.PW33/Z and has identified his stamp and signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
245. PW37 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 17.07.03, Ex.PW38/C(D7), copy of sale register for the Centre Point for the period 11.09.2002 to 31.03.2003, was seized.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 104 of 223 pages 105 CBI case . No.27/11
246. PW37 has further deposed that the computer print out of sale register of Centre Point Hotel, page 1 to 60 (D8), which are collectively, Ex.PW38/D, bear his signatures at pt. A along with his seal, which have been duly identified by him.
247. PW37 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 23.07.2003, which is Ex.PW38/E, documents mentioned at serial no. 1 to 4 were handed over to CBI, which bears his signatures at pts, A1 and A2, which have been duly identified by PW37.
248. PW37 has further deposed that copies of guest register of Centre Point i.e. D12 to D15, D53 to D60, D70 to D71, which are Ex.PW38/F1 to Ex.PW38/F14, respectively, bear his signatures at pt. A, along with his seal, which have been duly identified by him.
249. PW37 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 11.08.03, which is Ex.PW38/G, copies of guest ledger of Centre Point, mentioned at serial no. 1 to 8 of this ledger, were seized. The said seizure memo bears his signatures at pts. A1 and A2, which have been duly identified by PW37. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 105 of 223 pages 106 CBI case . No.27/11
250. PW37 has further deposed that the seizure memo, dated 11.11.03, which is Ex.PW38/H, bears his signatures at pt. A, on both the pages, which have been duly identified by him.
251. PW37 has further deposed that the documents D89 & D99, which are Ex.PW38/I1 to Ex.PW38/I11, bear his signatures & seal, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
252. PW37 has further deposed that the application, which is Ex.PW38/I12, bears the signatures of accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
253. PW37 has further deposed that the letter, dt. 27.03.97, which is addressed to Dy. Commissioner Luxury Tax Department, is Ex.PW38/I13, vide which luxury tax in respect of Centre Point through pay order, mentioned therein, was forwarded. The said letter bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
254. PW37 has further deposed that letters, which are Ex.PW38/I14, Ex.PW38/I15 and Ex.PW38/I16, bear his CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 106 of 223 pages 107 CBI case . No.27/11 signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
255. PW37 has further deposed that vide aforesaid letter, Ex.PW38/I16, among other things, copy of registration card was also sent, which is Ex.PW38/I17, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
256. PW37 has further deposed that copies of pages 92/C its enclosures, 47/C, 49/C, 50/C, 55/C, 56/C, 58/C, 59/C, 64/C, 65/C, 66/C, 69/C, 74/C, 77/C, 81/C, 82/C, and 89/C which are Ex.PW38/I18 to 34, bear his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
257. PW37 has further deposed that the copy of form no.3, which is Ex.PW38/I35 & copies of form no. 2, of the file, Ex.PW38/J, which are collectively, Ex.PW38/I47, were forwarded, vide letter, Ex.PW38/I16. The said forms bear his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
258. PW37 has further deposed that the form no. 8, at page 19 C of the file, Ex.PW38/J, which is Ex.PW38/I48, also bears CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 107 of 223 pages 108 CBI case . No.27/11 his signatures at pt.A on its back, which have been duly identified by PW37.
259. PW37 has further deposed that the document, which is Ex.PW38/I49 and which is annexure of Ex.PW38/I48, also bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
260. PW37 has further deposed that the authority letter, which is Ex.PW38/I50 and letter, dated 03.02.97, which is Ex.PW38/I51 bear his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. Ex.PW38/I50 also bears the signatures of accused K.L. Bhatia(since deceased), at pt. B1 and B2, which have also been identified by him.
261. PW37 has further deposed that the note sheet at page 1 of the file, Ex.PW38/IK, which is Ex.PW38/K1 bears his signatures at pt. A, in token of having received the assessment order from the Luxury Tax Office, which have been duly identified by him.
262. PW37 has further deposed that the note sheet, at page 1 of the file, Ex.PW38/L, which is Ex.PW38/L1, bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 108 of 223 pages 109 CBI case . No.27/11 him.
263. PW37 has further deposed that the note sheets at page 1 & 2 of the file, Ex.PW38/M, which are Ex.PW38/M1 and Ex.PW38/M2, bear his signatures at points X1 and X2, which have been duly identified by him.
264. PW37 has further deposed that the notice, which is Ex.PW38/M3, also bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
265. PW37 has further deposed that the form no. 8, which are Ex.PW38/M4 to Ex.PW38/M12, bear his signatures at pt. A, along with seal, which have been duly identified by him.
266. PW37 has further deposed that note sheet at page 1 of file, Ex.PW38/N, which is Ex.PW38/N1, bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
267. PW37 has further deposed that page nos. 57/C and 58/C of file, Ex.PW38/N, which are Ex.PW38/N3 and Ex.PW38/N2 bear signatures of PW37 at pt. A, along with stamp, which have been duly identified by him. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 109 of 223 pages 110 CBI case . No.27/11
268. PW37 has further deposed that the details at page no. 50C, which is Ex.PW38/N4 and authority letter, which is Ex.PW38/N5 along with its enclosures, which are Ex.PW38/N6 bear his signatures at pt. A and that of accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) at pts. A1 and A2, which have been duly identified by him.
269. PW37 has further deposed that documents, which are Ex.PW38/N7 to Ex.PW38/N13, bear his signatures at pt. A, along with his stamp, which have been duly identified by him.
270. PW37 has further deposed that document, at page 8/C, which is Ex.PW38/N14, also bears his signatures on its back side, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
271. PW38, Sh. Tanvir Ahmad was posted as Junior Engineer(Civil) in Construction DivisionI, NDMC.
272. PW38 has reiterated Master Plan for Delhi1990, Ex.PW30/A, which was in force during the year 20022003.
273. PW38 has deposed that the report, was approved by DDA, copy of which has been proved as Ex.PW38/A. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 110 of 223 pages 111 CBI case . No.27/11
274. PW38 has further proved the location plan for Zone D3 of NDRAC Report, where area of the plot no. 13, KG Marg has been shown as residential purpose, as Ex.PW38/B.
275. PW38 has further deposed that the file, Ex.PW10/C contains noting, at page 6, at pt. A which has been proved as Ex.PW38/C, bears the signatures of the then JE, Sh. P.K. Chandra, at pt. A and that of accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4), the then AE, at pt.B, which have been duly identified by him.
276. PW38 has further deposed that the note of accused N.K. Sharma (A3), the then architect, which is Ex.PW38/D, bears his signatures at pt. C, which have been duly identified by him.
277. PW38 has further deposed that the note of accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal(A4), at page 7 of file Ex.PW10/C, which is Ex.PW38/E, bears the signatures of said accused, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW38.
278. PW38 has further deposed that the note of accused CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 111 of 223 pages 112 CBI case . No.27/11 Tribhuvan Singh(A2), the then Chief Architect, which is Ex.PW38/F, bears his handwriting & signatures, which have have been duly identified by him.
279. PW38 has further deposed that note of accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4), at page 8 of file Ex.PW10/C, which is Ex.PW38/G, bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW38.
280. PW39, Sh. Anil Kumar Bhatnagar was posted as Assistant Divisional Officer, Delhi Fire Service, Connaught Circus, at the relevant time.
281. PW39 has deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 18.08.04, Ex.PW41/A, documents mentioned therein were handed over to the CBI, which bears his signatures, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
282. PW39 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW41/A, file (D110), which was maintained in regular course, pertaining to Centre Point Guest House at 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, was handed over, which has been proved as Ex.PW41/A1.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 112 of 223 pages 113 CBI case . No.27/11
283. PW39 has further deposed that the letter, at page C33 of file Ex.PW41/A1, which is Ex.PW41/A2, was received from DCP Licensing.
284. PW39 has further deposed that in pursuance to the aforesaid letter, Ex.PW41/A2, inspection of the premises in question, was carried out and a report, regarding the same was submitted, which has been proved as Ex.PW41/A3. The said report bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
285. PW39 has further deposed that a note, regarding the report, Ex.PW41/A3 was made by him, at page 11 of the file, Ex.PW41/A1, which bears his handwriting & signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
286. PW39 has further deposed that the letter, dated 27.05.99, which was received by him, on 03.06.99, from NDMC for according NOC for renewal of license, in respect of Lodging House (Centre Point), 13, KG Marg, has been proved as Ex.PW41/A4. The said letter bears the signatures of the then Deputy Chief Fire Officer, Late Sh. Surender Kumar at pt. A, which have been duly identified CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 113 of 223 pages 114 CBI case . No.27/11 by him.
287. PW39 has further proved his note, regarding inspection carried out by him, at page 12 of the file, Ex.PW41/A1, as Ex.PW41/A5, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
288. PW39 has further deposed that his draft reply, which is available at page C36 of the file, Ex.PW41/A1, is Ex.PW41/A6 which bears his initials at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
289. PW39 has further deposed that a reply was sent to the Medical Officer (Health)NDMC, vide letter, dated 28.05.1999, under the signatures of late Sh. Surender Kumar, the then Deputy Chief Fire Officer, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. The copy of the said letter, is Ex.PW14/A7.
290. PW39 has further deposed that the letter, dated 05.08.04, which is Ex.PW41/A8, bears the signatures of Sh. G.C. Mishra, which have been duly identified by PW39.
291. PW40, Sh. R.L. Aggarwal was posted as Chief Architect in CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 114 of 223 pages 115 CBI case . No.27/11 NDMC, at the relevant time.
292. PW40 has reiterated the unified Building Bye Laws, Ex.PW30/B and Zonal Development Plan (ZoneD), Ex.PW21/A.
293. PW40 has further deposed that file (D8), which has been proved as Ex.PW40A, pertains to Centre Point, 13 KG Marg, which was maintained in NDMC
294. PW40 has further deposed that the note, at page 1 of the file, Ex.PW40/A, which is Ex.PW40/A1, bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.
295. PW40 has further proved his other notes in the file, Ex.PW40/A, as Ex.PW40/A2, Ex.PW40/A3, Ex.PW40/A4 & Ex.PW40/A7 which bear his signatures, at pt. A, respectively, which have been duly identified by him.
296. PW40 has further deposed that vide covering letter, Ex.PW40/A5, party had submitted their plans on 01.05.02. He has identified his handwriting & signatures at encircled portion P1 on the said letter.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 115 of 223 pages 116 CBI case . No.27/11
297. PW40 has further reiterated letter, Ex.PW2/6, on which he has identified the signatures of Sh. B.P. Mishra, the then Chairman, NDMC, at pt. A, who had marked the letter of MOH and Chief Architect. He has further identified his note on the said letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW40/A7 and that he had marked the said letter to Deputy Chief Architect, Sh. H.S. Bindra.
298. PW40 has also identified his signatures at pt. B, on note sheet, Ex.PW4/A in file Ex.PW2/1.
299. PW41, Lt. Col. S.K. Garg was posted as Medical Officer of Health in NDMC, New Delhi, at the relevant time.
300. PW41 has further deposed that annexure 55(45) of the Technical Instructions for Trade License, which are Ex.PW23/Z3(D84), contain the procedure and conditions, under which health licenses were issued, which has been proved as Ex.PW42/A1.
301. PW41 has further deposed that the aforesaid guidelines were modified in the end of December, 2003, which are contained at page 20 of the file, Ex.PW2/1. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 116 of 223 pages 117 CBI case . No.27/11
302. PW41 has further deposed that page no. 49 of file, Ex.PW2/1, bears his signatures, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him as he had seen him writing and signing during the official course of business.
303. PW41 has further deposed that page no. 52 of file, Ex.PW2/1, bears the signatures of Dr. V.N. Reu at pt. A, and his own signatures, at pts. B1 & B2, which have been duly identified by him.
304. PW41 has further deposed that page no. 56 of file, Ex.PW2/1, bears the signatures of accused Dr. R.Pal, at pt. D, which have been duly identified by him as he had seen him writing and signing, during the official course of business.
305. PW42, Sh. Rajender Kedia was one of the exlessee. He has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW42/A(D50), documents, Ex.PW42/A1 (D51), Ex.PW42/A2(D52) and Ex.PW42/A3 (D53), collectively, were seized, which bears his signatures, at pt. A, on each page, which have been duly identified by him.
306. PW43, Sh. Deepak was posted as Nodal Officer in CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 117 of 223 pages 118 CBI case . No.27/11 Hutchison Essar Mobile Services Ltd, at the relevant time.
307. PW43 has further deposed that letter, dated 10.06.05, which has been proved as Ex.PW43/A1(D126) bears the signatures of Sh. Gulshan Arora, the then Nodal Officer of Hudchison Essar Mobile Services, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him as he had seen his specimen signatures, maintained in the records as well as in large number of documents, signed by him, during the course of his duties.
308. PW43 has further deposed that the letter, dated 10.10.03, which has been proved as Ex.PW43/A2(D125) bears the signatures of Major Satish, the then Nodal Officer of Hudchison Essar Mobile Services, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him as he had seen his specimen signatures, maintained in the records as well as in large number of documents, signed by him, during the course of his duties and that vide the said letter, call details in respect of mobile numbers 9811158441, 9811651611 & 9811134602 were sent to CBI.
309. PW43 has further deposed that vide letter letter, Ex.PW43/A2, call details in respect of mobile numbers CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 118 of 223 pages 119 CBI case . No.27/11 9811158441 & 9811651611, were sent, which have been proved as Ex.PW43/A3 & Ex.PW43/A4.
310. PW44, Sh. Deepak R. Handa was posted as Senior Scientific Officer, in Central Forensic Science Laboratory, at the relevant time.
311. PW44 has deposed that he had received a letter, which was forwarded by Sh. Arun Sharma, the then SP, CBI along with original document, Ex.PW1/D, marked as Q1 to Q3, which were further marked as QA, QB, QA/1, QD, QE, Q2 and Q3,. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW44/A, which bears the signatures of the then SP, CBI, Sh. Arun Sharma, at pt.A, which have been duly identified by PW44.
312. PW44 has further deposed that after examining the aforesaid documents with various scientific aids, report dated 14.09.04, was submitted, which has been proved as Ex.PW44/B. The said report, running into four pages, bears his signatures at pt. A, on each page and his stamp at pt. B, on the last page, which have been duly identified by PW44.
313. PW44 has further deposed that aforesaid report, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 119 of 223 pages 120 CBI case . No.27/11 Ex.PW44/B was forwarded to Sh. Arun Sharma, the then SP, CBI, ACUII Branch, Delhi, through Director, vide letter, dated 27.09.04 (D132), which has been proved as Ex.PW44/C. The said letter bears the signatures of Dr. S.R. Singh, the then Director, CFSL, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW44.
314. PW45, Sh. Vikram Dev Dutt was posted as Deputy Secretary in the Union Territory Division in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, at the relevant time.
315. PW45 has deposed that vide sanction order, Ex.PW45/A, he had accorded sanction for prosecution, in respect of accused Smt. PM Singh. He has also identified his signatures, at pt. A, along with his stamp at pt. B on the last page of sanction order, which have been duly identified by him.
316. PW46, Sh. A.K. Roy was posted as Junior Clerk in Cash Branch in NDMC, at the relevant time.
317. PW46 has deposed that vide receipt, Ex.PW46/A, file Ex.PW46/B relating to recovery in respect of 13 KG Marg, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 120 of 223 pages 121 CBI case . No.27/11 New Delhi, containing corresponding sides page 1 to 18 and one sheet (two pages) of note sheet portion, which are collectively Ex.PW46/C were handed over, on 06.08.2004. The receipt Ex.PW46/A bears his signatures and that of the IO at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.
318. PW47, Sh. P.K. Chandra, was posted as Junior Engineer in Planning Division of NDMC, at the relevant time.
319. PW47 has reiterated file, Ex.PW14/B (D10), which pertains to Unauthorized Construction Cell, NDMC as he had dealt with the unauthorized construction, relating to property i.e. 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. He has deposed that the said file contains note sheet pages 1 to 13 and pages 1 to 29 on correspondence side besides other papers/documents.
320. PW47 has further reiterated file, Ex.PW40/A, which contains note sheets from 1 to 3 and correspondence side page 1 to 60.
321. Similarly, PW47 has reiterated file, Ex.PW2/1, which contains note sheet pages from 1 to 58 and CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 121 of 223 pages 122 CBI case . No.27/11 correspondence side pages 1 to 122.
322. In the same manner, PW47 has reiterated file, Ex.PW10/C, which contains note sheets from page 1 to 9 and correspondence side pages 1 to 8. He has also reiterated note, dated 10.01.2003, Ex.PW38/C, on which, he had identified his signatures at pt. A. He has deposed that the said note was put up to accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal(A4), the then AE (unauthorized construction cell), who marked the note to accused N.K. Sharma(A3), vide his initials and endorsement at pt. C on Ex.PW38/D, which bears signatures of accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal(A4), at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him. He has further identified the endorsement made by accused N.K. Sharma (A3), at pt. A, on note, Ex.PW38/E. He has further identified the endorsement and signatures of accused Tribhuvan Singh(A2), which is Ex.PW38/F. He has also identified the note of accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal(A4) at pt. A, which is Ex.PW38/G.
323. PW47 has further reiterated, letter, Ex.PW32/C, on which he has identified the signatures of accused Tribhuvan Singh (A2), at pt. A. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 122 of 223 pages 123 CBI case . No.27/11
324. PW47 has further deposed that note, dated 10.01.03, which is Ex.PW38/C, bears his signatures at pt.A and that the said note was prepared by accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4), N.K. Sharma (A3) and Mr. Tanvir Ahmad, the then JE. That since the case was remanded from the court, there was pressure exerted by the above said accused persons upon him. That he had brought it to the notice of the said accused persons that it was a re entered property and he did not know whether it could be regularized or not but despite this the aforesaid note was written by the said accused persons. That he was threatened by the said accused persons that in case, he did not sign the said note, he would be suspended/transferred and that he was also told that there was a pressure of accused Smt. PM Singh (A1), the then Chairperson, to do the case hurriedly.
325. PW47 has further deposed that an application was moved by him voluntarily, in the court, expressing his desire to make a statement, which has been proved as Ex.PW47/A, bearing his signatures at pt. A and B, which have been duly identified by him.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 123 of 223 pages 124 CBI case . No.27/11
326. PW47 has further deposed that his statement was recorded, copy of which is Ex.PW47/B (running into 5 pages), bearing his signatures at pt. A, on each page and that of Ld. MM at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.
327. PW47 has further deposed that another application was moved by him to become an approver in this case, which has been proved as Ex.PW47/C, bearing his signatures at pt. A and that of his lawyer at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.
328. PW47 has further deposed that vide order, dated 21.09.2006, he was allowed to become an approver and was pardoned. The said order has been proved as Ex.PW47/D, which bears his signatures at pt. B and that of Ld. Judge, at pt. A, on each page, which have been duly identified by him.
329. PW48, Sh. D.S. Dagar was posted as Deputy SP in the Branch of CBI, ACUII, New Delhi, at the relevant time.
330. PW48 has deposed that on 01.09.2004, on the instructions CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 124 of 223 pages 125 CBI case . No.27/11 of SP of the Branch, he had visited the premises at 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, at 12.20pm, along with his team, IO S.C. Dandriyal, three architects from DDA namely, Sh. JB Khadkiwala, the then Sr. Architect, Sh. S.P. Satsangi, the then Sr. Architect and Chaman Lal, the then Sr. Architect and V.K. Singhal, the then Jr. Engineer (Technical Cell), CBI, where measurement of the premises in question, was taken in presence of the two employees of the hotel in order to compare it with the sanctioned plan of the hotel. He has reiterated, memo, Ex.PW6/A, which was prepared by the IO, S.C. Dandriyal, on which he has identified his signatures at pt. B.
331. PW48 has further reiterated seizure memo, Ex.PW21/A and files, Ex.PW38/J, Ex.PW38/K, Ex.PW38/M, Ex.PW38/N, Ex.PW40/A1, Ex.PW40/A15 and Ex.PW40/A25.
332. PW49, Sh. Vipin Kumar was posted as Inspector in CBI, ACUII, New Delhi at the relevant time.
333. PW49 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dt.
29.04.05, Ex.PW49/A, two documents from Sh. Desh Raj, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 125 of 223 pages 126 CBI case . No.27/11 the then Sub RegistrarIII, Delhi Government, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, were seized. The said seizure memo bears his signatures at pt. A and that of Sh. Desh Raj, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.
334. PW49 has further deposed that vide aforesaid seizure memo, Ex.PW49/A, GPA in respect of property no. 13A and 13 B (pages 1 to 6), copy of which is Ex.PW49/B, was seized. The said GPA bears the signatures of Sh. Desh Raj at pt. B on each page, which have been duly identified by him.
335. PW49 has further deposed that vide aforesaid seizure memo, Ex.PW49/A, catalouge register, copy of which is Ex.PW49/C, was also seized. The said register bears the signatures of Sh. Desh Raj at pt. A, on each page, which have been duly identified by him.
336. PW50, Sh. Prem Nath, was posted as Sub Inspector in CBI, ACB, New Delhi, during the relevant time. He had conducted the video graphy of the premises in question, on 10.07.2003. He has reiterated, memo, Ex.PW37/A, on which he has identified his signatures at pt. D. He has CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 126 of 223 pages 127 CBI case . No.27/11 further reiterated cassette, Ex.PW37/B and envelope, Ex.PW37/C.
337. PW50 has further deposed that on the same day, he had also conducted video graphy of premises i.e. House no. 10, Tolstoy Marg. He has reiterated, memo Ex.PW36/A on which he has identified his signatures at pt. C. He has further reiterated envelope, Ex.PW36/B and cassette, Ex.PW36/C on which he has identified the signatures of independent witnesses, at points A and B.
338. PW51, Sh. B.S. Toni was posted as Deputy Director in NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi.
339. PW51 has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW51/A, certain documents i.e. original file in respect of 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, containing correspondence pages 1 to 225 (missing pages 50 & 55), noting portion pages 1 to 99, which are collectively, Ex.PW51/B, maintained in the official course of business, were seized. The said seizure memo, bears the signatures of PW54, Sh. S.C. Dandriyal, the IO, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 127 of 223 pages 128 CBI case . No.27/11
340. PW51 has further deposed that in the file Ex.PW51/B, at page 38, there is a survey report, showing inspection conducted on 05.06.79, relating to premises 13, Curzon Road, New Delhi, which consists official notings at page no. 39 and 40, which file was maintained in the official course of business.
341. PW52, Mrs. Surjit Kaur Sandhu was posted as Principal Secretary House, at the relevant time.
342. PW52 has proved the sanction, which was accorded by her in respect of accused Tribhuvan Singh (A2), as Ex.PW52/A. The said sanction order, consisting of 11 pages, bears her signatures, at pt. A, on the last page, which have been duly identified by her.
343. The sanction order Ex.PW52/A, however, bears her signatures on the last page only (i.e. at one page only) and no date is mentioned. She has not clarified in her deposition as to on which date she put her signatures on the last page only of Ex.PW52/A. Further, Ex.PW52/A contains writing in different ink and pen on several pages which has not been authenticated by her. It remains CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 128 of 223 pages 129 CBI case . No.27/11 unexplained as to when and who had tampered the document, Ex.PW52/A. On the first page, there is writing after applying white fluid and it is not clarified who & why & when it was done. Still further, PW52 deposed that a few papers were sent to her and that she was not competent to accord sanction without permission of the Chief Minister and she took his permission before according sanction.
344. PW53, Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma was posted as Inspector in CBI, ACUII, ACI, New Delhi, at the relevant time. On 10.07.2003, he was deputed by the IO, S.C. Dandriyal for conducting videography of the premises in question. He has reiterated memo, Ex.PW37/A on which he has identified his signatures at pt. C. He has further reiterated cassette, Ex.PW37/B and envelope, Ex.PW37/C.
345. PW54, Sh. S.C. Dandriyal was posted as Inspector, CBI, at the relevant time.
346. PW54 has proved the FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW54/A, which bears the signatures of Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma, the then SP, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 129 of 223 pages 130 CBI case . No.27/11
347. PW54 has further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had collected relevant documents. He has reiterated, memo Ex.PW3/B (D11) on which he has identified his signatures at pt. A and that of witness, Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, at pt. B. Similarly, he has identified his signatures and that of Sh. Hoshiyar Singh at points B & C on Ex.PW3/C.
348. PW54 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 21.07.2003, some documents were seized, which has been proved as Ex.PW54/B. The said seizure memo, bears his signatures at pt. A and that of witness, Sh. R.P. Singh, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.
349. PW54 has reiterated document, Ex.PW51/A (D32), on which he has identified his signatures at pt. B. He has further reiterated seizure memo, Ex.PW49/A (D47) on which he has identified the signatures of Sh. Vipin Kumar, Inspector, at pt. A.
350. PW54 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 11.11.2003, some documents were seized, copy of which is Ex.PW54/C. The said seizure memo, bears his signatures CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 130 of 223 pages 131 CBI case . No.27/11 at pt. A and that of witness, Sh. R.K. Sharma, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.
351. PW54 has further reiterated seizure memo, Ex.PW10/B, which bears his signatures at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.
352. PW54 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 31.08.04, some documents were seized, copy of which is Ex.PW54/D. The said seizure memo, bears his signatures at pt. A and that of witness, Sh. Arvind Prakash, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.
353. PW54 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 20.08.04, some documents were seized, copy of which is Ex.PW54/E. The said seizure memo, bears his signatures at pt. A and that of witness, Sh. Harish Kohli, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.
354. PW54 has further reiterated seizure memo, Ex.PW42/A on which he has identified his signatures at pt. B. He has also reiterated seizure memo, Ex.PW3/A (D6), copy of letter dated 01.07.04, Ex.PW44/A and seizure memo, Ex.PW46/A CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 131 of 223 pages 132 CBI case . No.27/11 on which he has identified his signatures as well as signatures of other witnesses, mentioned therein.
355. PW54 has further reiterated inspection report/memorandum, Ex.PW4/A (D20) on which he has identified his signatures at pt. G.
356. PW54 has further deposed that during the course of investigation, Sh. P.K. Chandra was granted pardon by the competent court, vide order, dated 21.09.06 after recording his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., copy of which is Ex.PW54/F.
357. PW54 has further deposed that an application was moved for obtaining copy of statement of P.K. Chandra, under section 164 Cr.P.C, which has been proved as Ex.PW55/D. He has reiterated, application of P.K. Chandra for disclosing the facts as Ex.PW47/A and other related documents, which are Ex.PW55/E.
358. Now, I come to the version put forward by the defence witnesses.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 132 of 223 pages 133 CBI case . No.27/11
359. DW1, Ms. Geeta Upadhayaya had brought the summoned record. She has deposed that the letter, copy of which is Ex.DW1/A, was filed with the application, which is Ex.DW1/B, and is undated.
360. In cross examination, she has admitted that in the letter, copy of which is Ex.DW1/A, the date is written in hand along with dispatch no. as '404' which does not exist in copy, Ex.DW1/B. She could not tell anything about the discrepancy, regarding date and dispatch number as stated in letter, which pertains to year 2008. She further could not tell as to in whose handwriting the said particulars, have been written. The said particulars thus appears to have been inserted in the said document as manipulation, later on. The testimony of the witness, therefore, do not help the defence, at all, in any manner, whatsoever.
361. DW2, Sh. Vinod Kumar had also brought the summoned record. He has proved letter Ex.DW2/A.
362. In cross examination, he has deposed that letter, Ex.DW2/A appeared to have been signed by Sh. G.D. Mathur. He, however, could not tell whether the said CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 133 of 223 pages 134 CBI case . No.27/11 letter was issued to the addressee or not but there is an endorsement to this effect. He has admitted that when any letter is sent outside, the same is entered into dispatch register and also in Peon Book where receipt of the said letter is obtained from the addressee. He, however, did not produce anything to show that the said letter was issued or dispatched or was received by the addressee. His deposition is, therefore, of no advantage to the defence.
363. DW3, Sh. Rakesh Kumar had also brought the summoned record of NDMC, pertaining to receipt of file, regarding requisition of file page no. 1 to 58/N and correspondence pages 1 to 122C, regarding lodging of M/s Centre Point 13 KG Marg, New Delhi. He has admitted that the said file was received on 10.04.03 from the office of Dr. G.S. Thind, MOH, NDMC, vide reference no. 41/PA/MOH/D on 10.04.03 at serial no. 751, which has been proved as Ex.DW2/A.
364. In cross examination, DW3 has deposed that there is an entry, showing that the file was sent to Director (Vigilance) on 10.04.03 and that the entry on Ex.DW2/A was made CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 134 of 223 pages 135 CBI case . No.27/11 when the file was received from Dr. G.S. Thind. He could not tell when, how and from where the file went to Dr. G.S. Thind. He has further deposed that since the file came in a sealed cover, he, could not tell what noting was there in that file. He has denied the suggestion that he had forged and fabricated entry and that the file never came to him and it kept on rotating amongst higher officers. Surprisingly, he did not know who was the Chairperson, NDMC, at the relevant time. He has admitted that at serial no. 752 and 753, there is no mention of details of the file and date of receiving and sending of the file. His testimony is not reliable and helps in no manner the defence.
365. DW4, Sh. Rajesh Gupta was posted as Assistant Engineer in Enforcement Building Regulations, NDMC, at the relevant time.
366. DW4 has proved the record, titled as 'proceedings of the special and ordinary meeting in AugustOctober, 1978 of NDMC', as Ex.DW4/B, which contains resolution, dated 04.08.1978, wherein at page 146, it has been stated that 'the committee further recommends that so far as the question of re entry is concerned, this is the case between CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 135 of 223 pages 136 CBI case . No.27/11 lessor/lessee and should be sorted out at their level'. The aforesaid resolution has been proved as Ex.DW4/A. He has deposed that there is no litigation pending or having been decided with respect to unauthorized construction at 13 KG Marg, New Delhi.
367. In cross examination, DW4 has admitted that the aforesaid register has not been authenticated by index, showing that it contains the resolutions, passed by NDMC and that it contains the names of the officials, who had attended the meeting held on 04.07.1978, at page no. 84 of the said register, which is handwritten and does not bear the signatures of any officer and there are no signatures on the last page no. 148. The said register also contains resolutions, which ends on page 148. He has also admitted that there is no signatures of any officer, who was member of the said meeting, at any page of this resolution, available on this register and that first page, which is handwritten, does not contain any description that the typed resolutions running from 85 to 148 are part of the aforesaid alleged meeting. He has further admitted that he did not have any personal knowledge, regarding the said resolution, running from 85 to 148.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 136 of 223 pages 137 CBI case . No.27/11
368. DW4 has further deposed that he had not dealt with file, Ex.PW10/C of NDMC. He denied the suggestion that the register referred to above, contains forged and fabricated resolution.
369. DW5, Sh. Lalit Mohan has brought the register, which has been proved as Ex.DW4/B.
370. In cross examination, he has denied the suggestion that the aforesaid register as well as dasti summons were given to him by accused Tribhuvan Singh (A2) and that he has deposed falsely at the instance of accused Tribhuvan Singh.
371. The evidence led by the defence, in no manner, counter or contradict the evidence that has been established by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution stands fully established against the accused persons namely, Smt. PM Singh(A1), N.K. Sharma(A3) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4) in terms of the charge framed against each one of them. The striking and strong documentary and oral evidence proved on record by the prosecution fully CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 137 of 223 pages 138 CBI case . No.27/11 contradicts the innocence of the aforesaid accused persons. There is, however, no cogent evidence against accused Prem Lata Bhatia (A6). The proceedings against accused K.L. Bhatia(A5), who was one of the key player, abated as he died during the course of the trial on 23.10.2012. The proceedings against accused Tribhuvan Singh(A2) are void abinitio for want of valid and legal sanction and also for non compliance of section 6 of the 'Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946'.
372. From the material adduced in evidence by the prosecution, it obtains as under:
373. On 19.12.1984, plans for making some additions/alterations on the ground floor and first floor of the building, were submitted by accused Prem Lata Bhatia, being GPA for Ganga Prasad Kedia, which were approved on 15.02.85 by NDMC subject to submission of Mutation Deed from L & DO and that the area on the first floor shall be used only for residential purpose.
374. Accused Prem Lata Bhatia as attorney of G.P. Kedia submitted revised Plans, covering additions/alterations CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 138 of 223 pages 139 CBI case . No.27/11 and construction already carried out on ground, first, second and third floors, which plans were rejected by NDMC on 06.11.85 for the reasons mentioned herein below, which were duly communicated to the party, vide letter, dated 21.11.85 of the Chief Architect of NDMC :
(i) Major portion of the proposed construction has already been carried out unauthorizedly for which notices under section 195 P.M. Act, 1911, had already been issued.
(ii) Portion shown as demolished in the plans has actually not been demolished.
(iii) The plan is in the form of a big dwelling unit, but in fact, the intention of the Party appeared to use this building as a Hotel/guest house, which use is not permissible in view of this plot being earmarked for group house.
(iv) Some of the premises is actually being used as guest house.
(v) Ownership documents are not in order.
(vi) As per letter dated 17.10.1985 of Ministry of Urban Development, no plans for multi storyed buildings of above the height of 45' are to be approved. The height of the building under plan was 51'.
375. L & DO on 22.01.1986 reentered the premises and thereafter, the premises vested with the President of India. The regularization after the premises having been re entered, was not within the competence of NDMC. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 139 of 223 pages 140 CBI case . No.27/11
376. Accused PM Singh (A1) took over as Chairperson of NDMC, on 01.11.02. Accused Tribhuvan Singh (A2) joined NDMC in October, 2002 as Chief Architect. Accused N.K. Sharma (A3), Subhash Chandra Aggarwal(A4) and P.K. Chandra were already working as Architect, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer, respectively, in Unauthorized Construction Cell, NDMC.
377. The matter was taken up with great urgency and undue haste and the officials of Unauthorized Construction Cell were asked by the Chairperson to take steps for regularising the unauthorized construction in the structure. That a new file was dishonestly opened with a lengthy typed note under the signatures of approver, P.K. Chandra, on 10.01.03. In this note, the communication, dated 03.02.86 of L &DO that the premises has been re entered and that it vested with the President, was not mentioned at all. The previous irregularities committed by the party/applicants was also not mentioned. The note, dated 10.01.03, was in fact not prepared by P.K. Chandra, as is disclosed by him in his statement, under section 164 Cr.P.C, Ex.PW47/B. That accused Subhash Chandra CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 140 of 223 pages 141 CBI case . No.27/11 Aggarwal, the then AE aksed him to process the file as there was pressure of accused PM Singh to compound the case hurriedly.
378. The note for compounding the unauthorized construction was dishonestly approved by Chairperson, on 13.03.2003, knowing fully well that the premises was being misused contrary to lease deed, Building Bye Laws, Master Plan and Zonal Plan as 'Center Point Hotel' as on 15.01.2003. Issuance of health license, fraudulently, to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) was well within her knowledge.
379. Photocopy of the note, dated 10.01.2003, was allegedly recovered from the residence of accused Smt PM Singh, during search of her residential premises. There were frequent telephonic talks on many occasions during the relevant period between accused K.L. Bhatia (A5) and accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4) on their respective mobile phones and on phones of the son of accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal during the period from 02.12.2002 to 19.02.2003. The case involved various irregularities, which could not be compounded. Such are:
(i) That it was a case of additions/alterations (as proved by CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 141 of 223 pages 142 CBI case . No.27/11 PW30, PW40 and Building Bye Laws) instead of only regularization of unauthorized construction. Therefore, a proper application for sanction of addition/alteration revised plans was required as massive alteration/addition were already carried out after flouting the conditional sanctioned plan in the year 1985 and that the sanctioned plan were rejected long back i.e. on 06.11.1985. However, in the instant case, the applicant did not submit the following documents, as is mandatory in terms of the Clause 6.2.9 of Unified Building ByeLaws, 1983 along with the revised plans:
a) Lease deed duly accompanied by a site plan and other ownership documents along with the latest no objection certificate from the L & DO for sanction of the plans.
b) No objection certificate from the ULCR Authority for non payment of any pending dues. In spite of the fact that ULCR Act has been repealed in the year 1999.
c) Undertaking for nostacking of building material on Government/Municipal Land.
d) Submission of receipts for building fees.
ii) Maximum permissible height in this case could be 15 meters only for residential plotted Group housing as per Master Plan of Delhi, 2001, on which the proposal has CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 142 of 223 pages 143 CBI case . No.27/11 been dealt with. Achieved height in the note, Ex.PW38/C has been dishonestly shown as 14.94 meters but as per the observations of the Agenda of the Rejected Revised Plans, the achieved height by the party was mentioned as 51 feet (i.e. more than 15 meters), which is not compoundable at all. Further, clearance from the Chief Fire Officer was necessary prior to according sanction in case of such high rise building which was admittedly four storeyed building as per report, Ex.PW4/B.
iii) As per the previous Agenda Report, a reference to Delhi Urban Art Commission also figured, therefore, fresh approval of DUAC was also necessary.
iv) It was a known fact that the premises had been used as Hotel/Guest House against permitted residential land use in the Master Plan, Building Bye Laws and Zonal Development Plan(D) besides as per the lease deed. Since the plans submitted were for residential use, removal of misuse was necessary in the first instance.
v) There is no reference of exhaustive site visit in the note, Ex.PW38/C for comparison of plans with the site CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 143 of 223 pages 144 CBI case . No.27/11 conditions, which is actually a base for dealing a building plan case for compounding of unauthorized construction.
vi) Discrepancies shown in the ownerhsip documents in the previous agenda report of revised plans should also have been settled as neither accused (A5) nor (A6) were having any title to the property in question.
vii) Keeping in view earthquakes, structural safety was a major essential parameter for sanction of plans. Structural stability certificate of a competent structural engineer should have been attached to building plan application.
viii) No objection certificates from the Chief Engineer(Electrical) for electrical services and Chief Engineer(Civil) surrender of land for road widening should have been taken.
ix) On examination of proposal, it was seen that conversion of existing guest house rooms in residential flats was not properly worked out. Some of the bed rooms did not have natural light/ventilation at all. The proposal CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 144 of 223 pages 145 CBI case . No.27/11 was only an eye wash.
x) The area of the plot in question, was earmarked for group housing and not for commercial activity. The building plans could not have, therefore, been cleared allowing commercial activity of a hotel by the Chairperson.
The team of experts from DDA in their report, Ex.PW4/B observed:
i) The actual height of the structure in existence was 54 feet i.e. 16.45 meters against the height of 14.94 meters recorded in the relevant records used for regularizing this construction.
ii) Some of the area shown as demolished in the Plans have actualy not been demolished.
iii) Spaces shown as stores, wash room, powder rooms, attached to individual rooms in the drawing are not in existence and in fact, there are toilets attached with each individual room.
iv) In the ground plan submitted to NDMC, which was finally approved in January/February, 2003, it has been sought to reflect that the said main building comprised of a number of dwelling units each comprising of a bed room, drawing room, kitchen, toilet, etc. However, no such dwelling units are actually found in existence.
v) The building in existence is a 4 storeyed building being run as a hotel with 52 separate single rooms with attached toilets, etc. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 145 of 223 pages 146 CBI case . No.27/11
xi) Admittedly, except height, no other aspects of the report, Ex.PW4/B have been assailed by the defence. That being so, still the property in question could not have been legally compounded.
380. The regularization in this case, was blatently fraudulent because of following reasons:
(i) There did not exist any sanctioned plan in respect of the entire building at 13, KG Marg. The earlier sanction of 15.02.85 was subject to fulfillment of certain prerequisite conditions, which were not fulfilled and hence the said sanctioned plans for the ground floor and Ist floor were no more valid. The submitted plans for 2nd and 3rd floor were already rejected by NDMC for the said reasons.
(ii) The property had been in use without issuance of completion certificate from NDMC.
(iii) The unauthorized construction was not within the competence of NDMC for regularization in view of the premises having been re entered by L &DO and in any case without compliance of Building Bye Laws 6.2.9 and in contravention of section 241(g) of NDMC Act.
(iv) As per the relevant Building ByeLaws, 'use' of the building and 'total permissible height' are noncompoundable. The building was being used as a Hotel which was well within the knowledge of the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 146 of 223 pages 147 CBI case . No.27/11 'Deptt. Of Architecture & Enviorns' of NDMC (as NDMC received letter dated 02.08.1999 from L & DO on the basis of which NDMC cancelled health license in the year 2000), which had put up the said fraudulent note dated 10.01.03 and processed the matter. When CBI got the property inspected by a team of experts, the height was found to be 16.45 meters against the 14.94 meters recorded in the said note dated 10.01.03. Even in the proposal of the party, after the addition alteration was over, in October/November 1985, the achieved height given was 51' (i.e. more than 15 meters). Thus on the showing of the party itself the height of the building was not compondable.
(v) No stipulated clearances were obtained from L&DO, DDA/NDRAC as per the relevant provisions of Delhi Building ByeLaws.
(vi) Experts have opined that the ground plan had been intentionally prepared for giving the existing structure the colour of a residential building. Accused K.L. Bhatia (A5) had intentionally submitted false information/ground plans to secure pecuniary advantage to run Hotel 'Center Point' and use property for commercial gains, illegally.
381. For better grasp and appreciation, the relevant provisions of Building Bye Laws, 1983, connected with this case are being reproduced as under:
(A) Procedure for obtaining building permit BBL 6.1 Notice Every person, who intends to erect, re erect or make alterations in any place in a building or CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 147 of 223 pages 148 CBI case . No.27/11 demolish any building shall give notice in writing to the Authority of his said intention in the prescribed form (See Appendix A) and such notice shall be accompanied by plans and statements in sufficient (See byelaw no. 6.1.1) copies, as required under ByeLaws Nos. 6.2 and 6.3. The plans may be ordinary prints on ferro paper or any other type. One of them shall be cloth mounted. One set of such plans shall be released and the rest retained in the office of the Authority for record after the issue of permit or a refusal.
BBL6.2.9 Document Application for building permit shall be accompanied by the following documents:
(a) Ownership DocumentsLeasedeed, sale deed etc. duly accompanied by an annexed site plan giving the physical description of the plot/property. In such cases where leasedeed has not been executed, no objection certificate from Competent Authority shall be submitted;
(b) Documents under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976;
(c) Undertaking for nonstacking of building material on public property/road in case of plot measuring more than 418sq. Meters in area to be submitted in the proforma as given in Appendix 'M'.
(d) In case of any deviation from the terms and conditions stipulated in the leasedeed/ownership document, necessary clearance from the Competent Authority;
(e) No Objection Certificate from the Competent Authority regarding CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 148 of 223 pages 149 CBI case . No.27/11 land use as per Master/Zonal Plan, if required;
(f) Approval from the Chief Inspector of Factories in case of Industrial Buildings;
(g) Approval from Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur and Chief Fire Officer, Delhi in case of hazardous buildings;
(h) Indemnity Bond in case of proposal for the construction of a basement as given in Appendix 'N'.
{(i) The certificate as indicated in AnnexureB and C to be signed by the owner, the architect and the structural engineer.} BBL 7.4 Deviations during construction If during the construction of a building any substantial departure from the sanctioned plan is intended to be made by way of internal alterations or external additions, sanction of the authority shall be obtained. The revised plan showing the deviations shall be submitted and the procedure laid down for the original plan heretofore shall apply to all such amended plans. (Note: the procedure is laid down as shown above in Building Bye Law 6.1 and Building Bye Law 6.2.9) Thus for proposed revised/amended plans rigours of Building Bye Law 6 including 6.2.9 were required to be complied with.
BBL 7.5.2 Notice of completion Every owner shall have CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 149 of 223 pages 150 CBI case . No.27/11 to submit a notice of completion of the building to the Authority regarding completion of the work described in the building permit. The notice of completion shall be submitted by the owner through the licensed Architect/Engineer/Supervisor/Group as the case may be who has supervised the construction, in the proforma given in Appendix 'G' accompanied by three copies of completion plan and the following documents and along with a fee of Rs.20/.
(1) Copy of lease deed.
(2) Copy of sewer connection permission. (3) Clearance from Chief Fire Officer, Delhi. (4) Clearance from Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur, as required.
(5) Clearance from DESU regarding provision of Transformers/Sub station/ancillary power supply system etc., as required. (6) Structural stability certificate duly signed by the licensed Architect/Engineer.
(7) Certificate from the Lift Manufacturer, as required. (8) Certificate from Air Conditioning Engineer, Manufacturers, as required.
(9) A certificate by the owner and architect/supervisor/engineer for covering up the underground drain, sanitary and water supply work, under their supervision and in accordance with Building ByeLaws and sanctioned building plans stipulated in the Appendix B3 as applicable.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 150 of 223 pages 151 CBI case . No.27/11 (10) In case of large campus/complex, completion of individual block/building will be issued by the local body in accordance with the construction work completed phase wise in the Proforma Appendix B3.
(11) The extension of time up to the date of applying for completion certificate. In case if the completion certificate is refused due to deviation, which cannot be compounded, the completion will be rejected and extension of time will be required accordingly. (12) NOC for regular water supply and electricity may be issued only after the completion certificate is obtained. BBL 7.6.1 In the case of building identified in ByeLaw no. 6.2.4.1 the work shall also be subject to the inspection of the Chief Fire Officer, Delhi Fire Service and the occupancy certificate shall be issued by the Authority only after the clearance from the Chief Fire Officer regarding the completion of the work from the fire protection point of view.
BBL 7.6.2 In cases, where the building scheme requires the clearance of Delhi Urban Arts Commission, then the Authority shall issue the occupancy certificates only after getting the clearance from Delhi Urban Arts Commission. The aforesaid Building Bye Laws were blatantly flouted especially 7.4 and 6.2.9.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 151 of 223 pages 152 CBI case . No.27/11
382. The APPENDIX 'Q' as appended to Building Bye Laws is reproduced as under:
Penal Action for Violation of Provisions of Master Plan/ Zonal Plan Regulations/ByeLaws (A) NONCOMPOUNDABLE ITEMS Any deviations from the maximum, minimum prescribed limits regarding:
1. Coverage
2. F.A.R.
3. Setback
4. Open Spaces
5. Total height of the building
6. No. of floors.
7. No. of DUs & Density
8. Parking norms
9. Light and ventilation provisions
10. Use
11. All other provision of these byelaws except items given in para 'B' below shall not be compounded/regularized and shall have to be rectified by altering/demolition at the risk and cost of owner. Besides this, any other action as per terms and conditions of lease and provisions of Delhi Development Act, 1957 shall proceed.
(B) COMPOUNDABE ITEMS Deviations in terms of covered area If a building or part thereof has been constructed unauthorizedly i.e. without obtaining the requisite building permit from the authority as required under clauses 6.1 and 6.7.1 of the Building Bye laws, the same shall be compounded at the following rates CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 152 of 223 pages 153 CBI case . No.27/11 provided the building or part thereof so constructed otherwise conforms to the provisions contained in the Building ByeLaws and Master/Zonal Plan regulations. For this party shall have to submit the request for building permit in the prescribed procedure.
The prescribed procedure is contained in BBL 6 including 6.2.9. In this case compounding was done flouting the prescribed procedure dishonestly as the accused persons knew that in that event their illegal design would fail as true facts would have surfaced and lessor i.e. Central Government, would have intervened and resisted/opposed the move of the party.
383. The relevant provisions contained in NDMC Act, 1994, showing the responsible role of the Chairperson, are as under:
CHAPTER XIV Building Regulations Section 235. General Superintendence, etc. of the Central Government Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the Chairperson shall excercise his powers and discharge his functions under this Chapter, under the general superintendence, direction and control of the Central Government. Section 238. (1) Every person who intends to erect a building shall CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 153 of 223 pages 154 CBI case . No.27/11 apply for sanction by giving notice of his intention to the Chairperson in such form and containing such information as may be prescribed by ByeLaws made in this behalf.
(2) Every such notice shall be accompanied by such documents and plans as may be so prescribed.
Applications for additions to, or repairs of, buildings Section 239. (1) Every person who intends to execute any of the following works, that is to say:
(a) to make any addition to a building;
(b) to make any alteration or repairs to a building involving the removal or re erection of any external or party wall thereof or of any wall which supports the roof thereof to an extent exceeding onehalf of such wall above the plinth level, such half to be measured in superficial meters;
(c) to make any alteration or repairs to a frame building involving the removal or reerection of more than onehalf of the columns or posts in any such wall thereof as aforesaid; or involving the removal or re erection of any such wall thereof as aforesaid to an extent exceeding onehalf of such wall above plinth level, such half to be measured in superficial meters;
(d) to make any alteration in a building involving
(i) the subdivision of any room in such building so as to convert the same into two or more separate rooms; or
(ii) the conversion of any passage or space in such building into a room or rooms;
(e) to repair, remove, construct, reconstruct or make any addition to or structural alteration in any portion of a building abutting on a street CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 154 of 223 pages 155 CBI case . No.27/11 which stands within the regular line of such street;
(f) to close permanently any door or window in an external wall;
(g) to remove or reconstruct the principal staircase or to alter its position;
shall apply for sanction by giving notice in writing of his intention to the Chairperson in such form and containing such information as may be prescribed by byelaws made in this behalf. (2) Every such notice shall be accompanied by such documents and plans as may be so prescribed.
Sanction or refusal of building or work Section 241. (1) The Chairperson shall sanction the erection of a building or the execution of a work unless such building or work would contravene any of the provisions of subsection (2) of this section or the provisions of section 245. (2) The grounds on which the sanction of a building or work may be refused shall be the following, namely:
(a) ..................
(b) ................
(c) ................
(d) .................
(e) .................
(f) ..................
(g) That the land on which it is proposed to erect or reerect such building is vested in the Central Government or Government or in the Council, and the consent of the government concerned or, as the case may be, of the Council has not been obtained, or if the little of the land is in dispute between such person and the Council or any Government, or for any other reason, to be communicated in writing to the person, which is deemed to be just and sufficient as effecting such building.
{Note In this case, the land in question belonged to the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 155 of 223 pages 156 CBI case . No.27/11 Government. Section 2(21) of NDMC Act defines 'land' as "benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and rights created by law over any street"}.
Section 247 Order of demolition and stoppage of buildings or works in certain cases and appeal:
(i) Where the erection of any building or execution of any work has been commenced, or is being carried on, or has been completed without or contrary to the sanction referred to in section 241 or in contravention of any condition subject to which such sanction has been accorded or in contravention of any condition subject to which such sanction has been accorded or in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or byelaws made thereunder, the Chairperson may, in addition to any any other action that may be taken under this Act, make an order directing that such erection or work shall be demolished by the person at whose instance the erection or work has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed, within such period (not being less than five days and more than fifteen days from the date on which a copy of the order of demolition with a brief statement of the reasons therefore has been delivered to that person), as may be, specified in the order of demolition:
Provided that no order of demolition shall be made unless the person has been given by means of a notice served in such manner as the Chairperson may think fit, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order shall not be made:
Provided further that where the erection or work has not been completed, the Chairperson may by the same order or by a separate order, whether made at the time of the issue of the notice under the first proviso or at any other time, direct the person to stop the erection or work until the expiry of the period within which an appeal against the order of demolition if made, may be preferred under sub section(2).
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 156 of 223 pages 157 CBI case . No.27/11 (2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Chairperson made under sub section(1) may prefer an appeal against the order to the Appellate Tribunal within the period specified in the order for the demolition of the erection or work to which it relates. (3) Where an appeal is preferred under subsection (2) against an order of demolition the Appellate Tribunal, may subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of section 255 stay the enforcement of that order on such terms, if any, and for such period, as it may think fit:
Provided that where the erection of any building or execution of any work has not been completed at the time of the making of the order of demolition, no order staying the enforcement of the order of demolition shall be made by the Appellate Tribunal unless security, sufficient in the opinion of the said Tribunal has been given by the appellant for not proceeding, with such erection or work pending the disposal of the appeal.
(4) No court shall entertain any suit, application or order proceeding for injunction or other relief against the Chairperson to restrain him from taking any action or making any order in pursuance of the provisions of tins section.
(5) Subject to an order made by the Administrator on appeal under section 256, every order made by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal under this section, and subject to the orders of the Administrator and the Appellate Tribunal on appeal, the order of demolition made by the Chairperson shall be final and conclusive. (6) Where no appeal has been preferred against an order of demolition made by the Chairperson under subsection(1) or where an order of demolition made by the Chairperson under that subsection has been confirmed on appeal, whether with or without variation, by the Appellate Tribunal and by the Administrator in a case where an appeal has been preferred against the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the person against whom the order has been made shall comply with the order within the period specified therein, or as the case may be, within the period, if any fixed by the Appellate Tribunal or the Administrator CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 157 of 223 pages 158 CBI case . No.27/11 on appeal and on the failure of the person to comply with the order within such period, the Chairperson may himself cause the erection or the work to which the order relates to be demolished had the expenses of such demolition shall be recoverable from such person as an arrear of tax under this Act.
Section 247 is the replica of section 197 of the erstwhile Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.
Section 252. Restrictions on uses of buildings No person shall, without the written permission of the Chairperson, or otherwise than in conformity with the conditions, if any, of such permission
(a) use or permit to be used for human habitation any part of a building not originally erected or authorized to be used for that purpose or not used for that purpose before any alteration has been made therein by any work executed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the ByeLaws made thereunder;
(b) change or allow the change of the use of any land or building;
(c) convert or allow the conversion of one kind of tenement into another kind
384. From the above provisions of Building Bye Laws and NDMC Act, it is clear that the same were blatantly flouted by accused PM Singh(A1), Navinder Kumar Sharma(A3) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal(A4) especially Building Bye laws 6.2.9, 7.5.2, 7.6.1 & 7.6.2 and section 235 to 252 of NDMC Act.
385. In this case zonal plan has been proved as Ex.PW21/A;
Master Plan of Delhi, 2001, has been proved as CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 158 of 223 pages 159 CBI case . No.27/11 Ex.PW30/A; Building Bye Laws, 1983, has been proved as Ex.PW30/B; the inspection report, prepared by the team, which inspected the spot after registration of this case has been proved as Ex.PW4/B and the file containing note Ex.PW38/C, dated 10.01.2003, has been proved as Ex.PW10/C.
386. A bare perusal of the note, dated 10.01.2003 shows that the typed note was written dishonestly, in as much as, instead of 'hall', 'wall' has been mentioned on page one. The compounding was processed in the absence of building plan file without any reason given or sought by accused PM Singh intead photocopies received from the court file information were relied upon. The entire record from the court file, it seems was not mentioned, dishonestly, as that would have brought the true facts on record, including the fact of reenty and that the premises was being used for commercial purpose.
387. In the note, Ex.PW38/C, dated 10.01.2003, it is also recorded on page 3 that "plans submitted by the party were not tallying with the site. Party was called to submit the plans. Party has now submitted the corrected plan". How it CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 159 of 223 pages 160 CBI case . No.27/11 was observed without inspection of the site that the plan did not tally with the site. In case, inspection was carried out, who inspected the site, when it was inspected and where was the inspection report, was not queried by accused PM Singh or by accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal and Navinder Kumar Sharma.
388. Further, it was also not questioned as to where was the note, regarding submission of corrected plans and who submitted and to whom and when. All this shows that the compounding of unauthorized construction in this case was being processed dishonestly from the very beginning in pursuance to criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons with the actual player and beneficiary, accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), who alone used to appear and interact with the public servants of NDMC, accused persons (A1), (A3) and (A4) in this case.
389. The note, Ex.PW38/C, dated 10.01.2003 signed by approver PW47 at point A, clearly shows that the area of the unauthorized construction is mentioned as 490.79 sq. Meters, which is quite sizable. While processing the compounding in this case, it is not understood as to why CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 160 of 223 pages 161 CBI case . No.27/11 its demolition was not set up as a pre condition. The height achieved was mentioned as 14.94 meters in black ink pen, which was of different colour than the pen used by PW47 to sign the note, Ex.PW38/C at the end, it does not match with the ink of signatures of accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal and Navinder Kumar Sharma. Who filled this height was not attempted to be known nor was questioned by accused PM Singh, while evaluating the note submitted to her for compostion of the unauthorized construction in this case.
390. Ex.PW36/B reveals that way back in October, 1985, after having completed additions/alterations in this case, the party itself gave height of the building as 51 feet (more than 15 meters) in the proposed plans, approval of which, the party was seeking. This fact was not taken into consideration as dishonestly and fraudulently a new file, Ex.PW10/C was opened with the very first note, Ex.PW38/C, dated 10.01.2003. The issue which was more than 16 years old and NDMC had rejected the case of the party was taken up with a fresh file & fresh note on 10.01.2003 with undue haste concealing the vital facts is not only disturbing but is shocking.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 161 of 223 pages 162 CBI case . No.27/11
391. All this was done clandestinely to avoid surfacing the true facts and past history of the premises in question and also the decision taken by NDMC qua the unauthorized construction raised in this case. This was obviously for the reasons that had the irregularities noted in the past been brought on record, accused PM Singh would not have been able to approve the compounding of unauthorized construction because height of the building and misuser in this case were illegal. It was clearly observed in the previous decisions of the NDMC.
392. It is reflected in the document Ex.PW36/B of NDMC that the intention of the party was to use the building as a hotel or guest house instead of Group House, as per recommendation of NDRAC. In the said document, it was also observed that ownership documents were not in order.
393. In the court file, Ex.PW40/A, it is clear that this matter was dealt by the previous Chief Architect on 02.03.2002 and the matter was lying dormant. It was only after acused PM Singh joined as Chairperson in the NDMC on 01.11.02 that CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 162 of 223 pages 163 CBI case . No.27/11 accused K.L. Bhatia (A5) became active and the accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy. Accused PM Singh first secured fraudulently health license to accused K.L. Bhatia and then fraudulently approved unauthorized construction, in this case, which was in blatent violation of Building Bye Laws, Zonal Plan, Master Plan of 2001 and NDRAC's recommendations besides violation of the provisions of NDMC Act.
394. Accused PM Singh as Chairperson was to act as a watch dog and protect the interest of the Central Government, interest of the NDMC and public interest. She was not entitled to betray the the trust, reposed in her by the Central Government. She has clearly abused her power and position for the sole reason to benefit accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) to enable him to run illegal commercial activity in the premises in question by running a full fledged hotel and then regularize the unauthorized construction, which was not done by NDMC since the year 1985 as NDMC had been fighting tooth and nail with the party and had gone up to the stage of passing of demolition orders of the premises in question, as per law.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 163 of 223 pages 164 CBI case . No.27/11
395. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the remand order to the NDMC by Ld. Appellate Tribunal of MCD was for regularization of unauthorized construction, illegally. The remand was only to the extent that opportunity of being heard should be given to the party, before taking demolition action. In order to achieve goal and objective of accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), accused PM Singh engineered along with accused (A5) and (A3) & (A4) conspiracy. She first got issued health license illegally to (A5) and then approved the regularization of unauthorized construction, knowing fully well that the premises in fact were being used as a hotel.
396. It is contended on behalf of accused Smt. PM Singh that she joined as Chairperson, NDMC, on 01.11.2002 and remained there till 31.03.2003. That section 241(g) of NDMC Act is not applicable, as the power is discretionary. This contention has no merit as while approving regularization of unauthorized construction, discretion was not exercised as there is no such noting by her in the approval dated 13.02.2003 carving out an exception. Further discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily and CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 164 of 223 pages 165 CBI case . No.27/11 against the interest of the Government or contrary to public interest. The discretion has to be used judiciously and not to enrich a private person illegally as against the public policy or the concern of the Government. Chairperson is a watchdog of the Central Government and is not entitled to destroy public order by adopting dubious ways while abusing discretion.
397. It has been further argued that the word 'land' used in the section, denotes vacant land and not the construction. Section 2(21) of NDMC ACT defines 'land' as inclusive of anything permanently attached to land and thus includes building. The same import has to be taken in section 241(g) of the NDMC Act. This contention of the defence, therefore, is misconceived.
398. The other contention raised is that the provisions of the section are applicable where there is a proposal for erection and re erection or where there is an intention to construct on the land. It is stated that the section 241(g) NDMC Act is not applicable, and as such permission/no objection of L&DO was not required in the present case. This contention too has no merit as the present case was CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 165 of 223 pages 166 CBI case . No.27/11 of addition/alteration since 1985, for which no sanctioned plan existed. For regularization and approval of the revised plans, provisions and procedure laid down in Building Bye Laws, Zonal Plan, Master Plan 2001 and NDMC Act, especially Chapter XIV of which section 241(g) is an integral part, were required to be complied with.
399. The present case was of addition & alteration and compounding was sought by the party. The procedure described in appendix Q as quoted above was to be followed i.e. procedure prescribed for obtaining building permit in BBL 6.1 & 6.2.9 was to be followed.
400. It was further argued that PW30 has deposed that as per Ex.DW4/B, the re entry is an issue between the lessor and lessee. That it had no role to play in the regularization of property by NDMC. Be that as it may, statutory Building Bye Laws, Master Plan 2001 & NDMC Act were mandatorily required to be followed not withstanding what the witness say or the fact that reentry was an issue between lessor or lessee. Building Bye Laws, Master Plan of Delhi 2001, NDMC Act, Zonal Plan were flouted blatantly in this case.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 166 of 223 pages 167 CBI case . No.27/11
401. Ex.PW45/DA is a note, dated 13.01.2006, which doucment came in the cross examination of PW45 by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Smt. PM Singh as a file from MHA was summoned by the defence for cross examination of this witness.
402. Ex.PW45/DA is the copy of note, dated 13.01.2006, which was written by PW45 in his department. Inadvertently, this document has been wrongly typed in the cross examination of PW45 as Ex.PW44/DA. This document prosecution should have placed and proved on record. Thankfully, the defence has insisted and produced this note in the cross examination of PW45 for the judicial notice and attention of this court.
403. A bare perusal of this note makes an interesting reading.
Accused Smt. PM Singh in her defence stated to CBI about the ignorance of non entry by L &DO in respect of property in question and that the file of health license came to her, which was signed by her and on second thought, she scored out her signatures. It was observed in the above said note and rightly so that the defence of accused Smt. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 167 of 223 pages 168 CBI case . No.27/11 PM Singh was inconceivable as she was a senior IAS officer and was required to cross check as to since when and why the proposal for regularization was pending and when the license expired last. It appears that with evil intentions accused PM Singh did not raise such common sense questions, as that would have compelled the staff to place on record history of the case and complete true facts which would have made impossible for her to favour accused K.L. Bhatia (A5)(since deceased).
404. It is further contended by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused PM Singh that she acted on the advice of Chief Architect, who was Technical & Administrative Head in the Department of Architect and Enviorns. That the Chairperson was not familiar or expert in technical administrative matter of that particular branch. That in this case, after the note was put up to her, she put a remark 'please discuss' and after discussion, and note given by the Chief Architect, she appended her signatures. That no criminality can be attributed, therefore, to her. This contention too has no merit. The Chairperson was not a rubber stamp or puppet in the hands of Technical experts. She was required to cross check, ascertain the full & true CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 168 of 223 pages 169 CBI case . No.27/11 facts and carry out the objects and purpose of NDMC Act as head of the NDMC. She was a very Senior IAS Officer. As a common sense, she should have questioned why file was not traceable, what was the background of the case, what pleas of the department were taken before the court, what led the department to take demolition action in the past and what are the relevant provisions. All this was not done as she had been a party to fraudulent issuance of a health license on 15.01.03 to accused K.L. Bhatia and she knew that the premises was being misused as a hotel contrary to section 327 and 331 of NDMC Act. It appears from the circumstances established that the remark 'please discuss' was written by her as an eye wash to falsely justify her illegal act. She knew it well that her sole object was to approve the compounding hurriedly so that accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) continue to run hotel illegally and make huge pecuniary gains.
405. It has further been asserted by the defence that photocopy of D9, which is a note, was not recovered from her residential premises. That PW33 made false statement that accused Smt. PM Singh signed Ex.PW33/A in his presence though at pt. C or anywhere else on the entire document, there is not a single signature of accused Smt. PM Singh. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 169 of 223 pages 170 CBI case . No.27/11 Further, Ex.PW33/A is stated to be a carbon copy of Ex.PW55/A. That the signatures of accused Smt. PM Singh, Mandip Singh and the IO SC Dandriyal are in original and the rest of the persons' are in carbon copy. That fabrication of the seizure memo is apparent as Ex.PW33/A is the carbon copy of Ex.PW55/A and the second page of both do not match. In this regard, it is observed that we can conveniently discard this evidence of the prosecution as it does not have much impact on the otherwise fraudulent compounding done by accused PM Singh fraudulently, violating Building Bye Laws, Zonal Plan, lease deed, Master Plan 2001 and NDMC Act, which stands proved on record without any pale of doubt.
406. It has further been asserted by the defence that testimony of PW47 P.K. Chandra is completely hearsay and is inadmissible. That the allegations made by him are not corroborated. That this witness had no direct discussion or meeting with accused Smt. PM Singh. These contentions have no merit and force. In criminal conspiracy it is not necessary that accused PM Singh should have come in contact with each and every accused. She was acting through accused Subhash Chandra CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 170 of 223 pages 171 CBI case . No.27/11 Aggarwal & Navinder Kumar Sharma, who were superior to PW47 and extending threat & pressure upon PW47 and coerced him to do the compounding in this case with undue haste concealing the reentry, misuser and full and true background of the case. She knew that what is going to be done is illegal in an illegal manner as she had already approved health license fraudulently to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) on 15.01.03. The statement of PW47 made under section 164 Cr.P.C is duly proved on record as per law. PW47 has clearly implicated accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, N.K. Sharma and PM Singh. There is no infirmity in the same. Further it is fully corroborated by other evidence proved on record.
407. It has also been asserted by the Ld. defence counsel for accused PM Singh that the sanction order in respect of this accused is invalid. That one sanction for prosecution in two cases was bad. That the sanction was given without application of mind and was accorded in a mechanical manner. Nothing has appeared on record that the two sanction orders one under section 197 Cr.P.C and the other under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Ex.PW45/A and Ex.PW2/A) passed in respect of CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 171 of 223 pages 172 CBI case . No.27/11 accused PM Singh suffers from any infirmity. The same are in order and are acceptable and are valid and legal.
408. It was held by our own High Court that "if the competent authority after perusing the material signs the draft sanction order, it cannot be said to be suffering from non application of mind". Kiran Pal Singh vs. State, 2011(5) RCR (Criminal) 489(Delhi).
409. It was observed by the Apex Court that "where upon examination of the statement of the witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the appellant should be prosecuted, the sanction was held valid" Kootha Perumal vs. State, 2011(1) RCR(Criminal) 278(SC).
410. In the case law reported as Khem Raj vs. State of J & K, 2006 Cri LJ 1458 at page 1461 (J&K), it has been held that 'in a case from J&K under section 409 of Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, relating to allegation of misappropriation of money by the accused, working in a Post Office, offences had been committed over a period of three years, and accordingly CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 172 of 223 pages 173 CBI case . No.27/11 three charge sheets were presented but sanction for all the three charge sheets was joint. This sanction order was duly proved during trial. Perusal of the sanction order showed that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind before according sanction. It was held that the sanction could not be said to be illegal on the ground that a joint sanction had been given'. The sanction order wherein the sanctioning authority considered the allegations of both the cases and applied its mind, no fault can be found, in this case.
411. It has been further held in the case law reported as Puttaraje Urs vs. State of Karnataka, 2003 Cri LJ 1148 at page 1149 (Kant) that 'where sanction for prosecution of accused was in fact approved by the Secretary to Government who was authorized to sign such orders on behalf of Government, the sanction was valid.'
412. In the case law reported as Ahamed Kalnad vs. State of Kerala, 2001 Cri LJ 4448 (Ker), it has been held that ' where a common sanction order was passed for the prosecution of more than 25 accused persons where offences involved in all cases were similar and were part of an alleged larger conspiracy, it was held that the sanction was CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 173 of 223 pages 174 CBI case . No.27/11 valid'.
413. It is contended on behalf of accused Tribhuvan Singh that no case is made out by the prosecution with respect to the allegations in the charge sheet and charges framed as against this accused.
414. That the accused Tribhuvan Singh had specifically observed that the case may be compounded subject to compliance of various conditions as were laid down in his note dated 07.02.2003.
415. That, admittedly, no regularization took place as the order was conditional and necessary conditions were not fulfilled. That PW47 has not named the present accused either in his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. or in his evidence. That the name/phone number of the present accused does not figure in the call details, relied upon by the prosecution, in this case. That the prosecution has also relied upon recovery of P.K. Chandra's note from the residence of accused Smt. PM Singh but there is no such allegation against the present accused. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 174 of 223 pages 175 CBI case . No.27/11
416. That the prosecution has failed to prove that the sanction qua the present case, was valid and legal. That PW52 has not applied her mind while granting sanction. That she deposed that she took permission from the Chief Minister before according sanction. She further deposed, in cross examination, that it is correct that without permission of the Chief Minister she was not competent to issue sanction. That there is no evidence that the material regarding the present case was ever sent to or was considered by the Chief Minister. That even otherwise, PW52 has abdicated her function/power to grant sanction in the present case. That the sanction, therefore, is bad in law.
417. It has been contended that PW52 is a liar as she deposed that she drafted the sanction order in her own words where as when the same was confronted, the sanction order was found to be a verbatim copy of the draft sanction order, Ex.PW52/(DX) colly sent by the CBI to them. That CBI has admitted that the said draft sanction order was sent to the department. Further, the entire prosecution is void as consent of Government of UP, was not taken in the present case, under section 6 of Delhi CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 175 of 223 pages 176 CBI case . No.27/11 Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. That section 6 of the said Act debars the exercise of any of the functions by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment without the consent of the Government of that State, in which they are to exercise powers and jurisdiction. Three notifications i.e. under section 3, 5 and 6 of DSPE Act are essential with respect to the investigation by the officers of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
418. The notifications issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on June 15, 1989, under section 6 and thereafter by the Central Government under section 5 of the said Act on 23.08.1990 superseding order dated 06.07.1989 quoted by the defence are reproduced as under:
"GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH"
Home (Police) Section 1 No. 3442/VIII184/88, Lucknow, Dated: June 15, 1989 NOTIFICATION In pursuance of the Provisions of Section 6 of the (Act no. 25 of 1946) the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to accord consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh, for investigation of offences punishable under Act 49 of 1988, and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to all or any of the offence or offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the transaction and CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 176 of 223 pages 177 CBI case . No.27/11 arising out of the same facts, subject, however, to the condition that no such investigation shall be taken up in cases relating to the public servants, under the control of the State Government except with the prior permission of the State Government.
BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR Sd/ (S.K. TRIPATHI) HOME SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF UTTAR PRADESH"
"No. 228/40/88AVD.II(I) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) New Delhi, the 23 August, 1990 ORDER S.O..............................in supersession to department of the Personnel & Training order no. No. 228/40/88AVD.II(I), dated 06.07.1989 and in exercise of the powers conferred by the sub section(1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the (Act no. 25 of 1946). The Central Government with the consent of State Government of Uttar Pradesh(vide consent order No. Home(Police) sec. I No. 3442/VIII184/88, dated 15.06.1989 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation of offences mentioned here under:
(a) Offences under (Act no.49/88)
(b) Attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above, and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the same facts.
Provided that this notification will not be applicable to the cases relating to the public servants under the control of the State CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 177 of 223 pages 178 CBI case . No.27/11 Government.
Sd/(C. SITARAMAN) No. 228/40/88AVD II(I) Under Secretary to the Government of New Delhi, the 23 August, 1990 To
1. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, w.r.t. The State Govt.
Govt. order quoted above.
2. The Director, CBI, New Delhi.
3. DIG of Police, CBI, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
4. Ministry of Law (Official Language Wing), New Delhi.
5. CBI(Legal Division) New Delhi, with 5 spare copies."
419. It has, further been contended that the Government of UP has accorded the consent for exercising powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of State of Uttar Pradesh but has debarred the applicability of this notification relating to the Public Servants under the control of State Government except with prior permission of the Government of UP and similarly the Government of India has extended the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of Uttar Pradesh for the investigation of the offences but again has debarred the applicability relating to the cases pertaining to the public servants under the control of State CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 178 of 223 pages 179 CBI case . No.27/11 Government except with the prior permission of Government of U.P.
420. Unless there was a prior permission for registration of case as against Tribhuvan Singh, no investigation and subsequent trial could take place as against him flouting section 6 of the aforesaid enactment. Hence, the registration of the present case, investigation and the subsequent trial qua accused Tribhuvan Singh are bad in law.
421. That the sanction is also bad in law as was accorded with complete non application of mind without examining the notification dated 15 June 1989 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh under section 6 of the D.S.P.E. Act and the notification dated 23.08.1990 under section 5 of the D.S.P.E. Act of the Government of India, therefore, the trial is bad in law.
422. I have considered the contentions mentioned above. First, I come to the sanction accorded in respect of accused Tribhuvan Singh. Admittedly, accused Tribhuvan Singh was under the Control of the Government of UP. At the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 179 of 223 pages 180 CBI case . No.27/11 relevant time, he was on deputation in NDMC and was reverted back to State Cadre. The contention that has been raised with respect to his sanction is that it is invalid. That it is not in accordance with law. That it has been passed without application of mind. That PW52 herself in her cross examination admitted that she was not competent to accord the sanction without the permission of the Chief Minister. That there is nothing on record put by the prosecution to show that the permission of Chief Minister was obtained or the entire material was ever placed before the Chief Minister. There is no whisper in the sanction order that such permission was sought or given by the Chief Minister or was taken by PW52. That once, PW52 abdicated her power, sanction is vitiated.
423. It is well settled that the official in whom the law confides the discretion, must function himself/herself and exercise its power according to his/her own judgment and wisdom in each case coming before her, without any interference or dictation from any higher officer. In the case law reported as Anirudhsinghji Karansinji Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 302, para 11), the Hon'ble Supreme has held that 'the discretion exercise under the direction or CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 180 of 223 pages 181 CBI case . No.27/11 instruction of some higher authority is failure to exercise discretion altogether'. It has further been held by the Apex Court that 'if the authority hands over its discretion to another body, it acts ultravires', {UP Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Ismail, (1991) 3 SCC 239 refers to}.
424. It has further been held by the Supreme Court in the case law reported as State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 505, that "The authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. It would then not be the authority's discretion that is exercised, but someone else's."
425. A bare perusal of the sanction order, Ex.PW52/A shows that it is tampered with and there are interpolations, insertions and tampering on more than one page, which are handwritten and are in different colour ink. No explanation justifying this appears in the testimony of PW52 or otherwise.
426. The prosecution has admitted that the draft of the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 181 of 223 pages 182 CBI case . No.27/11 sanction order was sent alongwith the documents, Ex.PW52(DX) (colly), which was proved on 14.12.2012. A bare perusal of the sanction order on page 1 shows that at the top '03 APRIL' is written in such a manner that '03' with different pen and 'APRIL' is in different ink. Further, APRIL is over written after applying fluid. Besides, there are interpolations/insertions/tampering with at three places with black ball point pen as the colour of ink used appears to be black. Page 4 further shows insertion/interpolation at one place. Page 7 shows interpolations/insertions/tampering at two places. Besides, it is stated that in para 4 at bottom that "on 13.02.2005, consequent to the aforementioned final recommendations, dishonestly made by Shri Tribhuvan Singh, the unauthorized construction, in context, was approved by Smt. P. M. Singh, Chairperson, NDMC". In fact, there is no episode alleged by the prosecution, in this case, to have occurred on 13.02.2005. On page 8, para 5
(iv) of the sanction order, it is stated that "the height shown in the proposal has been shown as 14.04 meters in the proposal approved on 13.02.2003. No such height was mentioned in the note dated 10.2.2003 nor was approved on 13.02.2003. It was mentioned as 14.94 meters. On CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 182 of 223 pages 183 CBI case . No.27/11 page 10 of the sanction order, there are insertions/interpolations/tampering at two places. On page 11, no date has been mentioned and no seal of the Sanctioning Authority has been put. Further, sanction is shown to have been accorded by the Governor and not by the Chief Minister. PW52 deposed in her statement that the sanction was accorded after seeking the permission of the Chief Minister and that without his permission she was not competent to accord the sanction. No rules of conduct of business of the State Government were cited or pointed out by the prosecution or PW52.
427. For the aforesaid reasons, the sanction is invalid and illegal and shows that the same has been passed without application of mind as whatever was stated in the draft sanction was recorded in the Sanction Order as it is, so much so false figures have been lifted as it is from the draft sanction order and were copied as it is in the Sanction Order. It has not been explained as to who and when did the interpolations/insertion/tampering as other parts of the sanction order are typed out.
428. Only last page has been signed by the sanctioning CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 183 of 223 pages 184 CBI case . No.27/11 authority. No date has been mentioned, indicating as to on which date the sanction order was signed actually.
429. In this case, there are no allegations that accused Tribhuvan Singh made recommendations on 13.02.05 as the allegations pertained to the year 2003 only. No explanation has been rendered by the prosecution, in this regard. On the last page i.e. page 11, only initials of Surjit Kaur Sandhu appears, no date and stamp has been put and no explanation for this was rendered by the prosecution or PW52 in her deposition. It appears that something was put then fluid was applied. In any case, it is not explained as to on which date sanction, in fact, was accorded.
430. In cross examination PW52 at one place stated that sanction order was written by us and at other place, it is stated that it was written by her. She also deposed that only a few papers were received from CBI. The material in this case included more than fifty witnesses and trunk load of documents. It appears that whole material was not produced before her and considered by her. She has admited in her cross examination that she was not CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 184 of 223 pages 185 CBI case . No.27/11 competent to accord sanction without permission of Chief Minister, indicating that her according sanction was solely dependent upon someone else. In the entire sanction order there is no whisper that the permission of the Chief Minister was sought by her.
431. Apart from this, two figures which were wrongly mentioned in the draft sanction order admittedly sent vide, Ex.PW52/(DX) (colly) were copied as it is in the sanction order Ex.PW52/A, demonstrating that there was no application of mind while writing the sanction order. Whatever was sent as a draft to the sanctioning authority, the same was blindly copied including the errors. It is also doubtful that PW52 before sigining the sanction order, had seen other pages then the last page as in case, she would have seen the tampering and interpolation, she would have initialed it or would have explained the same in her deposition or would have got the sanction order typed out again. All the above circumstances thus taken cumulatively indicate that the sanction was signed by PW52 in a mechanical manner.
432. All the infirmities stated above taken together, shows that CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 185 of 223 pages 186 CBI case . No.27/11 the sanction order in respect of accused Tribhuvan Singh was passed without application of mind in a mechanical manner and was not legal and valid. In support, following precedents are mentioned.
433. In the case law reported as Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of A.P. (1979) 4 SCC 172 at page 174, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned.
434. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case law reported as R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay, AIR 1984 SC 684 at page 694 that 'a trial without a valid sanction where one is necessary under section 6 is a trial without jurisdiction. A trial without a sanction renders the proceedings ab initio void'.
435. Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 186 of 223 pages 187 CBI case . No.27/11 the case law titled as Major Som Nath vs. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 1910 at page 1913 that 'for a sanction to be valid it must be established that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence with which the accused is proposed to be charged. Though it is desirable that the facts should be referred to in the sanction itself, nonetheless if they do not appear on the face of it the prosecution must establish aliunde by evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authorities'.
436. The Supreme Court thus concluded that 'on a consideration of the whole matter, we are of the positive opinion that the sanctioning authority, in the instant case, was left with no choice except to sanction the prosecution and in passing the order of sanction, it acted mechanically in obedience to the mandamus issued by the High Court by putting the signature on a proforma drawn up by the office'. (Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 3400 at page 3407.)
437. It was thus held that even a high constitutional authority such as the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 187 of 223 pages 188 CBI case . No.27/11 in place of the discretion of the sanctioning authority.
438. Further, in the case law titled as Bhurey Singh vs. State of UP (1993) 2 Crimes 250 at page 252 (All), it has been held that 'Where it appeared that a typewritten sanction order was placed before the sanctioning authority who signed it and where it further appears that it was not on the dictation of the sanctioning authority but the paper came to him from some other source which he signed without applying his own mind, and where the date and the letter number were apparently subsequently filled in with different ink, it was held that the sanction was bad in law as it has not been accorded after application of mind'.
439. Further, in the caw law reported as State vs. V. Devarajan, 2008 Cri LJ (NOC) 28 (Mad), it has been held that 'in a case, it was seen that the sanctioning authority had accorded sanction only on the basis of opinion of the legal advisor. The sanctioning authority had stated in his evidence that he had perused the records, but in his cross examination, he stated that he was satisfied, based on the report of the legal advisor, but the same was not available in the sanction. He had also admitted in his cross CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 188 of 223 pages 189 CBI case . No.27/11 examination that even the name of the legal advisor was not available in the case file. Considering the evidence available on record, it was held that the sanctioning authority had mechanically accorded the sanction based on the opinion given by the legal advisor and without applying his mind to the materials placed before him. Therefore, the said sanction was held to be not a valid sanction as contemplated under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.'
440. Further, in case law reported as Bhagirathi Routray vs. State of Orissa, 1991 Cri LJ 209 at page 213, it was held that 'a look at the relevant documents showed that in reality the sanctioning authority had before him pro forma or draft sanction order, and the sanction order as passed was replica thereof where only the name of the sanctioning authority was inserted. It was held that these circumstances leave no scope for any doubt that the sanction order was passed without application of mind, mechanically and at the behest of the higher officials. The trial was, therefore, held to have been vitiated.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 189 of 223 pages 190 CBI case . No.27/11
441. In the case law reported as Udai Narain vs. State of UP, 2002 (45) All Cri 446 at page 451 (All), it has been held that 'the statements of the witnesses recorded by the IO or other material which were necessary to be considered before according prosecution sanction were not produced. It was thus held that there was no application of mind by the Minister concerned while sanctioning prosecution of the accused. The sanction order was accordingly held to be invalid and was quashed.
442. Further, it has been held in the case law reported as Raghuvir Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 1516 at page 1519 that 'if there is infirmity in the sanction the prosecution must fail'.
443. In the case law reported as Niranjan Khatua vs. State of Orissa, 1990 Cri LJ 2790 at page 2798 (Ori), it has been CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 190 of 223 pages 191 CBI case . No.27/11 held that 'where the date was not mentioned in the sanction order and it was attested merely by initials and there was no examination of witnesses to show that it was given by the appropriate authority after due application of mind, such sanction order would not be valid'.
444. It has been further held in the case law reported as Tirath Prakash vs. State, 2001 Cri LJ 4208 (Del) that 'where the amount of the illegal gratification demanded by the accused was wrongly mentioned in the sanction as Rs.140 instead of the amount of Rs.138 and the said contradiction could not be explained, moreover during his testimony the sanctioning authority could not remember as to whether the draft sanction order was also sent to him by the prosecuting agency along with the record of the case for making a sanction order, it was held that the sanctioning authority granted the sanction without the application of mind and the sanction was held to be invalid.'
445. It has been further held in the case law reported as State of T.N. vs. M.M. Rajendran, (1998) 9 SCC 268 at page 269, that 'where the sanction for prosecution of the accused was held to be invalid, the Supreme Court held that if the sanction had not been accorded for which the criminal case could have been initiated against the accused, there was no occasion either CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 191 of 223 pages 192 CBI case . No.27/11 for the trial court or for the appeal court to consider the prosecution case on merits. Therefore, it was held that the High Court need not have made the finding on merits about the prosecution case. The Supreme Court directed that the finding made by the courts on the merits of the case would stand expunged and would not be taken into consideration in future. It was further held by the Supreme Court that the High Court should have passed the appropriate order by dropping the proceeding and not entering into the question of merits after it had come to the finding that the proceeding was not maintainable for want of sanction. The Supreme Court, however, made clear that it would be open to the State to proceed afresh against the accused after obtaining necessary sanction if the State so desired'.
446. Now, I come to the two notifications quoated by Ld. Defence counsel of accused Tribhuvan Singh and not countered by CBI.
447. It has been stated that there are two notifications i.e. one of State Government and other of Central Government, according to which, before initiating investigation against Tribhuvan Singh, consent of State government in terms of section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, was required to be obtained.
448. The notifications issued by the Government of Uttar CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 192 of 223 pages 193 CBI case . No.27/11 Pradesh on June 15, 1989, under section 6 and thereafter by the Central Government under section 5 of the said act on 06.07.1989 as quoted are as under:
"GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH"
Home (Police) Section 1 No. 3442/VIII184/88, Lucknow, Dated: June 15, 1989 NOTIFICATION In pursuance of the Provisions of Section 6 of the (Act no. 25 of 1946) the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to accord consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh, for investigation of offences punishable under Act 49 of 1988, and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to all or any of the offence or offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the transaction and arising out of the same facts, subject, however, to the condition that no such investigation shall be taken up in cases relating to the public servants, under the control of the State Government except with the prior permission of the State Government.
BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR Sd/ (S.K. TRIPATHI) HOME SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF UTTAR PRADESH"
"No. 228/40/88AVD.II(I) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) New Delhi, the 23 August, 1990 ORDER CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 193 of 223 pages 194 CBI case . No.27/11 S.O..............................in supersession to department of the Personnel & Training order no. No. 228/40/88AVD.II(I), dated 06.07.1989 and in exercise of the powers conferred by the sub section(1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the (Act no. 25 of 1946). The Central Government with the consent of State Government of Uttar Pradesh(vide consent order No. Home(Police) sec. I No. 3442/VIII184/88, dated 15.06.1989 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation of offences mentioned here under:
(a) Offences under (Act no.49/88)
(b) Attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above, and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the same facts.
Provided that this notification will not be applicable to the cases relating to the public servants under the control of the State Government.
Sd/(C. SITARAMAN) No. 228/40/88AVD II(I) Under Secretary to the Government of New Delhi, the 23 August, 1990 To
1. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, w.r.t. The State Govt.
Govt. order quoted above.
2. The Director, CBI, New Delhi.
3. DIG of Police, CBI, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
4. Ministry of Law (Official Language Wing), New Delhi.
5. CBI(Legal Division) New Delhi, with 5 spare copies."
449. The CBI could not counter the two notifications pointed CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 194 of 223 pages 195 CBI case . No.27/11 out by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Tribhuvan Singh. There is no explanation which came forth from the prosecution to explain other infirmities noted in the sanction order of the accused Tribhuvan Singh.
450. Admittedly, the investigation in this case was not on the direction of either Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such, it was obligatory on the part of Investigation Agency to comply section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and also the notification of the Central Government and State Government issued in this behalf and which were quoted by Ld. Defence counsel. That being so, I have no option but to accept the contentions raised on behalf of defence that the proceedings against accused Tribhuvan Singh are vitiated.
451. I am of the opinion that section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, in this case was flouted by the Investigating Agency.
452. Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, postulates that the Central Govt. may by order extend to any area the powers and jurisdiction of members CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 195 of 223 pages 196 CBI case . No.27/11 of Delhi Special Police Establishment for investigation of any offence or classes of offences specified in a notification under section 3. However, the provision of Sec. 6 contain a 'non obstante' clause and provide that nothing contained in Sec 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area without the consent of the Government of that State. (Akhand Pratap Singh Vs CBI 2005 (4) CCR 17 (All) Relying upon State of W. B. V/s Sampat Lal AIR 1985 SC 195.
453. It was observed in Dharmendra Deo Mishra Vs. CBI, 2005 Cri. L J 180 (All) that "when there is a statutory provision to exercise the powers and jurisdiction by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment given under the said Act, section 6 of which does not permit to exercise such powers in the state without its consent, the CBI could not have exercised its powers suo moto without following the said statutory provision. There is a complete bar in Sec. 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to exercise of powers by CBI conferred on it under section 5, therefore, without consent of the State Govt."
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 196 of 223 pages 197 CBI case . No.27/11
454. Thus, on twin counts, i.e. invalid and illegal sanction and for want of compliance of section 6 of Delhi Special Police Act, the proceedings against accused Tribhuvan Singh are vitiated and are held void abinitio. Since the proceedings against accused Tribhuvan Singh are being held void abinitio, no observation on the merit of the case as against him are being made to prejudice either of the side. The CBI, however, even now is at liberty to proceed, as per law.
455. It is contended on behalf of accused Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4) that on 22.01.1986, L & DO re entered the premises whereafter the premises vested with the President of India. A communication in this regard, dated 03.02.1986 was endorsed to the Secretary, NDMC. The L & DO initiated the proceedings to obtain possession and thereafter, accused Prem Lata Bhatia offered to compromise the issue with L & DO. Subsequently, accused Prem Lata Bhatia entered into litigation with NDMC, which culminated in the order, having been passed by Appellate Tribunal of MCD, dated 15.01.2002 whereby the appeal preferred by her, was accepted and the impugned notice/order under section 195 & 193 (2) of Punjab CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 197 of 223 pages 198 CBI case . No.27/11 Municipal Act, 1911, were set aside. The order was set aside mainly for the reason that Principals of natural justice were not followed, in as much as, opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the appellant. The Ld. Tribunal, therefore, asked the Chief Architect to give opportunity of being heard to the party and decide the matter afresh, within a period of two months, treating the notices issued as fresh notice under section 195 of the Punjab and Municipal Act, 1911.
456. That accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased)(A5) appeared before the Chief Architect on 08.03.2002 and submitted that the construction had been carried out long back and may be regularized. He undertook to furnish sanctioned plans and the plans of construction, which were actually carried out, by 05.04.2002 and that thereafter, certain plans were submitted on 24.04.2002 and 01.05.2002 by accused K.L. Bhatia. According to the prosecution, it was alleged that a criminal conspiracy was hatched amongst accused persons and in pursuance to the same, Sh. P.K. Chandra, JE, took up the matter with great urgency, opened a new file and prepared a lengthy typed note, dated 10.01.2003, which led to compounding of CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 198 of 223 pages 199 CBI case . No.27/11 unauthorized construction in this case, despite the fact that the height of the property was beyond compounding limits. That the note concealed the fact that the property had been re entered by L & DO. That the property was being used as a Centre Point Hotel, in violation of the Master Plan and Bye Laws. That the Master Plan and Bye Laws were violated.
457. That subsequently, Sh. P. K. Chandra, who was also accused, turned approver on his request and alleged that it was under pressure and threat of the accused persons, including the Chairperson that he was made to sign the note, dated 10.01.2003. It was also alleged that the alleged unauthorized construction could not have been compounded as the same are beyond terms of appendix 'Q' of Delhi Building Bye Laws, 1983, specifically, in terms of height and use of the building and for the reasons that the building was earmarked for group housing.
458. That the CBI during investigation, also carried out inspection of the premises, in which it was found that the height of the building was more than the prescribed limit. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 199 of 223 pages 200 CBI case . No.27/11
459. That as per Ex.PW11/J, which is D40, there is a note in the file, dated 08.11.73 wherein it is mentioned that "L&DO may, therefore, kindly re enter upon the premises to safe guard the Government interest under clause 3 of the Lease Deed for the breach of clauses 2(5) and 2(6) thereof."
460. That in February, 1985, the NDMC sanctioned plans for addition/alteration conditionally in respect of the said property, vide Ex.PW29/A. Subsequently, vide Ex.PW28/A, the premises were inspected on 09.08.85 by the then JE, who noted unauthorized construction and other voilations. Notice, Ex.PW14/B, under section 195A, dated 14.08.1985, therefore, was issued to the party. That regarding issue of re entry, resolution no. 84(36), dated 04.08.1978, which is Ex.PW14/A, was passed by the committee wherein it was observed that "the committee further recommends that so far as the question of re entry is concerned, this is a case between lessor and lessee and should be sorted out at their level".
461. It has, therefore, been contended by these accused persons (A3) & (A4) that regularization of unauthorized construction had nothing to do with re entry. It has further CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 200 of 223 pages 201 CBI case . No.27/11 been stated that in several cases despite re entry by L &DO, the cases were processed by NDMC, regarding unauthorized construction.
462. There is no merit in the aforesaid contentions of defence in this regard. Admittedly, knowing well that the premises was reentered and was being used as a hotel instead of Group Housing/residential purpose. These facts were concealed by the accused persons from the notings which culminated in approval of compounding of unauthorized construction. It is apparent and clear that in order to flout Building Bye Laws, Zonal Plan, Master Plan 2001, NDMC Act etc, the factum of noentry and misuser of the premises was concealed. Presuming that the reentry had no impact on compounding, still Apendix Q and Building Bye Laws, Zonal Plan, NDRAC's recommendations and Master Plan of Delhi, 2001 were to be complied as it was a case of addition/alteration on massive scale without any sanctioned plan coupled with misuser. It was a case of misuser of residential property for commercial purpose as a hotel, well known to NDMC much prior to when the case was processed. In response to letter dated 02.08.1999 of L & DO which was duly received in NDMC and copy marked CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 201 of 223 pages 202 CBI case . No.27/11 to Chief Architect, health license was cancelled in the year 2000. No guest house/hotel could operate in the premises under the Building Bye Laws or Master Plan of Delhi, 2001. The facts available on record were deliberately concealed and a new file was opened, mischievously. Both accused (A3) and (A4) terrorised PW47 on behalf of accused PM Singh(A1), their supreme boss, to sign the note, Ex.PW38/C. Besides, accused (A4) was in constant and frequent touch with accused (A5) during the relevant period as is born out of the call details proved by PW12 vide Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/D on record. Nothing appeared in the cross examination of PW12 to help the accused persons. The evidence led by the prosecution regarding call details can be accepted as the prosecution has cited case law reported as :
463. In the case law reported as State (N.C.T of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, decided on 04.08.2005 , it has been held that " section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original of such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 202 of 223 pages 203 CBI case . No.27/11 produced in the court. That is what the High Court has also observed at para 276. Hence, print outs taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service providing company can be led into evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak to the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the compliance of requirements of section 65B which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the provisions of Evidence Act namely, section 63. It may be that the certificate containing the details in sub section (4) of section 65B is not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely section 63 &65".
464. Transcripts of intercepted calls were held to be fully covered by section 10 of Evidence Act and were held that there was no reason to take them into consideration in support of the charge of conspiracy against the accused {MAM Amir Kasab vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012(4) CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 203 of 223 pages 204 CBI case . No.27/11 Recent Apex Judgment (RAJ) 544}.
465. It has been contended that in this case, since the plans submitted by the party did not contain proper dimention, scale etc, the party was asked to submit corrected plans and the party submitted corrected plans in November, 2002, which were processed and note, dated 10.01.2003 was prepared in the light of the amended Master Plan and Bye Laws as in the year 2001.
466. It is also contended that the proposal was examined on the basis of plans submitted by the party and not on the basis what existed at the spot. That since neither the earlier sanctioned plans nor the rejected revised plans were available with the department, only documents available from the court file were taken into consideration.
467. The above contentions are totally misconceived and paradoxical. On the one hand, it is stressed that the plans were considered on the basis of what was submitted and not on the basis of what existed at the site. On the other hand, the note, Ex.PW38/C itself recites that since the plan did not confirms to the true position at site, the party was CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 204 of 223 pages 205 CBI case . No.27/11 asked to file correct plans and then the party filed the plan, as per site. Admittedly, there was no sanctioned plan of the building. Everything constructed was unauthorized. In court file the entire stand taken by the NDMC was available. After all NDMC had been resisting claim of the party tooth & nail since 1985 and till 2002. Accused (A3) and (A4) did not bring the true history of the case on record including that the premises was reentered, the premises was being misused as a hotel, the height of the building achieved by the party itself was given as 51'(more than 15 meters) in OctoberNovember, 1985 after the construction was completed. The appellate MCD Tribunal did not create any right for the party to sustain unauthorized construction. It only extended the party opportunity of being heard by the Chief Architect. Accused (A3) and (A4) did not follow the provisions of Building Bye Laws, Master Plan of Delhi, 2001, Zonal Plan, NDMC Act etc, dishonestly, despite the fact that it was a case of revised building plan permit as proved by PW40.
468. The note, Ex.PW38/C contained false factual position. The note indicated that the site plan submitted by the party were not correct as per site. When no inspection of the site CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 205 of 223 pages 206 CBI case . No.27/11 was conducted how this could be stated in the said note. Accused (A1) did not raise this common sense question, nor did accused (A3) & (A4). It is clear that for oblique motive it was not done. It is clear that in pursuant to the criminal conspiracy accused (A1), (A3) & (A4) were propelling fake and fraudulent factual matrix.
469. PW47, P.K. Chandra in his statement, admitted his signatures appended below the note, dated 10.01.2003 but stated that he did not prepare the same. He has also deposed that he has stated to the accused persons that the property in question was a re entered property but still the same was not mentioned in the said note. PW47 has clearly proved complicity of these accused persons which is fully corroborated by other evidence on record and circumstances established on record.
470. Even otherwise, Section 133 of the Evidence Act provides that
(i) The deposition of an accomplice in a crime who has not been put to trial, can be relied upon.
(2) An accomplice is a competent witness as he deposes in the court after taking oath and there is no prohibition in CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 206 of 223 pages 207 CBI case . No.27/11 any law not to act upon his deposition without corroboration. {Prithpal Singh vs. State of Punjab 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 791(SC) also 2005(1) Apex Criminal 114(SC) are relied upon}.
471. Regarding issue of use of premises, it is contended that the proposal nowhere indicated that the premises will be used for the purpose other than residential and that the compounding charges were levied only for residential purpose and therefore, the case was not processed on the basis of mis use nor any mis use was sanctioned/permitted. This is totally misconceived contention as, the NDMC was very well in the know of misuse of the property as a hotel. The letter dated 02.08.1999 of L &DO received by NDMC was duly marked to Chief Architect and the unauthorized construction cell, complaining misuse of the premises as a hotel on the basis of which health license of Center Point was cancelled by the NDMC in the year 2000. Having full knowledge that the premises was being used for commercial purpose, in the garb of residential basis, accused (A1), (A3) & (A4) were dishonestly processing the case by twisting the facts while withholding the true information.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 207 of 223 pages 208 CBI case . No.27/11
472. It was contended by Ld. Counsel for accused (A3) & (A4) that PW48 in cross examination stated that the measurement of the height of building was taken with the help of the scale. That it is impossible to take measurement of the height of the building by scale. It is admitted that the witness was not asked about the nature and length of the scale. This, therefore, cannot be the sole basis to discard the height given in the report, Ex.PW4/B. The inspection team as is evident from their report, Ex.PW4/B mentioned the height of the building on inspection much more than the permissible limit of 15 feet. Let us discard the height given by the report, Ex.PW4/B for a moment. The prosecution has placed on record, the record of NDMC when revised plan of the party were rejected in 1985. At that time party itself has given the height of the building achieved as 51 feet in the revised plan. There is thus no merit in this contention of the defence that height of the building was less than 15 meters.
473. Sanction, Ex.PW22/A in respect of accused Subhash Chandra Aggarwal and N.K. Sharma is in order and there CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 208 of 223 pages 209 CBI case . No.27/11 is no infirmity or irregularity or that the sanction has been accorded without application of mind. The sanction in respect of the aforesaid three accused persons has been accorded after due application of mind by the competent authority, which was competent to remove them from service. The sanction in respect of these accused persons, therefore, is valid and in accordance with law. It is well settled that the court has not to consider hyper technicalities in the matter of sanction.
474. In the case law reported as State of Maharashtra Tr. C.B.I. vs. Mahesh G. Jain, Criminal appeal no. 2345 of 2009, decided on 28th May, 2013, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "Minor irregularities or technicalities in the sanction order are not to be given Everstine status".
475. The contentions on behalf of accused (A3) & (A4) have absolutely no merit.
476. It is contended on behalf of accused Prem Lata Bhatia that evidence on record does not connect her with any of the alleged offences. That it is the admitted case that accused (A5) entered into agreement to sale of the property CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 209 of 223 pages 210 CBI case . No.27/11 in question. That he applied for the renewal of (health) license and that accused Prem Lata Bhatia never contacted any official of NDMC and there is absolutely no evidence of conspiracy against her. That PW12 has produced telephone record to suggest contact/talk amongst subscribers of the telephone mentioned in the record, proved by him but there is no evidence to show that accused Prem Lata Bhatia was ever in contact with any NDMC officials or any of the public servant accused persons. She never talked or appeared before NDMC officials.
477. That accused Prem Lata Bhatia is a house wife and did not raise any unauthorized construction. That she was prosecuted by the NDMC for unauthorized construction, in which case, she was admittedly acquitted by the then court of Ld. MM, New Delhi. Certified copy of the judgment has been filed by her on record of this case.
478. It has further been contended that all acts connected with the construction, conduct/running of Centre Point Hotel were done by lessee Mr. Ganga Prasad Kedia or accused K.L. Bhatia(A5). That accused Prem Lata Bhatia was, being General Power of Attorney, required by the lessee to CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 210 of 223 pages 211 CBI case . No.27/11 sign certain papers. That she used to sign in good faith as Hindu Traditional wife on the asking of her husband and lessees. That she never knew the terms of lease deed. That she never executed any document in respect of the premises with NDMC/L&DO. That she never intended to cause any wrongful loss to NDMC nor caused any wrongful loss. That she was GPA of Ganga Prasad Kedia who is not an accused in this case. She was not using the premises. She had no title or interest in the property in question. She cannot be prosecuted vicariously as there is no such law. There is no documentary/oral evidence on record to connect her with the alleged offences. Copies of two challans were not proved, as per law. There is no evidence collected by the IO as to who paid the money reflected in these challans besides, the money came from whom has not been proved. That it was accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), who was dealing with NDMC, in person.
479. That accused Prem Lata Bhatia had never run any unauthorized lodging house in that premises. That she made no pecuniary advantage. That she was not in the actual physical possession of the premises. That the terms CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 211 of 223 pages 212 CBI case . No.27/11 of General Power of Attorney executed in her favour were redundant in as much as same were repugnant to the supplementary agreement for sale dated12.01.1988, executed between lessees.
480. That filing of petition as attorney of Ganga Prasad Kedia and others before the competent court of law by accused Prem Lata Bhatia cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as part of conspiracy or illegal act. Filing of petitions was a legal act done in a legal manner.
481. There is no evidence on record that accused Prem Lata Bhatia appeared before any authority in person. On the contrary, it was accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia (since deceased), who used to appear before authorities and produced plans of construction. PW47, P.K Chandra, approver has also not connected accused Prem Lata Bhatia with the alleged conspiracy and the alleged offences.
482. The contentions raised by the Ld. counsel for accused Prem Lata Bhatia (A6) have merit and are acceptable. The CBI has not been able to counter the contentions CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 212 of 223 pages 213 CBI case . No.27/11 mentioned above and point out even an iota of admissible evidence as against her much less cogent one. The CBI has miserably failed to prove her signatures on even a single document. The IO failed to connect accused Prem Lata Bhatia with the alleged offence of conspiracy in this case, as he collected no such evidence. Ganga Prasad Kedia and others for whom this accused was acting as GPA are neither accused nor witness in this case. In the absence of any cogent evidence, accused Prem Lata Bhatia cannot be held guilty. There is no provision of law regarding alleged offences that she can be held responsible vicariously either. She (A6) is, therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
483. It is well settled that criminal conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and no direct evidence may be possible. Circumstantial evidence can always prove it.
484. In the case law reported as State of M. P. V Sheetla Sahai, 2009, Cr. LJ 4436 SC, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"Often criminal conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and for proving the offence substantial direct evidence may not be possible to be obtained. An offence of criminal conspiracy can also be proved by circumstantial evidence."
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 213 of 223 pages 214 CBI case . No.27/11
485. In the case law reported as Chaman Lal Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 2972, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"Essence of conspiracy is unalwful combination and the complicity of the accused has to be decided after considering all the circumstances proved, before, during and after occurence. Agreement between the conspirators may also be proved by necessary implication."
486. In the case law reported as R. K. Dalmia V The Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"It is not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy."
487. In the case law reported as Tribhuvan Nath Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC P 450, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"Evidence of one accused can be used against the other accused to prove the existence of conspiracy under section 10 of the Evidence Act."
488. In the case law reported as AIR 1974 SC P 898, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"Even admission of one accused under section 10 of the Evidence Act, can be used against other accused CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 214 of 223 pages 215 CBI case . No.27/11 to prove criminal conspiracy."
489. In the case law reported as Kehar Singh Vs. State AIR 1988 SC 1883, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"Action or statement made by one of the accused could be used as evidence against the other by Virtue of Section 10 of the Evidence Act."
490. Section 10 of the Evidence Act, therefore, can be employed in this case to prove the complicity of accused persons (A1), (A3) and (A4) in this case.
491. It was held in the case law reported as AIR 2010 SC 3718 'Muriappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' that :
"Facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. It does not mean that each and every hypothesis suggested by accused must be excluded by proved facts."
492. It was further held that :
"False and inconsistent defences taken by the accused can be taken as additional circumstance against him strengthening the chain of circumstances."
493. In the case law reported as Hashim (K) 2005 Cri LJ 143 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "for an offence punishable under section 120B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 215 of 223 pages 216 CBI case . No.27/11 perpetrators expressly agree do to or cause to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication".
494. In the case law reported as (2001) 4 Crimes 247 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "to prove conspiracy, it is not necessary that there should be direct communication between each conspirer and every other but the criminal design alleged must be common to all".
495. It has been held in the case law reported as Firozuddin Basheeruddin (2001) 7 SCC 596 that "the rationale of conspiracy is that the required objective manifestation of disposition to criminality is provided by the act of agreement. Conspiracy is a clandestine activity. Persons generally do not form illegal covenants openly. In the interest of security, a person may carry out his part of a conspiracy without even being informed of the identity of his co conspirators. An agreement of this kind can rarely be shown by direct proof, it must be inferred from circumstantial evidence of what lies in their minds".
496. It was further observed in the aforesaid judgment that "Regarding admissibility of evidence, loosened standards prevail in a conspiracy trial. Contrary to the usual rule, in conspiracy prosecutions, any declaration by one conspirator, made in furtherance of a conspiracy and during its pendency, is admissible against each coconspirator. Despite the unreliability of hearsay evidence, it is admissible in conspiracy CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 216 of 223 pages 217 CBI case . No.27/11 prosecutions. Thus conspirators are liable on agency theory for statements of coconspirators, just as they are for the overt acts and crimes committed by their confrers".
497. From the above precedents, discussion, analysis of the evidence, documents and the admitted position, it is abundantly clear that the accused persons (A1), (A3) & (A4) were acting in pursuance to well organized, systematic and well knit criminal conspiracy and ultimately successfully cheated the Government & NDMC, whose interest, they were required to protect under the law.
498. In the case law cited as Dr. Subramanium Swamay vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh, 2012 AIR (SC) 1185, it was held that :
(i) With concept of socialist, secular & democratic republic, the duty of the court is that any anti corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption.
(ii) In a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to one which seeks to perpetuate it."
499. It has been asserted by the defence during the course of CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 217 of 223 pages 218 CBI case . No.27/11 arugments that there are defects in the investigation. It is true that the present case has not been very effectively and professionally investigated by the Investigating Officer. Had it been investigated effectively much more could have come on the surface. However, so long as case of the prosecution on the basis of circumstances and documents, established and available on record is concerned, the defect, if any, in the investigation does not help the defence at all.
500. In the case law reported as 2007 Cri LJ 758(SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'Defective investigation may discredit the prosecution, but prosecution evidence may not necessarily be discarded on the ground. If the evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy, the court may convict the accused. Reminiscence of investigating officer will not ipso facto weaken the case of the prosecution'.
501. In the case law reported as State vs. Santosh Kumar Singh, 2006(4) Crimes 782 (Del), the Hon'ble High Court has held that 'Courts should not be influenced by suspicious roles played by the investigation officer during investigation and criminal justice should not be made a casualty for wrongs committed by investigation officers.' CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 218 of 223 pages 219 CBI case . No.27/11
502. It was held that "fact that there were lacunas in investigation does not mean that incriminating, evidence, if any, appearing against accused persons has to be ignored" {2012(6) RCR(Criminal) 798 Delhi (DB), Tejpal vs. State}.
503. It was observed by the Apex Court "there is no principle of law that a statement made in court by a police personnel has to be disbelieved. If it obtains that there is nothing to show that policemen were making false statements in the court and they had no enmity with accused, conviction based on their evidence can be sustained." C. Ronald vs. State, 2011(4) RCR(Criminal) 30 (SC).
504. In the case law reported as Dhanraj Singh 2004 Cri LJ 1807 (SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to plying into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designed defectively. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 219 of 223 pages 220 CBI case . No.27/11 would be denied to the complainant party. Then the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice'.
505. From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that all the accused persons namely, PM Singh (A1), Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4)entered into criminal conspiracy to achieve illegal object in an illegal manner i.e. by flouting all rules and regulations, provisions of NDMC Act, Master Plan of Delhi, 2001, Building Bye Laws, Zonal Plan and NDRAC's recommendations to compound the unauthorized construction for the misuse of the premises, which was residential property, as a hotel to enable K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) to achieve huge monitary benefits permanently.
506. Accused PM Singh was appointed as Chairperson to protect the interest of Central Government and NDMC. She has mischievously cheated both the Central Government and NDMC by violating section 235 to 252, 327, 331 and 333 of NDMC Act and by dishonestly allowing issuance of health license fraudulently to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) and approved compounding of unauthorized construction in the premises contrary to lease deed, Master Plan of Delhi, 2001, Building Bye Laws, Zonal Plan and NDRAC's recommendations. Accused (A3) & (A4) too joined hands with accused PM Singh CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 220 of 223 pages 221 CBI case . No.27/11 in attaining the illegal object stated above by criminally misconducting themselves. They all cheated with knowledge, of course, as established in this case, that wrongful loss is caused to NDMC & Central Government (lessor of the property in question) whose interest they were bound to protect, as per law.
507. Accused persons (A1), (A3) & (A4) were acting in unison with accused (A5) (since deceased) in pursuance to criminal conspiracy after having hatched the criminal conspiracy. It is, therefore, established on record that they committed offence, punishable under section 120B read with 418 IPC read with section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
508. The accused persons namely, PM Singh (A1), Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4) are, therefore, held guilty for the offences punishable under section 120 B IPC read with section 418 IPC & under section 418 IPC read with section 120 B IPC.
509. Accused PM Singh (A1), Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4) have committed the above mentioned dishonest acts, by abusing their official power as public servants and in pursuant to a criminal conspiracy entered into amongst them and executed the same and as a result thereof, they caused substantial undue pecuniary gains to CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 221 of 223 pages 222 CBI case . No.27/11 accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) against public interest.
510. To attract provisions of section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, public servant should obtain for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage (i) by corrupt or illegal means or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant or (iii) without any public interest.{R. Sai Bharathi vs. J. Jayalalitha (2004) 2 SCC 9}.
511. Accused PM Singh(A1), Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4) all criminally misconducted and abused their power and position to cause huge monetary gain to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) to run Centre Point Hotel, a commercial activity, by fraudulently permitting compounding of unauthorized construction knowing that residential premises was being used as a hotel illegally. They are, therefore, also held guilty of the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
512. As the prosecution has failed to place and prove any cogent evidence on record as against accused (A6) Prem Lata Bhatia, I have no option but to acquit her. She is, hereby, acquitted.
513. Regarding accused (A2) Tribhuvan Singh, as discussed here in CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 222 of 223 pages 223 CBI case . No.27/11 above, for want of legal and valid sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against him and for want of compliance of section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 proceedings against him are held 'void abinitio'.
514. Accused PM Singh (A1), Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4) are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 120 B IPC read with 418 IPC, under section 418 IPC read with section 120B IPC and under section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
515. Let the convicts PM Singh (A1), Navinder Kumar Sharma (A3) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (A4) be heard on the point of sentence on 27.07.2013.
Announced in the open court ( N. K. Kaushik )
on 23.07.2013 Special Judge, PC Act CBI
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 223 of 223 pages