Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Priya Jain (Nav Sarva Priya Cghs) on 17 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMITABH RAWAT
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)CBI-14, ROUSE
AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000702-2019
CBI Case No. 155/19
CBI Vs. Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya CGHS)
FIR No. : RC1(E)/2006/EOW-VII/CBI/New Delhi
Under
Sections : 120(B) IPC r/w Section 420/511, 468 IPC & 471
IPC & Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d)
of PC Act, 1988 and Section 15 read with Section
13 (1) (d) of PC Act
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Versus
1. Priya Jain (A-1) (Discharged)
W/o Sh. J.K. Jain
R/o 31, Shankar Vihar,
Delhi-110092
2. Praveen Jain (A-2) (Discharged)
S/o Late N.R. Jain
R/o 12, Dayanand Vihar,
Delhi
3. Ashwani Sharma @ Ashwani Kumar (A-3)
S/o Late R.K. Sharma
R/o 291-A, Pocket-C,
Mayur Vihar Phase-II
Delhi-110091
4. J.K. Jain (A-4)
S/o Sh. Anand Kumar Jain
R/o 31, Shankar Vihar,
Delhi-110092
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 1
5. Virender Kaushik (A-5) (Discharged)
S/o Late Tara Chand Kaushik
R/o 1/B, Gazipur Village,
I.P Extension, Delhi Border,
Near Bharat Petroleum,
Delhi
6. Jagjit Singh (A-6)
S/o Sh. Baldev Singh
R/o 398, Nimri Colony,
New Delhi
7. Ashutosh Pant (A-7)
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chander Pant
R/o Flat No. 912, 9th Floor,
Desire Residency, Ahinsa Khand-2,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad,
U.P-201014
8. P.K. Thirwani (A-8)
S/o Late Moti Ram Thirwani
R/o 348, Pocket A-2,
Mayur Vihar-1,
Delhi.
9. M. Mishra (A-9)
S/o Sh. Raj Narain Mishra
R/o B1/38A, Shalimar Bagh
Delhi-110088
10. Mir Singh (A-10) (Expired)
S/o Sh. Nathu Singh
R/o 974, Vivekanand Nagar,
Ghaziabad (UP)
11. Charan Singh (A-11)
S/o Sh. Mir Singh
R/o Bawana, H.No. 642,
P.O Bawana, Distt. Delhi
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 2
Date of institution of the case : 01.08.2007
Arguments concluded : 19.12.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 17.02.2025
JUDGEMENT
1. The present judgment is the culmination of the criminal proceedings initiated against eleven accused persons namely Priya Jain, Praveen Jain, Ashwani Sharma, J.K. Jain, Virender Kaushik, Jagjit Singh, Ashutosh Pant (Private Persons), P.K. Thirwani, M. Mishra, Mir Singh and Charan Singh (Public Servants) in reference to the charge-sheet filed by CBI against them for various offences punishable under Indian Penal Code (IPC, in short) and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act, in short).
As per the charge-sheet, all accused persons were charge-sheeted under Section 120(B) IPC r/w Section 420 IPC, 468 IPC & 471 IPC read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. All public servants (A-9 to A-11) were also charge-sheeted for substantive offence under Section 15 read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.
Accused A-1 & A-2 were additionally charge- sheeted for substantive offence under Section 420/511 IPC and 471 IPC.
Accused A-3 was additionally charge-sheeted for substantive offence under Section 468 IPC.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 3 Accused A-4 was additionally charge-sheeted under Section 420/511 IPC & Section 471 IPC.
Accused A-5 was additionally charge-sheeted under Section 420/511 IPC & 468 IPC.
Accused A-6 was additionally charge-sheeted under Section 420/511, 468 & 471 IPC .
Accused persons namely A-8, A-9, A-10 & A-11 were additionally charge-sheeted under Section 15 read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act.
2. CHARGE-SHEET 2.1 As per the charge-sheet, the allegations in the FIR was that a defunct society by name of Nav Sarv Priya CGHS was got revived on 19.06.2000 on the basis of forged documents prepared by accused Ashwani Sharma and in collusion with other co-accused persons to get land allotted to the society from DDA at concessional rates.
2.2 The Investigation revealed that the society Nav Sarv Priya CGHS was formed and got registered in the RCS, Delhi office vide Registration No. 1293 (GH) on 10/01/1984 by group of teachers with address at 98, Samaypur Badli, Delhi. The Bye- Laws of the society revealed that its aim was to obtain land from the Delhi Development Authority with a view to construct residential accommodation for its members. The promoters of CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 4 this society in the initial stages was Pratap Singh in 1984 with 80 members increased over time to 105 members.
2.3 The society ran into trouble during the period 1989- 91 when the society could not communicate with the RCS office matters relating to functioning of the society and the society could not finalize list of members and even after repeated reminders the society did not respond to show cause notice sent to the society. Finally, liquidation orders were sent to the society by Sh. Satish Mathur, the then Dy. Registrar (GH) on 11.04.1991.
Investigation revealed that on receipt of the liquidation orders, the secretary of the society Sh. Pratap Singh had first sent a letter to Dy. Registrar Sh. Satish Mathur on 20.05.1991 objecting to the orders of liquidation. Sh. Pratap Singh also sent a representation to Registrar dated 20.09.1991 and representation dated 19.10.91 addressed to the Lt. Governor with an appeal to cancel the order to wind up Nav Sarva Priya CGHS Ltd. There was no reply from the Lt. Governor's office. The file was sent to the liquidation branch and liquidator H. K. Sharma was appointed as Liquidator. However, no liquidation could take place as even after sending reminders to the society to deposit the documents, there was no response from Pratap Singh, the then Secretary of the society. The note sheet in the file is silent from 18.04.1991 to 10.02.2000.
Later, the file was put up to AR(S) for appointing Sh M Mishra as Liquidator as the previous liquidator Sh H.K CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 5 Sharma had been transferred.
2.4 Investigation revealed that the process of land allotment was changed by the DDA pursuant to the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in CWP No. 2885/90, titled Kaveri CGHS Vs. Union of India and others. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had issued directions to the DDA to maintain a seniority list of the CGHS on the basis of the date of registration with the RCS office and to allot land to the eligible CGHS strictly as per the seniority list.
2.5 One Shri Praveen Kumar Jain claiming to be the Secretary of the society filed an application dated 28/12/99 and requested for revival of the society. The society was revived on 19/06/2000 by the then RCS.
During enquiry, the promoter members of Nav Sarva Priya CGHS disowned their signature on the resignations. Shri Praveen Kumar Jain got the society revived on the basis of the false/forged documents prepared by Co-accused Ashwani Sharma after a period of 9 years of the order of liquidation on 16/04/1991. In the process, forged resignations were taken on record and accepted and in their place family members/close relatives of accused Praveen Kumar Jain and Priya Jain, namely Smt Usha Jain. Miss Jyoti Jain, Shri Anand Kumar Jain and others were enrolled in the society. Subsequently, they became the members of the management committee of the society. Accused Priya Jain and Praveen Kumar Jain were the alleged CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 6 President and Secretary of the society respectively at the time of revival.
2.6 Documents files of the society were remained Sh. Amar Singh till 1995 after which he handed over the same to Pratap Singh. It was further revealed that no meeting of the society was held after 1990 and that the proceedings shown after 1991 were false and forged.
As per investigation, in the year 1996-97 the documents of the society were disposed off by Pratap Singh through one Ram Bir Singh S/o Maha Singh of Samaipur and one S. C. Gola both Property Dealers, who were in contact with one advocate Sh. M. M Sharma, who was ready to purchase the documents of the society for a sum of Rs.1.20 lakhs, on behalf of J.K. Jain as Architect who was building houses for a number of societies.
2.7 Also, M.M. Sharma (advocate) who had been instructed by J K Jain to purchase the documents of Nav Sarva Priya after inspecting the same, had also informed J. K Jain that the party was demanding Rs. 1.20 lakhs as the price of the documents. Thereafter, M. M. Sharma collected the said amount from J. K. Jain, and paid Rs 1.10 to Ram Bir Singh and S. C Gola, and took over the documents of Nav Sarva Priya CGHS from Ram Bir Singh and handed over the same to J. K. Jain personally on the same day CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 7 2.8 J.K. Jain connived with accused Virender Kaushik and Ashwani Kumar to prepare the forged documents of the society and used these forged documents to revive the society unauthorizedly in connivance with M. Mishra dealing assistant RCS. In the year 1999 Accused J K Jain through accused Virender Kaushik contacted accused Ashwani Kumar to prepare the documents of the society for revival of the same.
Accused J.K. Jain in connivance with accused Ashwani Kumar & Virender Kaushik used forged papers to file an application for revival of the society on 28.12.99 in the name of Praveen Jain. As secretary of the society on receipt of this request M. Mishra the then Dealing Assistant who was in touch with Ashwani Kumar, put up a note to Narain Singh (AR North West). In this note, it was proposed to cancel the winding up orders of Nav Sarva Priya CGHS and also to approve the list of 105 members.
2.9 Investigation revealed that Dealing Assistant cum Liquidator Sh. M. Mishra in his note mentioned that he had examined the complete records of the society including Proceeding Register relating to MC (Management Committee) Meeting, GBM (General Body Meeting), Membership Register, Audit Report upto 1988-89, Unaudited accounts of the society till date and documents relating to Special General Body Meeting.
2.10 Accused M. M. Mishra has also written in his note that the records were found complete and that the society had CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 8 completed the statutory obligation bestowed upon it under the Act and rule i.e. election of MC members was held on 17.10.1999 and that the audit is completed upto 1998-99 and that the society has produced records relating to membership to be sent to the DDA for allotment of land and the records of the membership of 105 members have been verified. It also mentions that the records revealed that out of the previous list of members 20 members have received back their payments and photocopies of resignation letters M C resolutions and proof of payment have been submitted. The note further stated that the society had enrolled 20 new members in their place and all these have been verified from original records and are in order. This was sent up to the RCS for approving the list of 105 members and for canceling the winding up order.
Accused M. Mishra intentionally concealed the fact that Pratap Singh the original secretary of the society had appealed to the Lt. Governor of Delhi in the year 1991 to cancel the liquidation orders, for which reply from the office of the Lt. Governor was awaited. This fact was not mentioned in the note put up by the dealing assistant Sh. M. Mishra. He also failed to inquire from H.K. Sharma, the previous liquidator about the fate of the members of the said society.
2.11 Investigation revealed that Asst. Registrar Sh. Narayan Singh has categorically mentioned in para 5 of his note that "as the fact stated in the note of the Dealing Assistant has been verified by him from original records proposal of "A on CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 9 page 16/N may be perused and approved". This note was put up to Joint Registrar Krishan Kumar who had put up a note mentioning therein that the request may be considered after giving an opportunity and hearing by RCS and date and time may be mentioned.
2.12 Investigation revealed that on the note of the Joint Registrar Kishan Kumar, notice was issued by the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Society to the MC members to appear before the RCS on 08.06,2000, along with the affidavit. This notice was received by M. Mishra. Dealing Assistant/Liquidators to be served to the MC of the society.
2.13 On the basis of the notice, accused Praveen Jain alleged secretary of the society appeared before the RCS Sh R K. Srivastava in the presence of Narain Singh (AR) and Krishan Kumar (JT Registrar). The RCS made a noting in the file about the proceedings of that day and also mentioned about the affidavit submitted to the Secretary, about carrying out statutory obligation Here it is pertinent to point out that signatures of Praveen Jain were forged and he himself was appearing before RCS which clearly establishes that this forgery was done at his own instance.
Sh. Narain Singh marked the file to Deputy Registrar Sh. B M Sethi with the recommendation for approval of canceling of winding up proceeding u/s 63 (3) of DCS Act and or forwarding the list of 105 members to DDA for allotment of land.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 10 On 08.06.2000, a notice was issued to the society for the personal appearance before R.K. Srivastava, RCS along with affidavits and notice for this was taken by M Mishra. In compliance of this notice Praveen Jain, Secretary of the society was present before the RCS along with affidavit Krishan Kumar, Joint Registrar and Narain Singh, Assistant Registrar were also present. The affidavit bears the signatures of Priya Jain in her capacity as President of the societies. Sh. Virender Kaushik has forged signatures of Praveen Jain. Sh. R. K. Srivastava has identified Praveen Jain by his photographs. Sh. R.K. Srivastava on 08/09.06.2000 ordered for revival of the society.
2.14 Investigation revealed that it was Praveen Jain who appeared on 08.06.2000 along with the affidavit, in which GEQD had given its opinion as positive on the signature of Smt. Priya Jain, who had signed as President of the society, the other signature of the secretary was signed by Virender Kaushik, (as Praveen Jain). Priya Jain being the sister of Praveen Jain was well aware of the signatures of her brother Praveen Jain. She allowed the forged signatures of Praveen Jain (forged by Virender Kaushik an employee of her husband J K Jain) to be submitted to the RCS office on 08.06.2000.
2.15 Investigation revealed that Sh. Charan Singh, M. Singh and P.K Thirwani have audited the accounts of the society for the year 1991-98, 2001-02 and 1999-2000 respectively. Audit was conducted on the basis of documents made available by JK Jain, Virender Kaushik and Praveen Jain. In the statement of CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 11 Naveen Kaushik, it has been revealed that PK Thirwani has signed the audit report in the office of Sh Ashwini Sharma and written the name of Praveen Jain, Priya Jain and Jyoti Jain in his handwriting. The three auditors submitted audit report for the years mentioned above.
2.16 Investigation revealed that the proceeding register dated 08.02.91 was manipulated by Virender Kaushik, an employee of JK Jain, and he had shown 20 members to have resigned in the meeting held by Abhay Singh. Shiv Lal, Ved Prakash, K C Yadav and Jagdish Rai. Sh. Virender Kaushik forged the signatures of the 5 members as mentioned above. In this proceeding, 20 members were shown to have resigned form the primary membership and Virender Kaushik has forged the signature on minutes of proceeding at the bottom of the page.
2.17 Investigation revealed that none of the said members had ever resigned and they were not aware of the fact that they have been shown as resigned. During Investigation Sh. Amar Singh, Om Prakash Yadav, Yogesh Yadav (son of Ram Kali, now expired), Arvind Yadav (S/o SD Yadav, now expired), K C Yadav, Hukam Singh, Rajeev Yaday (son of late Nihal Singh, both father and son were members and were shown to have resigned) were examined all the above said persons have stated that they had never resigned from the society and in their knowledge and belief they are still members of the said society.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 12 2.18 Investigation also revealed that applications of the 20 new members have been filled by Virender Kaushik who has also signed their application forms except Smt. Priya Jain, who has signed her own application as opined by GEQD. The application of Ashish Aggarwal, Vinay Jain, Aditya Aggarwal, NR Jain, Siddharta Jain, R P Jain, Ravinder Prasad Bhatt, Shobha Jain, Praveen Kumar Jain, Jyoti Jain, Smt Usha Jain have been filled and signed by Virender Kaushik.
2.19 Investigation further revealed that Virender Kaushik again manipulated the proceedings dated 11.03.91 and signed as Abhay Singh, Shiv Lal, Ved Prakash, KC Yadav and Jagdish Rai. GEQD has confirmed this. In this meeting 10 new members were shown to have been inducted.
2.20 During investigation, it was further revealed that Virender Kaushik again manipulated the proceedings dated 04.04.91 and signed as Abhay Singh, Shiv Lal and K C Yadav. In the minutes of the meeting, Sh Abhay Singh, Ved Prakash, Shiv Lal, K C Yadav were shown to have attended the meeting and their signatures were forged by Virender Kaushik. GEQD has given positive opinion on these except for the signature of Ved Prakash.
2.21 Investigation revealed that Virender Kaushik forged signatures on the minutes of the proceedings held on 17.10.1999, which was shown to have been attended by M. Raj, K Kumari, H. Singh, Santosh Raj, Shiv Lal, Zile Singh and others.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 13 Investigation has revealed that Ashwini Kumar prepared the minutes as proved by GEQD opinion. Virender Kaushik has written the names of the members showing their presence and forged their signatures. This General Body Meeting has shown to have inducted 10 new members and accused Priya Jain was shown to have been elected as President, Usha Jain as Vice President, Praveen Jain as Secretary, Jyoti Jain as Treasurer and Anand Kumar Jain as member of the Management Committee.
2.22 Investigation revealed that accused persons viz. J K Jain used to ask Naveen Kaushik about the status of the completion of the records of the society.
2.23 Investigation revealed that Sh. Narain Singh AR on 19.06.2000 put up a letter enclosed with the list of 105 members of the society. This letter dated 19.06.2000 addressed to Assistant Registrar Policy, RCS, Government of Delhi, Parliament Street, New Delhi with the request that list of 105 members is being forwarded for further transmission to DDA (G/H) for allotment of land. On 03.10.2000, Sh. B M Sethi signed a letter addressed to DDA.
2.24 During investigation, it was found that the society was further sold to Jagjit Singh although no evidence has come to substantiate this except the statement of Naveen Kaushik. Shri Paras Nath, Clerk, DDA has confirmed that DDA had not allotted any land to this society and has given a certificate to this effect.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 14 2.25 Investigation revealed that the proceedings dated 12.11.99 was prepared to show that all formalities have been completed regarding revival of the society and proposal/request should be moved to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for revival of the society. In this proceeding, it has been shown that the meeting was held in the presence of Priya Jain, Usha Jain, Jyoti Jain, Praveen Kumar Jain and Anand Kumar Jain. Virender Kaushik and Jagjit Singh have signed this proceeding. Similarly, in meeting dated 15.01.2000 both Virender Kaushik and Jagjit Singh have signed. Further, the minutes shown on 17.03.2000 mentions that Mishra was appointed Liquidator and Virender Kaushik and Jagjit Singh have signed the minutes. During search conducted on 22.06.2006, documents of the society were recovered from the residence/office of Jagjit Singh.
2.26 Investigation revealed that Ashwani Kumar had signed the election report without any appointment. He has also written the proceeding register on different dates. Naveen Kaushik in his statement stated that Ashwani Kumar contacted P.K. Thirwani auditor to sign the false audit report of the society for the period 2000-2001.
The statement of Naveen Kaushik proves that Ashutosh Pant was the person who wrote the body of the forged affidavits of 20 members of the Jain family and also got the audit done by P.K. Thirwani who has signed as Priya Jain, Praveen Jain and Jyoti Jain. GEQD has not given any opinion on this.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 15 2.27 Accused M. Mishra had dealt with the file for revival of this society, and had suppressed vital facts of the society such as the fact that society's secretary Sh. Pratap Singh had applied to the then Lt. Governor for cancellation of the winding up orders passed by the then Ky Registrar Sh Mathur. He also did not verify the genuineness of the applicant who came up suddenly after 9 years for revival of the society. He with a malafide intent handed over the notice issued to the President/Secretary of the society to appear before the RCS on 08.06.2000 for personal hearing to Praveen Jain through Virender Kaushik, Narain Singh, B.M. Seth, have proved his writings.
2.28 Accused P.K Thirwani prepared the false Audit report on the instructions of Ashwani Sharma, in the office of Ashwani as stated by Naveen Kaushik.
2.29 The auditors Sh. Charan Singh, and Mir Singh also prepared false audit report of the society without verifying the accounts and on the forged signature of the Management Committee Members.
2.30 The Sanction against public servants in service namely P K Thriwani, M. Mishra and Charan Singh was obtained under Section 19 of PC Act.
3. CHARGE 3.1 Vide order dated 19.11.2012, Ld. Predecessor was pleased to frame charges against A-3, A-4, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 16 A-10 and A-11 while A-1, A-2 and A-5 were discharged.
3.2 On 12.12.2012, charges against the accused persons were framed as follows :-
(A) Charge for commission of offences under Section 120-B r/w Section 420/511/468/471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 15 of PC Act, 1988 was framed against following accused persons :-
1) Ashwani Sharma (A-3);
2) J. K. Jain (A-4);
3) Jagjit Singh (A-6);
4) Ashutosh Pant (A-7);
5) P. K. Thirwani (A-8);
6) Markandey Mishra (A-9);
7) Mir Singh (A-10);
8) Charan Singh (A-11);
(B) A separate charge for commission of offence under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) and Section 15 of the PC Act, 1988 was framed against following accused persons :-
1) P. K. Thirwani (A-8) ;
2) Markandey Mishra (A-9);
3) Mir Singh (A-10);
4) Charan Singh (A-11);
(C) A separate charge for commission of offence under Section 420 read with 511 IPC, 468 IPC, 471 IPC was CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 17 individually framed against accused Ashwani Sharma (A-3), J. K. Jain (A-4), Jagjit Singh (A-6) and Ashutosh Pant (A-7).
All accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
4. During the trial, accused Mir Singh (A-10) expired (his death was duly verified and verification report confirming the death of accused was filed on record on 15.10.2015, consequently the proceedings qua him were abated).
5. 5.1 After framing of charges, prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 53 witnesses.
5.2 The examined witnesses and documents exhibited in evidence are detailed as under :-
PW Name of the witness Documents exhibited in No. evidence PW-1 Sh. Sandeep Kataria Application for membership as Ex.PW1/A, Affidavit attested in the year 2003 as Ex. PW1/B, Affidavit attested in the year 2005 as Ex. PW1/C, Verification Certificate as Ex. PW1/D, Resignation Letter from the membership of the society addressed to President, Nav Sarv Priya (CGHS) as Ex.PW1/E, and Receipt Voucher as Ex.PW1/F. PW-2 Smt. Ritu Kataria Application for membership of CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 18 Singh the society Ex. PW2/A, Affidavit attested in the year 2003 as Ex.PW2/B, Resignation Letter from the membership of the society as Ex. PW2/C, Receipt Voucher as Ex. PW2/D, and Statement under Section 161 CrPC Mark 2X.
PW-3 Sh. Pratap Singh Application regarding registration of Society as Ex.
PW3/A, Copy of application of registration as Ex. PW3/A-1, Bye-laws of the Society as Ex.
PW3/B, PW3/B-1 and PW3/B-3 (Colly), Intensive Inquiry Proforma as Ex. PW3/C, Resignation Letter dated 25.01.1991 from the membership of the Society as Ex.PW3/D, Receipt dated 13.03.1991 as Ex. PW3/E, Proceedings of GBM dated 02.10.1983 as Ex. PW3/F (Colly), Proceedings of Managing Committee Meeting dated 29.12.1983 as Ex. PW3/G (Colly), Proceedings of Managing Committee dated 13.02.1984 as Ex. PW3/H, Proceedings of Managing Committee dated 11.03.1984 as Ex. PW3/H-1, Ex. PW3/H-2 & Ex. PW3/H-3, Proceedings of Managing Committee dated 10.04.1984,16.04.1984,20.04.19 84, 10.12.1984,20.07.1985, 30.03.1991 as Ex. PW3/H-4 to PW3/H-9 respectively, Affidavit dated 30.09.1983 as Ex.PW3/J, Representation by PW3 made to RCS as Ex. PW3/K, Appeal filed CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 19 by PW3 to L.G Office as Ex.
PW3/L, Proceedings of Meeting dated 11.03.1991 as Ex.
PW3/H-10.
PW-4 Sh. Karan Singh Application for membership dated 07.04.2004 as Ex. PW4/A, photocopy of Election Card Ex.PW4/A-1,Affidavit dated 24.04.2004 as Ex.PW4/B. PW-5 Sh. Kishan Giri Application for membership dated 08.10.2004 as Ex. PW5/A, Affidavit submitted by PW5 in the year 2004 as Ex. PW5/B, photocopy of ration card as Ex.
PW5/C, application for membership dated 08.10.2004 in relation to nephew of the PW5 as Ex. PW5/D, Affidavit in the name of Satish Giri submitted in the year 2004 as Ex. PW5/E, photocopy of ration card as Ex.
PW5/F. PW-6 Sh. Ramesh Prosecution Sanction order dated Narayanswami 04.07.2007 as Ex. PW6/A (Sanctioning (Colly) qua accused P.K. Authority ) Thirwani.
PW-7 Sh. C.M. Sharma Prosecution sanction order dated (Sanctioning 06.07.2007 Ex.PW7/A (Colly) Authority) qua accused Markandey Mishra.
PW-8 Sh. Desh Pal Application for membership as Ex. PW8/A, Affidavit for becoming member of the Society as Ex. PW8/B, Voter ID Card as Ex. PW8/C, Affidavit dated 31.12.2004 marked as Mark CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 20 PW8/X, Form-60 marked as Mark PW8/X-1, Verification Certificate marked as Mark PW8/X-2, Statement under Section 161 CrPC marked as Mark PW8/DX.
PW-9 Sh. Prashant He used to work in India Saraswat Meteorological Department as Scientific Assistant. He deposed that he had a plot at B-11/A, East Baldev Park, near Preet Vihar, Delhi. He denied of having been rented out his said plot to any Society Office.
PW-10 Sh. Raj Singh Affidavit dated 30.09.1983 as Ex. PW10/A, His Resignation Letter dated 10.02.2004-cum-
receipt dated 20.03.2004 as Ex.
PW10/B, Affidavit attested in the year 2000 as Ex. PW10/C, Letter dated 22.03.2005 addressed to him from the office of RCS as Mark PW10/X, Letter dated 19.06.2000 as Mark 10X-1 annexed with the list of members Ex. PW10/D, Proceedings regarding revival of the Society as Ex. PW10/E. PW-11 Sh. Zile Singh Affidavit dated 30.09.1983 as Ex.PW11/A, Resignation Letter dated 04.08.2003-cum-receipt dated 21.09.2003 as Ex.PW11/B, Affidavit attested in the year 2000 as Ex.PW11/C, Letter dated 22.03.2005 addressed to him from RCS Office Mark Ex.PW11/X. CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 21 PW-12 Smt. Neeta Jain Relevant page, in the register (D-65), showing the name and address of the witness at serial no. 34 as Ex. PW12/A, Proceedings of Meeting dated 17.10.1999 as Ex. PW12/B (Colly), Proceedings dated 22.10.2000 as Ex. PW12/C (Colly), Affidavit attested in the year 2000 as Ex.PW12/D, Application for membership of the Society as Ex. PW12/E, receipt dated 16.03.1991 Mark 12X, Letter dated 22.03.2005 addressed to her as PW12/F, List of Members as Mark 12X-1, photocopy of resignation letter dated 01.07.2004 as Ex.
PW12/G, List of Members Ex.
PW12/H alongwith Letter dated 03.10.2000 as Mark 12X-2.
PW-13 Sh. Rajesh Jain Relevant page, in the register (D-65), showing the name and address of the witness at serial no. 45 as Ex. PW13/A, Proceedings dated 04.04.1991 as Ex. PW13/B (Colly), Affidavit attested in the year 2000 as Ex.PW13/C, Application for membership of the Society dated 23.03.1991 as Ex. PW13/D, receipt dated 06.04.1991 Mark 13X, Letter dated 22.03.2005 addressed to him as PW13/E, photocopy of resignation letter dated 03.06.2004 as Ex.
PW13/F, photocopy of computer generated payment voucher dated 08.07.2004 Mark 13X-1.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 22 PW-14 Sh. Arvind Yadav Affidavit of PW14, affidavits of sister-in-law & father of PW14 as Ex. PW14/A to PW14/C respectively, photocopy of death certificate in respect of father of PW14 as Ex. PW14/DA, Affidavit attested in the year 2000 as Ex. PW14/E, Affidavit of sister-in-law of PW14 as PW14/F, photocopy of Resignation Letter dated 31.01.1991 as Ex. PW14/G, photocopy of voucher dated 19.03.1991 as Ex. PW14/H, UPC List of Members as Ex.
PW14/J, Proceedings of Managing Committee Meeting of the Society as Ex. PW14/K (Colly), Proceedings of GBM dated 17.10.1999 as Ex.
PW14/L. PW-15 Smt. Santosh Affidavit dated 30.09.1983 as Ex.PW15/A, Affidavit attested in the year 2000 as Ex. PW15/B, photocopy of resignation letter dated 21.07.2001 Ex. PW15/C, Consolidated List showing refund of amount on 01.09.2001 as Ex. PW15/D. PW-16 Smt. Krishna Devi Affidavit dated 30.09.1983 as Ex.PW16/A, Affidavit attested in the year 2000 as Ex.PW16/B. PW-17 Sh. Lal Bachan Affidavit dated 30.09.1983 as Yadav Ex.PW17/A, Affidavit attested in the year 2000 as Ex.PW17/B, photocopy of resignation letter dated 02.02.2001 as Ex.PW17/C, photocopy of voucher dated CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 23 13.03.2001 as Ex.PW17/D, copy of letter regarding payment to be made by PW-17 as Ex.
PW17/DA.
PW-18 Sh. Sube Singh Affidavit dated 30.09.1983 as Ex. PW18/A, affidavit attested on 20.03.2000 as Ex. PW18/B, Letter dated 22.03.2005 addressed to him by the Society as Ex. PW18/C, resignation-
cum-receipt as Ex PW18/D. PW-19 Sh. Rambir Yadav Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C as Ex.PW19/A & statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C as Ex. PW19/DA.
PW-20 Sh. N.K. Sharma Notings (D-5) as Ex. PW20/A to PW20/J. PW-21 Ms. Ritu Jain Copy of application for membership as Ex. PW21/A, Affidavit dated 20.03.2000 as Ex. PW21/B, Copy of proceedings of GBM held on 22.10.2000 as Ex. PW21/C, Copy of Resignation Letter as Ex.PW21/D, copy of receipt as Ex. PW21/E. PW-22 Sh. H.K. Sharma Letter dated 02.01.1996 regarding appointment of liquidator as Ex. PW22/A, summons dated 04.11.1996 & 01.04.1997 as Ex. PW22/B & PW22/C respectively, Letter dated 05.02.1996 as Ex.
PW22/D, check-list to be prepared by liquidator as Ex.
PW22/E, order dated 30.10.1995 CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 24 as Ex. PW22/F, Letter dated 10.09.1991 as Ex. PW22/G, Summons sent by PW22 to addressees as Ex. PW22/H to PW22/M, Transfer Order of PW22 as Ex. PW22/N. PW-23 Smt. Sarvpreet Kaur Application for membership as Ex. PW23/A, Copy of Election I- Card as Ex. PW23/B, copy of ration card as Ex PW23/B-1, Affidavit dated 10.07.2004 as Ex. PW23/C, Verification Certificate as Ex. PW23/D, Form-60 as Ex. PW23/E, Affidavit dated 05.01.2005 as Ex. PW23/F. PW-24 Sh. Amar Singh Affidavit dated 30.09.1993 in Yadav relation to Nav Sarv Priya CGHS as Ex.PW24/A, Proceedings of meeting dated 30.01.1984, 30.12.1985 & 01.01.1986 as Ex. PW24/B, PW24/C & PW24/D respectively, Copy of Resignation Letter as Ex.
PW24/E and copy of refund voucher as Ex. PW24/F. PW-25 Smt. Jyoti Jain Affidavit dated 20.03.2000 as Ex. PW25/A. PW-26 Sh. Rajender Singh Affidavit dated 20.05.2004 as Adhikari Ex.PW26/A, Application for membership as Ex PW26/B, Copy of Ration Card as Ex.
PW26/C, Verification Certificate as Ex. PW26/D, Affidavit dated 30.12.2004 as Ex. PW26/E. CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 25 PW-27 Sh. Kishan Chander Affidavit dated 30.09.1983 in Yadav relation to as Ex.PW27/A, affidavit dated 20.03.2000 as Ex.
PW27/A1, Resignation Letter as Ex.PW27/B, refund voucher as Ex. PW27/C. PW-28 Sh. Virender Singh Affidavit dated 20.03.2000 Yadav (Q-913 to 915)in relation to as Ex.PW28/A, Resignation Letter-
cum-refund voucher (Q-627) as Ex.PW28/B. PW-29 Smt. Saroj Yadav Affidavit dated 20.03.2000 as Ex.PW29/A (Q-916 to Q-918), Resignation Letter as Ex.PW29/B (Q-632) & refund voucher as Ex. PW29/C (Q-631).
PW-30 Sh. Rajiv Yadav Copy of death certificate of father of PW-30 as Ex. PW30/A, Affidavits dated 30.09.1983 as Ex.PW30/B & PW30/C respectively, Resignation Letter as Ex.PW30/D (Q-686), refund voucher as Ex.PW30/E (Colly) (Q-681), Resignation letter pertaining to father of PW30 as Ex. PW30/F (Q-690) and refund voucher as Ex. PW30/G (Q-689), Resignation Letter pertaining to wife of PW30 as Ex. PW30/H (Q-710), refund voucher as Ex. PW30/J (Q-709).
PW-31 Smt. Shoba Jain Copy of application of becoming member as Ex.PW31/A, copy of receipt as Ex.PW31/B, affidavit dated 20.03.2000 as Ex.PW31/C, affidavits as Ex.PW31/D & CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 26 Ex.PW31/E, documents i.e. Ex.PW31/F and copies of application for becoming members as Ex.PW31/G. PW-32 Smt. Kamla Devi Application for registration of society as Ex.PW32/A-1 and affidavit as Ex.PW32/A. PW-33 Sh. Shishupal Affidavit dated 30.09.1983 as Ex.PW33/A and affidavit dated 20.03.2000 as Ex.PW33/B. PW-34 Sh. Isher Singh Affidavit dated 05.01.2005 as Sondh Ex.PW34/A, copy of Ration Card as Ex.P34/B, application for becoming member as Ex.PW34/C, affidavit dated 15.01.2005 as Ex.PW34/D, Form 60 as Ex.PW34/E and Verification Certificate as Ex.PW34/F. PW-35 Rajinder Prasad Copy of application seeking membership as Ex.PW35/A, Singh copy of receipt as Ex.PW35/B and affidavit dated 20.03.2000 as Ex.PW35/C. PW-36 Sh. Ravinder Yadav Affidavit dated 30.09.1983 as Ex.PW36/A and affidavit dated 20.05.2000 as Ex.PW36/B. PW-37 Sh. Gianendra Seizure Memo as Ex.PW37/A, Accounts Opening Form as Singh Ex.PW37/B, letter dated 08.02.1984 as Ex.PW37/C, copy of proceedings of society as Ex.PW37/D, copy of certificate issued by Joint Registrar as Ex.PW37/E, accounts statement as Ex.PW37/F, specimen CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 27 signatures card as Ex.PW37/G, letter as Ex.PW37/H and copy of proceedings of society as Ex.PW37/J. PW-38 Sh. Narain Singh Document/Revival Application as Ex.PW38/A and summon dated 14.03.2000 as Ex.PW38/B. PW-39 Sh. Paras Nath Letter dated 15.01.2007 addressed to Sh. K.G. Kashyap, Dy. Director (Housing) as Ex.PW39/A, letters dated 15.01.2007 as Ex.PW39/B and Ex.PW39/C. PW-40 Sh. Hukum Singh PW-40 is a hostile witness. He Chauhan never became member of the Society.
PW-41 Sh. Madan Pal Asst. Registrar, RCS Sharma PW-42 Sh. Yogesh Yadav Affidavits dated 30.09.1983 as Ex.PW42/A & Ex.PW42/B, affidavit dated 20.03.2000 as Ex.PW42/C and resignation letter-cum-receipt as Ex.PW42/D. PW-43 Sh. Krishan Kumar Revival Order dated 19.06.2000 (Joint Registrar) as Ex.PW43/A PW-44 Sh.Aditya Aggarwal Copy of application for becoming member as Ex.PW44/A, copy of receipt as Ex.PW44/B, affidavit as Ex.PW44/C, copy of application for becoming member as Ex.PW44/D, copy of receipt as Ex.PW44/E, affidavit as CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 28 Ex.PW44/F and document as Ex.PW44/G. PW-45 Sh. Rajiv Dwivedi Search Memo as Ex.PW45/A, files as Ex.PW45/B to Ex.PW45/L, Diary as Ex.PW45/M and an envelope containing a bunch of 13 Visiting Cards as Ex.PW45/N. PW-46 Sh. Naveen Kaushik PW-46 is a hostile witness.
PW-47 Sh. R.L. Yadav A search list as Ex.PW47/A,
Telephone Index Diary as
Ex.PW47/B, photocopy of
passport in the name of Sh.
Vaibhav Jain as Ex.PW47/C and
photocopy of passport in the
name of Smt. Priya Jain as
Ex.PW47/D.
PW-48 Sh. Madan Mohan Statement under Section 161 of
Sharma Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW48/A.
PW-49 Ms. Nutan Guha Order granting sanction passed
Biswas by him as Ex.PW49/A
PW-50 Sh. Y. Surya Prasad Office copy of letter from S.P., CBI, EOU-VII, New Delhi dated 18.08.2006 as Ex.PW50/A, documents i.e. Annexure-I (detail of questioned documents) as Ex.PW50/B, Annexure-II (detail of specimen handwriting/signatures of 09 persons) as Ex.PW50/C, Annexure-III (detail of admitted handwriting/signatures of 82 persons) as Ex.PW50/D, Annexure-IV (Questionnaire) as CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 29 Ex.PW50/E, documents were examined in all aspects of handwriting identification with respect to the general and individual handwriting habits and after evaluation, an opinion was given as Ex.PW50/F, statement of reasons was prepared by him apart from said opinion as Ex.PW50/G, office letter dated 27.10.2006 as Ex.PW50/H, statement of reason was sent to S.P. separately alongwith documents through forwarding letter as Ex.PW50/J, the S.P., CBI, EOU-VII had referred further set of documents in the form of three annexures vide letter dated 15.03.2007, for examination and after examination of those documents, he gave his opinion as Ex.PW50/K, documents (Annexure-I to Annexure-III) as Ex.PW50/L, Ex.PW50/M to Ex.PW50/N, separate statement of reasons regarding his opinion on document as Ex.PW50/P, Stamp of his office was affixed on specimen signatures/handwriting and admitted signatures/handwriting of several persons, sent by CBI, at points X as Ex.PW50/Q-1 to Ex.PW50/Q-282 and Ex.P-64.
PW-51 Sh. Baldev Singh Application for becoming membership as Ex. PW51/A, copy of receipt as Ex.PW51/B, Affidavit dated 09.07.2003 as Ex. PW51/C, letters dated 20.10.2003, 10.12.2002 & CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 30 22.06.2002 as as Ex. PW51/D, PW51/E & PW51/F respectively.
This witness was declared hostile by Ld. PP for CBI. He proved his statement Ex.
PW51/G. PW-52 Sh. Rajesh Kumar He identified his signature at (Tehsildar, Sadar point A on Ex. PW50/Q-26 to Bazar, Delhi) PW50/Q-108, PW50/Q-214 to PW/Q-274 PW-53 Sh. Anil Singh Copy of FIR as Ex. PW53/1, (IO of the case.) Handing Over Memo by which Inspector K.S. Lohchab handed over documents to IO as Ex.
PW53/2, Files (D-5) to (D-19) as Ex. PW53/3 to PW53/17 respectively, Seizure Memo regarding certain documents seized from Sh. Baljinder Singh, the then Secretary of Nav Sarv Priya CGHS as PW53/18, Registers i.e. D-21 to D-24 & Files i.e. D-25 to D-29 as seized from Sh. Baljinder Singh as Ex.
PW53/19 to PW53/27, Seizure-
cum-Production memos dated 14.06.2006 & 15.06.2006 as Mark PW53/28 & PW53/29 respectively, Files i.e. D-31 to D-34 as Ex. PW53/30 to PW53/33 respectively, one spiral bound register seized during the search of the residence of accused Virender Kaushik on 22.06.2006 as Ex. PW53/34, photocopy of search list (D-48) as Mark PW53/1, File containing photocopies of details of members of Saifi CGHS Ltd. as CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 31 Mark PW53/2, Search List dated 22.06.2006 (D-51) as Ex.
PW53/35, File containing property papers alongwith letter of membership of Surengani CGHS (D-52) as Ex. PW53/36, File containing credit card statement of Standard chartered Bank of Jagjit Singh (D-53) as Ex. PW53/37, File containing documents related to Nav Sarv Priya CGHS (D-54) as Ex.
PW53/38, One bunch of loose papers photocopies and original alongwith affidavits (D-55) as Ex. PW53/39, one receipt book of Nav Sarv Priya CGHS (D-56) as Ex. PW53/40, one telephone diary of Jagjit Singh ( Neelgagan notebook) (D-57) as Ex.
PW53/41, File containing American Express Credit Card Statement of Jagjit Singh (D-58) as Ex. PW53/42, one file containing Credit Card Statement of SBI/City Bank Card, Hutch Mobile Bill of Jagjit Singh (D-59) as Ex. PW53/43, Search List dated 22.06.2006 ( D-60) as Ex. PW53/44, Cashbooks of Nav Sarv Priya CGHS (D-61), (D-62) & (D-63) as Ex. PW53/45, PW53/46 & PW53/47 respectively, Ledgers of Nav Sarv Priya CGHS - I, II & III (D-64) as Ex. PW53/48 (Colly), Membership register of Nav Sarv Priya CGHS (D-65) as Ex. PW53/49, Newspaper cuttings (D-66) as Ex. PW53/50, File containing correspondence of Nav Sarv Priya CGHS (D-67) CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 32 as Ex.PW53/51, File containing balance-sheet of Nav Sarv Priya (D-68) as Ex. PW53/52, Search List dated 22.06.2006 (D-69) as Ex. PW53/53, File of Shakuntala Devi (D-70) as Ex. PW53/54, file containing a bunch of papers including letters of Sh. Shanti Sagar CGHS in the name of Seema Jain (D-71) as Ex.
PW53/55, Certified copy of seizure memo dated 12.07.2006 (D-76) as Ex. PW53/56, Certified copy of application for membership no. 241 of Shakuntala Devi Jain (D-77) as Ex. PW53/57, photocopy of Forwarding Letter to GEQD, Hyderabad dated 15.03.2007 (D-81) Mark PW53/C. All the aforementioned witnesses were duly cross- examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
6. During trial, 16 witnesses could not be examined by the prosecution for a variety of reasons as detailed below :-
S. Name of the witness Reason for not examining these No witnesses
1. LW-2 B.M. Sethi Expired. Name deleted as per order-sheet dated 18.04.2019.
2. LW-7 S.C. Gola This witness was reported to be not residing in the given address. As per order dated 03.10.2019, it was directed that no reason to issue summons to CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 33 him again and again.
3. LW-14 Jasvinder Dropped by Ld. PP for CBI vide Singh order dated 13.08.2013.
4. LW-16 Sukhdev Singh Dropped by Ld. PP for CBI vide order dated 23.02.2019.
5. LW-19 Sushil Kumar Expired. Name deleted as per Sharma ordersheet dated 03.10.2019.
6. LW-24 B.C. Joshi Dropped by Ld. PP for CBI and his name was deleted vide order dated 29.01.2020.
7. LW-29 Jagdish Rai Expired. Name deleted as per order dated 07.04.2014.
8. LW-37 R.K. Srivastav Dropped by Ld. PP for CBI and his name was deleted vide order dated 12.12.2019.
9. LW-38 Harpreet Kaur This witness was reported to be residing in Australia. As per order dated 13.09.2019, it was directed that no need to issue summons to her again and again.
10. LW-49 Om Prakash Expired. Name deleted as per Yadav ordersheet dated 14.05.2019.
11. LW-50 Satish Mathur Expired. Name deleted as per order-sheet dated 05.11.2019.
12. LW-51 Surjo Devi Dropped by Ld. PP for CBI and her name deleted vide order dated 16.07.2019.
13. LW-52 Mahesh Expired. Name deleted as per Kumar order-sheet dated 05.11.2019.
14. LW-69 Usha Makkar Address of this witness was reported to be incomplete. Vide order dated 22.03.2021, it was observed that there is no reason to issue process to this witness again and again.
15. LW-71 Manoj Kumar This witness was reported to CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 34 have left his family and his present whereabouts were not known. Vide order dated 25.02.2020, it was observed that there is no reason to issue process to him again and again.
16. LW-39 Sarabjeet Kaur This witness was reported to be residing in Australia. Vide order dated 22.03.2021, it was observed that there is no reason to issue process to this witness again and again.
7. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C 7.1 Statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded on different dates i.e. accused Ashwani Sharma (A-3) on 04.11.2023; accused J.K. Jain (A-4) on 04.11.2023; accused Jagjit Singh (A-6) on 04.11.2023; accused Ashutosh Pant (A-7) on 04.11.2023; accused P.K. Thirwani (A-8) on 10.11.2023; accused Markanday Mishra (A-9) on 10.11.2023; accused Charan Singh (A-11) on 28.11.2023 wherein they have denied the prosecution version in its entirety and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
7.2 Accused Ashwani Sharma (A-3) stated that the Investigating Officer has not taken his specimen handwriting/signature nor he had given the same in this case.
7.3 Accused J.K. Jain (A-4) stated that he was an architect. He had honestly, diligently and successfully discharged his duties as an architect in respect of various Cooperative Group Housing Societies, Government Buildings, Schools, Hospitals CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 35 etc. He had also been rewarded for excellent work and performance by various organizations and authorities of the field. Apparently, the present case was slapped on him without any reason. Hence, there is no evidence to connect him with the occurrences of the offence alleged. He further stated that neither the alleged records of Nav Sarv Priya CGHS Ltd. came to him nor he had any concern with the alleged revival of the Society. He had never involved with the affairs of society in any manner whatsoever. He was an architect appointed by various cooperative societies in Delhi and some of the contractors were unhappy due to his persistent objections in their inferior construction in the respective societies and ultimately, he had to resign from such societies. Due to some anguish may be he has been victimized, and his innocence has been proved on record.
7.4 Accused Jagjit Singh (A-6) stated that he is innocent and he has been made scapegoat in the case by CBI and till date no prosecution witness has given any statement or evidence against him. He had no concern with the Society, he was neither a member nor office bearer of the Society. No incriminating documents were recovered from him nor he had prepared any records of Society. He did not get any benefit from Society. A false case was framed against him.
7.5 Accused Ashutosh Pant (A-7) stated that he is innocent. The Investigating Officer has not taken his specimen / handwriting signature nor he had given the same in this case.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 36 7.6 Accused P.K. Thirwani (A-8) stated that " he had been working as departmental auditor in the audit branch of the RCS office since 13th May, 2000 to 29th September, 2004 as auditor and his duty was to conduct the audit of various societies like CGHS, Thrift and Credit Society, Handloom Society, Transport Society and Store (Cooperative) etc. The audit of the present society was assigned to him by the then AR (Audit) after he obtained the approval of RCS for the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2001 (for two years) only. He conducted the audit for the abovesaid period in good faith on the basis of the documents/records produced by the society. He as an Auditor was responsible for conducting the audit of the society and as per his knowledge and wisdom if any deficiency was found in the audit report, he used to mention the same in his Audit report. It was the duty of the concerned zone to take necessary steps for getting necessary compliance from the society or to get the objections raised in the audit report removed, before sending the list to Policy branch of the office of Registrar Co-operative societies for onward transmission to DDA. In the present case also, he had raised serious objections in his Audit report pertaining to Nav Sarva Priya CGHS. It shows that he was not in collusion with any person of the society and question of any conspiracy didn't arise. This is a false case based on wrong interpretation of laws/evidences amounting to abuse of process of law by the prosecution. There was no complaint of any aggrieved person nor there was any loss to any individuals or the Government. There was no violation of DCS Act/Rules/Directives by which any favour had been shown to any person or corporate body. Auditor CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 37 has no role in the revival of the society nor the list was sent to the DDA for land offer on the basis of Audit report.
He further stated that he was not in picture till revival of the society as the audit of the society was conducted after the revival of the society and forwarding of the approved freezed list of members to DDA and had not dealt with the file at all during this process and as such there was no question of him being part of criminal conspiracy for the revival of the society, in any, on the basis of false/forged documents. He stated that it is the admitted case of the CBI that he did not have any role till revival of the society and sending of the approved freezed list of members to the DDA for allotment of land. As such his audit report had no effect at all on the revival of the society by RCS. In this case no land was allotted to the society and therefore, no loss had occurred to the Government or any person. He stated that there is no evidence against him for having cheated any person or that he had used any forged documents for the purpose of cheating or that he had knowledge of any forgery. There is no evidence for P.C. Act offences against him as there is no evidence of demand/obtainment of any pecuniary advantage. Nothing was recovered from him or from his house search by the CBI. Nothing adverse was found from his bank account. The allegation against him in the charge-sheet were wild and unsubstantiated. There is no provision in the DCS Act for obtaining the signatures of office bearers by the Auditor on audit papers of the society during the audit. There is no provision in the DCS Act/Rules to make investigation by the Auditor from the CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 38 bank of the society. He stated that he acted acted bona-fide. He committed no wrong. He has been falsely implicated in the charge sheet. He did my duties in good faith and while performing his official duties, the audit was conducted by him as per the documents/records produced by the society after revival. In this way, no offence was committed by him in the present case, as there is no incriminating and admissible evidence against him. Moreover, the CBI has not obtained the sanction for his prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C for IPC offences. As per Section 94 of DCS Act, 1972 no suit or prosecution can be launched against the RCS officials.
7.7 Accused Markanday Mishra (A-9) stated that he acted bona-fide. He committed no wrong. There is absolutely no incriminating and admissible evidence against him. None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed anything incriminating against him. The sanction for his prosecution was granted mechanically without application of mind by an incompetent authority. No sanction for my prosecution has been obtained under Section 197 Cr.P.C for the IPC offence. He stated that he is innocent.
7.8 Accused Charan Singh (A-11) stated that this is a false case by the prosecution against him just to boost up the statistics. There is no evidence of any PW against him. There is no violation of DCS Act and Rules or any Government order. There is no loss caused to anyone by my alleged acts done under DCS Act/Rules. The audit done by him in this case was duly CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 39 accepted by the then Assistant Registrar without raising any objection against him. There is no complaint against him. There is no victim in this case. There is no evidence of any benefit or pecuniary gain caused to him. Nothing was recovered from him. There is no departmental enquiry against him in this case or in any other matter in any entire service of approx. 40 years. No sanction to prosecute him for IPC offences had been taken by the prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The sanction u/s 19 of the PC Act is also not in accordance with law. This is the only case against him and there is no other case of any kind against him. In view of no evidence against him. Hon'ble Court may consider his acquittal.
8. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 8.1 Accused Markandey Mishra (A-9) examined Sh. Anurag, Assistant Section Officer, Principal Accounts Office, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as DW-1. DW1 had produced the summoned record i.e. complete file bearing No. F.1(1)/05/Pr.AO/Vig./2001/ Admn.I (Vol. II) containing the documents relating to grant of Sanction for prosecution against Sh. Markandey Mishra in respect of Nav Sarv Priya CGHS Ltd. DW1 stated that he brought the said file from the official record maintained in their office in normal course of business. The said file contains pages marked 1 to 366/C (except page no. 69/C) and noting portion marked 1 to 19/N. He proved the said file as Ex. DW1/1 (OSR).
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 40 8.2 Accused P.K. Thirwani examined one witness namely Sh. Yatin Thapar, Assistant Section Officer, Directorate of Vigilance, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as DW-2 in his defence. DW2 had produced the summoned record i.e. complete file bearing No. F.7(A)/31/2007/DOV containing the documents relating to grant of Sanction for prosecution against Sh. P.K. Thirwani in respect of Nav Sarv Priya CGHS Ltd. DW2 stated that he brought the said file from the official record maintained in their office in normal course of business. The said file contains pages marked 1/C to 262/C and noting portion marked 1/N to 12/N. He proved the said file original and complete file as Ex. DW2/1 (OSR).
Both these witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld. Prosecutor for CBI.
9. Arguments, on behalf of all the accused persons by their respective Ld. Counsels and for prosecution by Sh. Navneet Jawa, Ld. Public Public Prosecutor for CBI, were heard. Record has been painstakingly perused.
9.1 Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI had filed following judgments :-
i) Vijaya Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2013 decided on 25 November 2024;
ii) Hema vs. State through, Inspector Police, Madra, Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2013 (Arising out of CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 41 S.L.P (Crl.) No. 9190 of 2011) 07 January 2013;
9.2 Through written arguments filed by accused J.K. Jain (A-4), it was argued that accused was not named in the FIR and nothing incriminating was recovered from him. Out of 53 prosecution witnesses, neither any witness have deposed against accused nor there is any substantive evidence against him.
He relied upon the following judgments :-
i) Ram Kishan Singh vs. Harmit Kaur & Anr., (1972) AIR (SC) 468;
ii) Phool Chand vs. State of U.P. (2004) CriLJ 1904;
iii) Audumbar Digambar Jagdane & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 2 CCR 199;
iv) Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239;
v) Ajmat Shana @ Ajju Tayyab Shana vs. State of Maharashtra, (2022) ALLMR (Crl.) 3232;
vi) Siva vs. State of Inspector of Police, Thiruvalam Police Station, Vellore District, Criminal Appeal No. 642 of 2018 decided on 22.07.2022;
9.3 Written Arguments by accused Jagjit Singh (A-6) CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 42 were filed, in addition to the arguments advanced and case law relied by counsel for accused no.3, stating that the FSL report against accused will have to be disregarded as handwriting samples taken by IO not through the Court order. It was argued that expert handwriting opinion is not sufficient basis for conviction but it may be relied upon when supporting evidence is there. Accused Jagjit Singh was not even member of the Society. He did not have any monetary benefit out of it nor any interest.
He relied upon the following judgments :-
i) Magan Bihar Lal vs. State of Punjab, 1977 AIR 1091;
ii) Ram Chandra and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 381;
iii) Ishwari Prasad Mishra vs. Mohammad Isa, 1963 AIR 1728;
iv) Murarilal vs. State of M.P, MANU/SC/0189/ 1979 ;
9.4 Accused Markanday Mishra (A-9) also filed written arguments. It was argued that accused is not named in the FIR. He had no role in getting appointed as Liquidator. No relation with other accused persons in forgery. Other higher officials had decided to revive the Society.
He relied upon the following judgments :-
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 43
i) Ram Sharan Chaturvedi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1066 of 2010, Decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dt.25.08.2022;
ii) Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujrat, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 03.09.1997;
iii) CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Crl. Appeal No. 1838/2013, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 22.11.2013;
iv) State of Maharashtra through Deputy Superintendent of Police ACB Nagpur Vs. Devidas S/o Narayanrao Bobde, Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 2002, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur vide judgment dated 08.09.2014;
v) Sh. Anand Murlidhar Salvi Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No. 1107 of 2004, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide judgment dated 23.02.2021;
vi) N.K. Ganguly vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, Crl. Appeal No. 798 of CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 44 2015, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 19.11.2015;
vii) A. Srinivasulu Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Crl. Appeal No. 2417 of 2010, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 15.06.2023.
viii) Amod Kumar Kanth Vs. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy & Anr. Crl. Appeal No. 1359 of 2017, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 20.04.2023.
ix) State vs. Mukesh Kumar Singh & Anr., Criminal Revision Petition 462/2017, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 03.04.2018;
x) Rakesh Bhatnagar vs. CBI, 2023 W.P (Crl.) 299 & Crl. M.A. 2085/2019 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 22.11.2023;
xi) Indra Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,Crl. Appeal No. 593 of 2021 [Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1605 of 2018 with State of Rajasthan Vs. Yogesh Acharya, Crl. Appeal No. 594 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5015 of 2021, decided CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 45 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 23.07.2021.
xii) K. R. Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala., (Crl. Appeal No. 495/2004) (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 631;
9.5 Accused persons namely Ashwani Sharma (A-3) and Ashutosh Pant (A-7) relied upon following judgments :-
i) State of H.P. Vs Jai Lal And Ors., 999 7 SCC 280;
ii) Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal Vs.Regency Hospital Ltd. (AIR 2010 SC 806);
iii) Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs Sukumar Mukherjee (AIR 2010 SC 1162);
iv)Mohd. Hanif Shaikh Vs.State of Gujarat (1994 35 (2) GLR 1191);
v) Titli Vs Alfred Robert Jones AIR 1934 All 273;
vi) Pandit Ishwari Prasad Misra Vs Mohammad Isa A, AIR 1963 SC 1728;
vii) Shashi Kumar Banerjee Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529;
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 46
viii) Devi Prasad Vs State 1967, AIR All 64;
ix) Fakhruddin Vs State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326;
x) Smt. Bhagwan Kaur Vs Shri Maharaj 193-201 Krishan Sharma, 1973 4 SCC 46;
xi) Ram Narain Vs State of U.P., 1973 2 SCC 86;
xii) Magan Bihari Lal Vs State of Punjab, 1977 2 SCC 210;
xiii) Murari Lal Vs State of M.P., 1980 1 SCC 704;
xiv) State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, 1992 3 SCC 700;
xv) Alamgir Vs State (NCT Delhi), 2003 1 SCC 21;
xvi) Amarjit Singh Vs State of U.P. 1998 8 SCC 613;
xvii) M. Durga Prasad Vs State of A.P 2004 Crilj 242;
xviii) Raviappa Vs Nilakanta Rao, 1960 SCC OnLine Kar 55;
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 47 xix) Chakrapani Jagannath Prasad Vs Chandoo Sahadeo, 1959 AIR MP 84;
xx) State of Rajasthan Vs Dr J.P. Sharma, 1983 Cri. LJ 858;
xxi) Bhargav Kundalik Salunkhe Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 Cri. LJ 1228;
xxii) Sandeep Dixit vs State of Delhi, 2012 190 DLT 600;
xxiii) S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State Of A.Ρ. 1996 4, SCC 596;
xxiv) Padum Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2020 3 SCC 35;
10. FORMATION & LIQUIDATION OF NAV SARV PRIYA CGHS SOCIETY 10.1 The Nav Sarv Priya CGHS Society was formed by teachers on 10.01.1984 with registration no. 1293 (GH) by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The file containing the noting and the Certificate was exhibited as Ex. PW53/3 (it was exhibited by the IO, though it should have been by an official witness from the office of RCS). The address mentioned in the said certificate is 9B, Samaypur, Delhi. The application for CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 48 registration of the Society with 80 members was Ex. PW3/A (Colly) & Ex. PW3/A-1. The minutes of 1 st GBM held on 02.10.1983 were proved as Ex. PW11/DA, bye-laws as Ex. PW3/B (Colly), Ex. PW3/B-1 (Colly) and Ex. PW3/B-3 (Colly) and the affidavits of the members.
10.2 Since the Society failed to produce the records for verification and for non-holding of the election of the Managing Committee of the Society, show-cause notice was issued but the same was not replied to. The Society was wound-up/liquidated (as used in the noting) vide order dated 11.04.1991.
10.3 From the record, it is clear that the said Society was formed and registered in 1984 with 105 members. It was not functional and it was wound-up by Sh. Satish Mathur, Dy. Registrar, RCS. Sh. H.S. Sharma was appointed as Liquidator.
Thereafter, the file records noting of 10.02.2000 regarding appointment of M. Mishra as Liquidator and the order of appointment is Ex. PW22/N. From the noting file, it is seen that the records were not properly maintained even then.
10.4 The letter/application for revival of the Nav Sarva Priya CGHS Society dated 28.12.1999 (with receiving on 13.01.2000) Section 63 (3) of DCS Act, 1972 Ex. PW38/A was filed by accused Praveen Kumar Jain, Secretary of the said Society. In the said application, the address was mentioned as CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 49 101, Kanishka Commercial Complex, L-3/C, Saini Enclave, Delhi. In the said letter, it was stated that now General Body Meeting was called and elections held for the new Managing Committee and which was formed. The Society has completed the shortcomings due to which the Society was wound-up. The letter prayed for the revival of the said Society.
Sh. R.K. Srivastav, Registrar, Cooperative Society vide order dated 19.06.2000 Ex. PW43/A canceled the winding- up order under Section 63(3) of DCS Act, 1972 and ordered for revival with immediate effect. As per the said order, keeping in view provisions of Section 63(3) of DCS Act, 1972 stand of Sh. Praveen Jain, Secretary of Society who appeared in person, filed his and Priya Jain's affidavit and made oral commitment to fulfill all the statutory liabilities in future, the revival order was passed.
10.5 The case of the prosecution is that a conspiracy was hatched by accused persons in order to revive the said Society with addition of new members for the purpose of gaining property/plot for the construction of the flats.
10.6 It is important to mention here that no land was allotted to the Society pursuant to the said revival.
10.7 The whole conspiracy began with the application for revival of Society. The said application is Ex. PW38/A was purportedly moved by Praveen Kumar Jain, Secretary of the said Society. It is the case of the prosecution that Praveen Kumar Jain CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 50 got the Society revived on the basis of the forged documents prepared by co-accused Ashwani Sharma. Forged resignations were taken and accepted and in their place, family members/close relatives of accused Praveen Kumar Jain and Priya Jain namely Usha Jain, Jyoti Jain, Anant Kumar Jain were enrolled. Praveen Kumar Jain was the Secretary while Priya Jain was the alleged President of the said Society.
Thus, Praveen Kumar Jain and Priya Jain were the prime movers in this entire conspiracy. It is important to mention here that both of them were discharged by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 19.11.2012.
11. 11.1 PW1 Sh. Sandeep Kataria deposed that he became a member of the Society through Bipin Sachdeva, a Chartered Accountant known to Pratap Singh whom he met in the Embassy. He deposed that he never filled-up for becoming a member in the Society though he had given a copy of passport to Bipin Sachdeva. He denied his signatures on the application for membership dated 13.05.2002 as Ex. PW1/A and Affidavit attested in the year 2003 as Ex. PW1/B. He admitted his signature on the Affidavit attested in the year 2005 as Ex. PW1/C, Verification Certificate as Ex. PW1/D, Resignation Letter from the membership of the society addressed to President, Nav Sarv Priya (CGHS) as Ex.PW1/E, and Receipt Voucher as Ex.PW1/F. He deposed that he never became an office bearer or member of the Managing Committee of the Society.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 51 PW2 Smt. Ritu Kataria Singh deposed that she became a member through her brother's friend Sh. Bipin Sachdeva. She deposed that she never filled-up for becoming a member in the Society. She denied her signatures on the application for membership dated 10.05.2002 as Ex. PW2/A and Affidavit attested on 09.07.2003 as Ex. PW2/B, the resignation letter from the Society as Ex. PW2/C and Receipt Voucher as Ex. PW2/D. She admitted her signature on the Affidavit attested in the year 2005 and Verification Certificate and deposed that she had handed over after signing the same to her brother Sandeep Kataria. She deposed that she never became an office bearer or member of the Managing Committee of the Society.
PW4 Sh. Karan Singh deposed that he became a member of the Society through Pratap Singh in 2005-2006. He identified his signatures on the application dated 07.04.2004 as Ex. PW4/A and affidavit as Ex. PW4/B. He deposed that he does not remember whether he resigned from the membership or not of the Society. He never attended the meetings of the Society but S.K. Giri, Satish Giri, Deshpal Singh and Rajender Singh became member through him.
PW5 Sh. Kishan Giri deposed that he and his nephew Satish Giri became the members of the Society through Karan Singh, Advocate in 2004. He identified their signatures on the application forms for membership and the Affidavits.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 52 PW8 Sh. Deshpal deposed that he became member of the Society through his brother-in-law Sh. Karan Singh. He does not remember whether resigned from the Society. He identified his signatures on application for membership dated 04.07.2004 as Ex. PW8/A, Affidavit for becoming member of the Society as Ex. PW8/B, Voter ID Card as Ex. PW8/C, Affidavit dated 31.12.2004 as Mark 8/X, Form-60 as Mark 8/X-1, Verification Certificate marked as Mark 8/X-2. In his cross- examination, he admitted that he still a member of the Society.
PW12 Smt. Neeta Jain deposed that she never became a member of the Society. She denied her signatures on the proceedings Register (D-65), showing the name and address of the witness at serial no. 34 as Ex. PW12/A, Proceedings of Meeting dated 17.10.1999 as Ex. PW12/B (Colly), Proceedings dated 22.10.2000 as Ex. PW12/C (Colly), Affidavit attested in the year 2000 as Ex.PW12/D, Application for membership of the Society as Ex. PW12/E, receipt dated 16.03.1991 Mark 12X, Letter dated 22.03.2005 addressed to her as PW12/F, List of Members as Mark 12X-1, photocopy of resignation letter dated 01.07.2004 as Ex. PW12/G, List of Members Ex. PW12/H alongwith Letter dated 03.10.2000 as Mark 12X-2.
PW13 Sh. Rajesh Jain deposed that he never became a member of the Society. He deposed on the similar lines as PW12 and denied his signatures on the proceedings register dated 22.10.2000, 04.04.1991 and the membership application form alongwith affidavits and the resignation letter dated 03.06.2004.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 53 PW23 Ms. Sarvapreet Kaur deposed that she became a member of the Society in 2003 or 2004 through application Ex. PW23/A and affidavit dated 10.07.2004 as Ex. PW23/C. She identified her signatures on the verification certificate, form-60 and affidavit dated 05.01.2005. She deposed that she never attended any meeting of the Society nor she resigned from the Society.
PW25 Smt. Jyoti Jain deposed that she never became a member of the Society nor did she submit any documents to the said Society seeking its membership. She denied her signature on the affidavit dated 20.03.2000 as Ex. PW25/A. PW26 Sh. Rajender Singh Adhikari deposed that he became a member of the Society through Karan Singh in 2004 and identified his signatures on affidavit dated 20.05.2004 as Ex.PW26/A and application for membership as Ex. PW26/B. He also identified his signatures on the Verification Certificate as Ex. PW26/D and Affidavit dated 30.12.2004 as Ex. PW26/E. He deposed that he never elected as office bearer of the Society.
PW31 Ms. Shobha Jain deposed that she never became a member of the Society nor did she submit any documents for membership of the same. She denied her signatures on the application of becoming member as Ex.PW31/A, copy of receipt as Ex.PW31/B, affidavit dated 20.03.2000 as Ex.PW31/C. He denied his signatures on the CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 54 proceedings of GBM dated 17.10.1999 and 22.10.2000.
PW33 Sh. Shishu Pal deposed that he never became a member of the Society. He, however, identified his signatures on the application for registration of Society as Ex. PW3/A-1, original list of members and affidavit dated 30.09.1983 as Ex.PW33/A. He denied signatures on the affidavit dated 20.03.2000 as Ex.PW33/B and on the proceedings of the GBM dated 01.01.1986.
PW35 Sh. Rajender Pratap Singh deposed that he never became a member of the Society nor did he submit any documents. He denied his signatures on the application seeking membership as Ex.PW35/A, copy of receipt as Ex.PW35/B and affidavit dated 20.03.2000 as Ex.PW35/C. PW40 Sh. Hukum Singh Chauhan deposed that he never became a member of the Society. He was declared hostile witness and cross-examined by the Ld. Prosecutor but denied that he became a member through Pratap Singh or filed membership form or affidavit with the Society.
11.2 PW10 Sh. Raj Singh deposed that he became member of the Society in 1983-1984 when Pratap Singh (PW3) was the President of the Society. He identified his signatures on the application form for registration of the Society, bye-laws of the Society, Intensive Enquiry Proforma and the application form for membership with affidavit. He, however, having resigned CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 55 from the Society and denied the resignation letter-cum-receipt as Ex. PW10/B. He also denied his signature on the affidavit attested in 2000 as Ex. PW10/C. He also denied having any received any communication either from the office of RCS or from the Society pertaining to the said Society. He deposed that he never any attended any meetings of the Society.
Thus, PW10 was the member of the Society since beginning in 1983-84 but has denied any resignation or affidavit being filed immediately prior to the application for revival of the Society.
Similar is the position with respect to PW11 Sh. Zile Singh, PW14 Sh. Arvind Yadav, PW15 Smt. Santosh, PW16 Smt. Krishna Devi, PW17 Sh. Lal Bachan Yadav, PW18 Sh. Sube Singh, PW21 Smt. Reetu Jain, PW24 Sh. Amar Singh Yadav, PW27 Sh. Kishan Chander Yadav, PW28 Sh. Virender Singh Yadav, PW29 Smt. Saroj Yadav, PW30 Sh. Rajeev Yadav, PW32 Smt. Kamla Devi, PW36 Sh. Ravinder Yadav, PW42 Sh. Yogesh Yadav, PW44 Sh. Aditya Aggarwal.
12. 12.1 From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that there were original members of the Society who admitted their membership but have categorically denied having resigned from the membership or having filed the affidavit in 2000 (prepared for the purpose of filing an application for revival to show that it is not dormant) or the Society being active or even attending the proceedings/resolutions of the Society. This shows CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 56 that there were manipulation done to show that the Society was functioning and the original members were continuing.
Certain persons were added as members but some denied their signatures on the membership form, proceedings register, etc. but admitted membership.
Thus, it has been proved that various applications form, affidavits, receipts, resignation letters, proceedings of the GBM were forged and fabricated and filed with the revival letter, in an act of conspiracy, to revive the Society for getting the land allotted from the DDA.
13. 13.1 The present case of the prosecution is one of a conspiracy to revive the Nav Sarva Priya CGHS Society by using forged and fabricated documents.
The law of conspiracy is very clear and spelt out in Section 120A IPC and punishment under Section 120B IPC.
Section 120A IPC :-
120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1)an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 57 parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Section 120-B reads as under :-
120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-- (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.] Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 564 inter alia held that :-
"......17. Conspiracy is defined in Section 120A of the IPC to mean:
"120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 58 or is merely incidental to that object."
An offence of conspiracy which is a separate and distinct offence, thus, would require involvement of more than one person. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is punishable separately; its ingredients being:-
(i) an agreement between two or more persons.
(ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either
(a) an illegal act;
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
It is now, however, well settled that a conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence. While however doing so, it must be borne in mind that meeting of the mind is essential; mere knowledge or discussion would not be sufficient.
18.Adverting to the said question once again, we may, however, notice that recently in Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, a Division Bench of this Court held:
"25. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement."
19. Yet again in Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2008) 14 SCALE 639], this Court following Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 59 Administration [(1979) 2 SCC 322] held that a conspiracy may be a general one and a separate one meaning thereby a larger conspiracy and a smaller which may develop in successive stages. For the aforementioned purpose, the conduct of the parties also assumes some relevance.
20.In K.R. Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala, this Court held: (SCC pp. 636-38.paras 11 & 13) "11. Section 120A of I.P.C. defines 'criminal conspiracy.' According to this Section when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designed a criminal conspiracy. In Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, (1962) 2 SCR 195, Subba Rao J., speaking for the Court has said: (AIR p. 1778, para 31) '31.....The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act, It may comprise the commission of a number of acts.' x x x x x x x
13. To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of conspiracy. Neither it is necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implications. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair, The existence of conspiracy and its objects are usually deducted from the CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 60 circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy. While appreciating the evidence of the conspiracy, it is incumbent on the Court to keep in mind the well- known rule governing circumstantial evidence viz., each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and the circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn, and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. The criminal conspiracy is an independent offence in Indian Penal Code. The unlawful agreement is sine quo non for constituting offence under Indian Penal Code and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists of the scheme or adjustment between two or more persons which may be express or implied or partly express and partly implied. Mere knowledge, even discussion, of the Plan would not per se constitute conspiracy. The offence of conspiracy shall continue till the termination of agreement."
21. As noticed hereinbefore, neither Avtar Singh nor Harbhinder Singh were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. In our opinion, therefore, appellant alone could not have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC.
22. In Darshan Singh @ Bhasuri Ors. vs. State of Punjab, this Court cautioned that the court ordinarily should not convict a person for commission of offence of conspiracy on the basis of a weak evidence, stating: (SCC p. 415 para 8) "8.The evidence regarding conspiracy is as weak as the evidence about the dying declaration of Sohan Singh, Surat Singh (P.W. 27) speaks of a meeting between the co-conspirators in the house of accused No. 1, Darshan Singh alias Bhasuri. We cannot believe that in the presence of an utter stranger like Surat Singh, the conspirators would discuss their plans to commit these murders, throwing all caution to the winds. The answer of the High Court is that the conspirators were taking CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 61 liquor while discussing the conspiracy and, 'When liquor is taken, then under its influence sometimes most secret things are divulged in the presence of a person who is not so intimately connected. It is often said, when liquor goes in, truth comes out.' This is somewhat artless. Liquor is no lie- detector and we cannot assume that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were so drunk as to overlook the presence of a stranger in their midst yet not so drunk so as to be unable to discuss the execution of their criminal design. Besides, Surat Singh forgot all about the incident and was contacted by the police a few days later. The learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that Surat Singh's evidence suffers from certain infirmities, 15because of which one could not place implicit reliance upon him. We would go further and say that his evidence is too unnatural to merit serious attention. Apart from the evidence of motive, Surat Singh's evidence in regard to the conspiracy is the only evidence against accused No. 1 Bhasuri and accused No. 2 Joga Singh. It is on that evidence that these two accused have been convicted under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Penal Code, the former being sentenced to death and the latter, because of his young age, to life imprisonment,........"
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Sharan Chaturvedi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 16 Supreme Court Cases 166, held that ;
".......27.The principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is an agreement to commit an offence. Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence. Court has to necessarily ascertain whether there was an agreement between the appellant and A-1 and A-2.
28.In the decision of State of Kerala v. P. CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 62 Sugathan and Anr.2, this Court noted that an agreement forms the core of the offence of conspiracy, and it must surface in evidence through some physical manifestation:(SCC pp. 211-12 paras 12-13) "12. ...As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. ...A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy...
13. ...The most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. In a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must inquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators but the latter does. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient..." (emphasis supplied)
29. The charge of conspiracy alleged by the prosecution against the Appellant must evidence explicit acts or conduct on his part, manifesting conscious and apparent concurrence of a common design with A-1 and A-2. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, this Court held: (SCC p.691. Para 101) "101. One more principle which deserves notice is that the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances. Of course, each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in regard to the appreciation of evidence relating to the conspiracy, the Court must take care to see that CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 63 the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution." (emphasis supplied)
30. In accepting the story of the prosecution, the Trial Court, as well as the High Court, proceeded on the basis of mere suspicion against the Appellant, which is precisely what this Court in Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat4, had cautioned against: (SCC p. 185. para
45) "45. The principle for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidences has been indicated in a number of decisions of this Court and the law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. This Court has clearly sounded a note of caution that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been held that the Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. It has been indicated by this Court that there is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. (Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa) " (emphasis in original and CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 64 supplied)
31. It is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between the accused. However, an implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in the cases of circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, in the majority opinion of Ram Narayan Popli v.
CBI, this Court had held:
"354. ... For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is 5Page 18 of 19 required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient."
13.2 The law relating to circumstantial evidence is also required to be noted.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Bhai And Another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 603 held as under :-
".......8."10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those 4circumstances. In CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 65 Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC
621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
11.We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
'21.In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.'
12. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests (SCC pp. 710-11. para 10):
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 66 guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
13. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
14. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted".
15. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.
16. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of M.P, , it was observed thus:
(AIRpp. 345-46. para10) "10. ....It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 67 nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
17. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are:
(SCC p 185. para 153) (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The 8 circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 68 (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram, State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. and in State of U.P. v. Ram Balak.
15. ROLE OF ACCUSED PERSONS (A) Accused Ashwani Sharma (A-3) & Accused Ashutosh Pant (A-7) 1.1 The allegation against accused Ashwani Sharma is that he forged and fabricated the Society documents and in conspiracy with co-accused persons, the documents were filed and used for the purpose of revival of the Society. For this, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence given by the main witness Sh. Naveen Kaushik and the GEQD report by PW50 Y. Surya Prasad. PW53 Sh. Anil Kumar, the investigating officer of the case had allegedly taken specimen signatures of the accused and sent it to the GEQD for the purpose of comparison with other signatures on the forged and fabricated documents of the Society.
1.2 As far as specimen signature/writing of accused Ashutosh Pant (A-7) at page 213 to 223 is concerned, it is of no relevance as GEQD/PW50 Y. Surya Prasad has not given any opinion on the said signatures/handwriting. Thus, it is not incriminatory against accused Ashutosh Pant. CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 69 1.3 Regarding specimen signatures/handwriting of accused Ashwani Sharma is concerned, it were taken at page S-18 to S-22 (Ex. PW50/Q-20 till Ex. PW50/Q-24) and at page S-275 to S-277. It is seen that the specimen signatures were taken by the IO without an order from the Court. It is important because as per the specimen signatures, stated above, the same does not bear the name of any witness in whose presence the specimen signatures were taken by the IO.
PW53/Sh. Anil Kumar/IO deposed in his cross- examination that he used to take specimen signatures in presence of some witness and it is a procedure that specimen signature of any person should be taken in the presence of independent witnesses only and they followed the same. He did not record statement of those independent witnesses relating to specimen handwriting. He did not prepare any record for showing entry or exit of those independent witnesses whenever they were called or joined the relevant procedure. He did not remember if he used to mention the name of the independent witness in his case diary. He does not remember if he had taken the admitted handwriting of accused Ashwani Sharma.
Thus, the prosecution has not brought any independent witness to prove the taking of specimen signature of accused Ashwani Sharma by the Investigating Officer.
Due to the absence of any independent witness and CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 70 the testimony of the IO, the alleged specimen signatures of accused Ashwani Sharma cannot be believed to have been taken and thus, not proved in evidence. Consequently, GEQD report also has no value.
1.4 Even otherwise, it is important to understand the evidentiary value of a expert witness like GEQD. As far as opinion of the handwriting expert i.e. PW-50 is concerned, it is an expert opinion under the Evidence Act. However, it is not a conclusive proof of any fact. The law as regards the handwriting expert is very clear. It cannot be the sole basis for convicting an accused. There has to be a corroborative material apart from opinion of a handwriting expert before arriving at any conclusion.
The law regarding the opinion of handwriting expert is clear in as much as there should be other corroborating material apart from the opinion for convicting an accused.
In Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2020 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6990 of 2018), it was inter-alia held that, ".......16. Of course, it is not safe to base the conviction solely on the evidence of the hand- writing expert. As held by the Supreme Court in Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210 that "expert opinion must always be received with great caution........it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law."
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 71
17. It is fairly well settled that before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence. In Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"4. .......True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses -- the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert 11 shares with all other witnesses
-- but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty "is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the Judge to form his own independent judgment by the CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 72 application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence (Vide Lord President Cooper in Davis v. Edindurgh Magistrate, 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor Cross in his evidence)." 5. ....... 6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person "specially skilled" "in questions as to identity of handwriting" is expressly made a relevant fact......... So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it."
1.5 The reading of the entire depositions shows that there is no corroborating material against accused Ashwani Sharma (A-3) apart from the opinion of handwriting expert PW-50. In the present case, as discussed above, no testimony of any prosecution witness implicates either accused Ashwani Sharma (A-3) or accused Ashutosh Pant (A-7).
1.6 There is one witness Sh. Naveen Kaushik whose testimony was heavily relied upon by the prosecution against its case against the said two accused persons.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 73 Sh. Naveen Kaushik was examined as PW46 and his testimony is as under :-
" I worked as part time accountant during 2001 to 2006 along with M/s S Chand Mittal & Co. I know Sh. Ashwani Sharma, who is accused in this case. He is my Uncle in distant relationship. I know Sh. Ashutosh Pant, accused is his case. I did not know him, before year 2005. I do not know any person namely Sh. Virender Kaushik who was accused in this case. I dealt with the accounts of three or four Group Housing Societies in Delhi.
I have seen affidavits from page No.1C to 105C (105 affidavits) from file (D-9). I do not know as to by whom blank columns on these affidavits were filled up. Vol. All these affidavits are shown to have been executed in year 2000. and I was not in Delhi in that year. I do not know anything about these affidavits.
(At this stage Ld. Senior PP seeks permission to ask some leading questions from this witness as he is resiling from his earlier statement. Allowed.) XXXX By Sh. B K Singh, Sr. PP for CBI.
I was never interrogated by CBI in this case. It is wrong to suggest that I was interrogated by CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 74 the then DSP CBI, EOUVII namely Sh. Anil Singh and my statement was recorded by him on 04.07.2006. It is wrong to suggest that I had disclosed to said Sh. Anil Singh that all aforesaid affidavits (D-9) were filled up by accused Ashutosh Pant and were handed over to Sh. Virender Kaushik. (Confronted with statement Ex. PW-46/A from portion A to A where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I had disclosed to said Sh. Anil Singh as what was modus operandi for preparing forged documents. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely to save accused persons particularly Sh. Ashwani Sharma & Sh. Ashutosh Pant or I am not disclosing true facts in this case as I have been made accused in some other cases by CBI.
Thus, PW46 has not incriminated either of the two accused persons and in fact, exonerated them. The prosecution cannot rely upon the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. What matters is his testimony given in the Court and as far as the same is concerned, nothing has been said against the accused persons.
1.7 There is no overt, direct or tangenital link shown between A-3 & A-7 and any other accused persons in reference to the conspiracy of this case. In the light of depositions of prosecution witnesses, it has to be said that the prosecution has CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 75 not been able to prove against accused persons namely Ashwani Sharma (A-3) and Ashutosh Pant (A-7) for the charges of conspiracy, forgery, cheating or under Prevention of Corruption Act for which they were charged.
(B) Accused J.K. Jain (A-4)
1.1 As far as accused J.K. Jain (A-4) is concerned,
specimen signature/writing of the said accused were taken at S-209 to S-212, that too without disclosing the name of the independent witness in whose presence it was taken. The absence of such witness and its impact has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs pertaining to the accused Ashutosh Pant and Ashwani Sharma. Moreover, the GEQD opinion is completely silent on these documents. Thus, neither the alleged specimen signatures nor the GEQD opinion in any way incriminates accused J.K. Jain.
1.2 Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution, PW/48 M.M. Sharma had bought the Society papers from PW3/Pratap Singh through S.C Gola and Rambir Singh. PW48/M.M. Sharma was acting on behalf of accused J.K. Jain.
Thus, the prosecution sought to prove that the documents of the Society were disposed off by Pratap Singh through Rambir Singh and S.C. Gola, property dealers, who were in contact with Advocate M.M. Sharma who was ready to purchase the documents of the Society for a sum of Rs. 1.20 CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 76 Lakhs on behalf of accused J.K. Jain. M.M. Sharma collected the amount from J.K. Jain and paid the same to Rambir Singh and S.C. Gola and handed over the said documents to J.K. Jain.
Against this allegation, prosecution examined PW3 Sh. Pratap Singh, PW19 Sh. Rambir Singh, PW48 Sh. M.M. Sharma and PW24 Sh. Amar Singh.
One of the crucial witness Sh. S.C. Gola was not examined by the prosecution as was not residing at the given address provided in the Charge-sheet and thus, could not be located.
PW3 Sh. Pratap Singh is a crucial witness in this case. He deposed that he is a founder member of the said Society. He identified his signatures on the application form for the registration of the said Society, bye-laws of the said Society , intensive enquiry proforma. He further deposed that consequent to the winding-up order, he was asked by office of RCS to deposit documents of the Society in the RCS Office and was told to hand over all the documents to one Sh. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Maha Singh, who was at that time present in the RCS Office. He accordingly handed over the said documents to the said person, who told him that he had deposited the same in the RCS Office. He never resigned from the membership of the Society.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that IO has taken his specimen signatures but the same has not been shown CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 77 to him today. Nor did his admitted signatures were taken. He deposed that Beera or Balbir Singh was the person to whom the documents of the Society were handed over.
Thus, in the entire deposition of PW3 not a single word has been told about any accused. In fact, the testimony does not incriminate any accused persons and goes so far to exonerate the accused persons. When PW3 Sh. Pratap Singh did not depose about having sold the documents about the Society with the ultimate beneficiary being J.K. Jain, he was not cross- examined by the prosecution and thus, the prosecution believed the case set-up by PW3. Moreover, when PW3 has deposed that he handed over the Society documents to RCS Office through Balbir Singh, that had demolished the entire case of the prosecution because if the documents deposited with the RCS Office, there was no question of its purchase by accused J.K. Jain or being manipulated or used by private individuals. Pertinently, on this critical point, he was not cross-examined by the prosecution.
PW19 Sh. Rambir Yadav did support the case of the prosecution to some extent as he deposed that he took the papers from Pratap Singh and shown to M.M Sharma who had given Rs. 1,10,000/- to him to be handed over to Pratap Singh. He kept Rs. 5000/- as his own commission while gave Rs. 1,00,000/- to M.M. Sharma. However, during Court questioning, he deposed that he had not seen the documents personally nor he can tell the number of documents nor he had any knowledge that the documents CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 78 belonged to Nav Sarv Priya CGHS. As per his testimony, his knowledge is based on what was told him by Pratap Singh who himself as PW3 has contradicted/not deposed in terms of testimony of PW19.
PW48 Sh. M.M. Sharma had completely turned hostile. He even denied the statement made before the Ld. Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C as a true statement given by him. He was cross-examined by the Ld. Prosecutor. Firstly, from the case of the prosecution, M.M. Sharma appears more like an accused than a witness. Secondly, as per his cross- examination, he is an accused in other cases of CBI, thereby casting doubts about his credibility and testimony. Thirdly, the witness did not depose that he did not give a true picture to the Magistrate but that the Magistrate recorded the statement on his own. Also, he was cross-examined and he deposed that he was threatened by CBI that he will be made an accused if he does not go to the court and sign the statement as per their saying. However, the statement was to be made before the Magistrate who was not acting as per the saying of the IO. Thus, no proper suggestion was put to the said witness by the counsel for the accused about his statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is correct (as argued by the Prosecutor) that a witness cannot simply resile away from his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C while deposing in Court by claiming that he did not give the statement but the Magistrate on his own recorded it. However, considering the testimony of the most crucial witness PW3 Sh. Pratap Singh who was also not cross-
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 79 examined by the prosecutor, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused J.K.Jain.
There is no other prosecution witness who has deposed anything about the said accused. In the light of the above discussion and the nature of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, case against the said accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(C) Accused Jagjit Singh (A-6)
1.1 The case against this accused build-up by the
prosecution is that he had purchased the Society from accused J.K. Jain. However, there is no evidence produced by the prosecution to this effect.
1.2 The prosecution thereafter relied upon witnesses Sh. Naveen Kaushik and Sh. Baldev Singh.
Sh. Naveen Kaushik was examined as PW46 and he has not incriminated the accused in any way. Moreover, Sh. Baldev Singh was examined as PW51 and he was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had told the IO the signatures appearing on the application for membership as Ex. PW51/A and affidavit dated 09.07.2003 Ex. PW51/C are not his or that it were made by his son accused Jagjit Singh (A-6). Thus, testimony of PW51 does not incriminate accused Jagjit Singh.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 80 1.3 Lastly, the prosecution relied upon the GEQD report Ex. PW50/Q-109 to PW50/Q-208 which was based on the specimen signature of the accused given at Page S-109 to S-208. Again the specimen signatures were taken in the presence of a witness, who was not disclosed in the said documents nor consequently were produced by the prosecution.
The discussion on the alleged specimen signatures without independent witness and consequent GEQD report as also the law pertaining to the expert opinion of GEQD and its implications has already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs pertaining to accused A-3 & A-7.
Thus, in view of the above discussion, in the light of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the case set-up by the prosecution against the said accused Jagjit Singh is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(D) Accused P.K. Thirwani (A-8) & Accused Charan Singh (A-11) 1.1 Both the said accused persons were appointed as auditors of the said Society who conducted the audit for the period 1999-2001 & from 1989-1999.
1.2 As far as accused P.K. Thirwani is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that he prepared false audit report on the instruction of accused Ashwani Sharma in the office of Ashwani as stated by PW Naveen Kaushik. However, PW46/Sh. Naveen Kaushik has not testified anything against accused P.K. Thirwani.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 81 1.3 As far as the audit reports of both the accused persons are concerned, it is seen that it is not the basis of the revival order of the Society passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. In fact, it was also not a condition mentioned in the revival order. The audit was done after the revival order was passed.
1.4 The accused has not denied that he conducted the audit but his contention is he conducted the audit in terms of the records shown to him. If the records are false, he cannot vouch for it as he is not an investigating agency. As an auditor on the basis of documents, he prepares and conducts the audit. The prosecution has to show something which is against the principles of auditing and thereafter, the accused can be faulted or have to explain their conduct. On the basis of testimony brought by the prosecution and the documents proved in court, it cannot be said that accused persons acted in conspiracy, cheating or forgery or were involved under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution has to show through positive and cogent evidence that the accused persons were acting in conspiracy with other accused persons while preparing the audit. There is no prosecution witness who says so. Moreover, there is no linkage, overt, direct or tangential, shown between A-8 & A-11 and other accused persons or even between them. No monetary or other benefit is proved by prosecution to have been received by these accused persons.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 82 1.5 Specimen signature/handwriting of accused Charan Singh was not taken while specimen signature/handwriting of accused P.K. Thirwani was taken. As per the GEQD report, the specimen signature of A-8 matched with the signatures on the documents Q-1244 to Q-1248. It is important to mention here that out of these 06 documents, 04 are photocopies and the GEQD report has come on a photocopy and not on original signatures also cannot otherwise also form basis for convicting any accused. Moreover, the matched signatures on two documents are of P.K. Thirwani only while there is no opinion expressed on the signatures of the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Society on the audit papers.
Thus, the GEQD report is also not incriminatory against accused P.K. Thirwani.
Apropos the above discussion, the case against said two accused persons namely P.K Thirwani (A-8) & Charan Singh (A-11) is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(E) Accused Markanday Mishra (A-9)
1.1 The application dated 28.12.1999 for revival of the
Nav Sarva Priya CGHS Society was moved by Praveen Kumar Jain, Secretary of the Society before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The Society had been wound-up by the order dated 11.04.1991 of Sh. Satish Mathur, the then Deputy Registrar, RCS.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 83 1.2 In terms of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, (DCS, in short), the Registrar can make an order directing the Winding-up of a Co-operative Society under Section 63(2). As per Section 66(1) where the Registrar has passed an order under Section 63 for winding up of a Co-operative Society, he may appoint a liquidator for this purpose. Under Section 67 (3), the liquidator shall make a report when the affairs of the Cooperative Society have been wound-up.
As per Rule 105 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, the winding-up proceedings of a society shall be closed within one year from the date of the order of winding-up unless the period is extended by the Registrar provided that the Registrar shall not grant an extension for a period exceeding six months at a time and three years in aggregate and shall immediately after the expiry of three years from the date of the order for winding-up of the Society deem that the liquidation proceedings have been terminated if there are no central amounts due to the government or the bank and pass an order terminating the liquidation proceedings. The Registrar shall terminate the liquidation proceedings on the receipt of the final report from the liquidator. The final report of liquidator shall state that the liquidation proceedings have been closed and how the winding- up has been conducted and it shall include a statement showing summary of the account of winding-up.
Under Section 69 of the Act, the Registrar may, after considering the report of the liquidator, order for the registration CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 84 of the society to be canceled. Such an order shall be communicated by registered post to the President of the Society and to the financial institution, if any, of which Society was a member.
Thus, since there was no final order for liquidation, there was a discretion vested with the RCS for setting-aside the winding-up order and revival of the Society.
1.3 The application for revival of the Society was moved with a list of 105 members for being sent to DDA for allotment of land. The same was considered and the Liquidator/accused M. Mishra found the records to be complete with the audit completed upto 1998-1999 and unaudited account upto 1998-1999. It was noted that the Society had requested the RCS for appointment of an auditor for conducting the audit after 1989. The list of 105 members were sent with 20 resignations and relevant documents were submitted and verified from the original records and twenty new members substituted. Twenty five new members enrolled prior to 30.06.1986 were detailed. The said facts were noted in the noting Ex. P-65 approved by Assistant Registrar (N/W). The further noting Ex. PW20/C was done by Assistant Registrar and approved by Sh. B.M. Sethi, Deputy Registrar (N/W), RCS and it says that the proposal may be perused and approved. The noting Ex. PW20/D further details the views of the RCS where it is said that the request of cancellation of winding-up proceedings can be considered and the action may be approved after giving an opportunity of CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 85 hearing. There was a clarification sought regarding details of the enrollment of the new members. The same was done and approved and RCS directed for giving for date and time for appearance of the Society and notices were issued to the office- bearers for appearance on 08.06.2000 at 11.00 AM (Ex. P-67).
1.4 The RCS conducted the proceedings on 08.06.2000 where Praveen Jain, Secretary of the Society, Krishan Kumar, Joint Registrar and Narain Singh, Assistant Registrar (N/W) were present. Both the Joint and Assistant Registrar gave their submissions regarding authenticity of the 25 new members and verification of the records. The President and Secretary were directed to file their affidavits on behalf of the Society. The said proceedings of 08.06.2000 is Ex. PW20/G. As per further noting at page 24/N Ex. PW20/H, AR reported that the Society had filed a statutory affidavit and placed it on file. It requested to pass final order of revival of the Society and approval of the list of 105 members. The said noting was approved and forwarded by DR (N/W) and JR (N/W). The RCS on 09.06.2000 in exercise of powers under Section 63(3) of DCS Act approved the proposal and canceled the winding-up order.
1.5 Accused M. Mishra as an official of RCS, dealt with the file for revival of the Society. He is alleged to have suppressed the factum of an application for cancellation of winding-up order before the Hon'ble LG and for not verifying the genuineness of the applicant. He also handed over the notice malafidely issued to the President/Secretary of the Society to CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 86 appear before the RCS for personal hearing.
Accused M.Mishra is only an official who handled the file of the revival of the said Society. He did not take the decision of revival of the Society nor was he capable of doing so. The decision was taken by Registrar, RCS Sh. R.K. Srivastav who after satisfying himself of the genuineness of the application ordered for the revival with immediate effect.
In terms of the revival order dated 19.06.2000 Ex. PW43/A, keeping in view the provision of Section 63(3) of DCS Act, 1972, the Secretary of the Society Sh. Praveen Jain appeared in person before him on 08.06.2000 and made his oral commitment to fulfill all the statutory liabilities in future and filed an affidavit to this effect on 08.06.2000 which was duly signed by President and Secretary of the present Managing Committee of the Society.
1.6 Sh. R.K. Srivastava (RCS), Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Delhi vide order dated 19.06.2000 (Ex. PW43/A) passed the said order of revival of Nav Sarva Priya CGHS Society Ltd. and cancellation of the Winding Up Order dated 11.04.1991.
So as to comprehend the contours, context and the contents of the entire proceedings, it is important to reproduce the said revival order Ex. PW43/A dated 19.06.2000.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 87 OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR:COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI OLD COURT'S BUILDING: PARLIAMENT STREET:NEW DELHI-110001.
NO. F.47/1293/Coop/GH/NW/ Dated:_______________ ORDER Whereas the Nav Sarvapriya Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. Regn. No. 1293 was wound up vide order No. F.47/1293/NGH/Coop. dated 11.4.1991 after due show cause notice on the following grounds:-
1. The society failed to produce records before the concerned authorities for verification.
2. Non holding of election of the Managing Committee of the society.
And whereas the society has filed an application U/S 63(3) of the Delhi Co- Operative Societies Act, 1972 vide letter dated 13.1.99 which has been considered;
And whereas the Liquidator after examining the merits and facts of the case recommended for revival of the society on 20.4.2000 and since the defects mentioned in the show cause notice dated 6.12.90 U/S 63(2) CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 88
(b) of the Delhi Co-Operative Societies Act, 1972 did no longer exist as per the observation of the Liquidator;
And whereas keeping in view the provisions of Section 63(3) of the Delhi Co- Operative Societies Act, 1972, the Secretary of the society Sh. Praveen Jain appeared in person before me on 8.6.2000 and made his oral commitment to fulfil all the statutory liabilities in future and also filed an affidavit to this effect on 8.6.2000 which was duly signed by the President and Secretary of the present Managing Committee of the society;
And Now, therefore, I, R.K. Srivastava, Registrar Cooperative Societies, Govt. of NCT of Delhi hereby cancel the winding up order of the Nav Sarvapriya Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. Regn. No. 1293 in exercise of the powers vested in me U/S 63(3) of Delhi Co-Operative Societies Act, 1972. Consequently the Nav Sarvapriya Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. Regn. No. 1293 is hereby revived with immediate effect.
(R.K. SRIVASTAVA) REGISTRAR COOP, SOCIETIES NO. F.47/1293/Coop/GH/NW/711 to 675 Dated: 19.06.2000 CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 89 Copy to:-
1. The President Secretary, Nav Sarvapriya Coop. G/H Society Ltd., 98, Samey Pur, Delhi.
2. The General Manager, Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
3. Netaji Subhash Marg,Darya Ganj, New Delhi. 3 Asstt. Registrar (Audit).
4. Statistical Officer (P&S)
5. Guard File.
(R.K. SRIVASTAVA) REGISTRAR COOP, SOCIETIES Thus, the Registrar, RCS passed the revival order without any conditions and after satisfying himself of the requirements. The RCS could have asked for a physical inspection report which he did not do. The Registrar, RCS was never made an accused in this case. M. Mishra had a limited capacity and though he may be delinquent in not putting up the pendency of any petition before the Hon'ble LG, considering his position as an official who forwarded the application for revival or gave noting, not sufficient grounds exist for proving any criminal case against him and that too beyond reasonable doubt.
1.7 Thus, from the perusal of the entire notings, it is clear that unlike other cases of similar nature, no inspection of the Society was ordered by the RCS. After the application for revival of the Society was moved and documents verified with original records produced on behalf of the Society by accused M. Mishra, the same was also, on satisfaction, approved by AR, JR and DR of RCS. In fact, on the issue of membership, other CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 90 officers senior to accused M. Mishra/Dealing Assistant deliberated and approved the proposal. The order of cancellation of winding-up proceedings was passed by the RCS after a public hearing in which Praveen Jain, Secretary of the Society was present alongwith Joint Registrar and Assistant Registrar and all the documents were verified and considered by them during the proceedings. In such a situation, the decision of the IO to array accused M. Mishra, Dealing Assistant as an accused does not meet the ends of law. If M. Mishra is criminally liable for his notings, then the Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar and the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies are to be held criminally responsible for the entire conspiracy. However, they were not impleaded as an accused. Furthermore, R.K. Srivastav, RCS was enlisted as a prosecution witness and more importantly dropped by the prosecution during the trial. Accused M. Mishra had no authority to pass any revival order. He simply received the application for revival and made his noting and compared the documents filed with the original shown.
1.8 There is no evidence to suggest that any consideration flowed towards the said accused. IO in his cross- examination deposed that "it is correct that accused Markandey Mishra as Dealing Assistant was not competent to revive the Society or to approve the freeze list of members. It is further correct that file containing the note-sheet of the accused CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 91 Markandey Mishra and the documents were put up before Senior officers i.e. Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar and Registrar of RCS. Accused Markandey Mishra was at the lowest rank of hierarchy in the office of RCS. It is correct that during investigation, no witness stated that accused M. Mishra had any prior knowledge of the documents of Society being of forged nature."
No evidence also exists to connect accused M. Mishra with any other co-accused to prove the offence of conspiracy.
On the reading of the entire prosecution evidence on record, it is clear that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused M. Mishra beyond reasonable doubt.
1.9 Interestingly, the specimen signature/handwriting taken by the IO is mostly of Praveen Jain, Priya Jain, Virender Kaushik and Naveen Kaushik. Naveen Kaushik is a prosecution witness in this case while other three have already been discharged in this case vide order dated 19.11.2012.
Moreover, there were independent witnesses made by the IO at the time of taking specimen signature/handwriting of all these persons but not for accused under trials.
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 92
16. In view of the above stated discussion, the prosecution cannot be said to have discharged its burden of proof against accused persons and has not been able to prove its case against all seven accused persons beyond reasonable doubt which is the touchstone of criminal law. Hence, all the seven accused persons are acquitted of all the charges against them.
Pronounced and Dictated in Digitally signed by AMITABH Open Court today i.e. 17.02.2025 AMITABH RAWAT Date:
RAWAT 2025.02.17
18:27:59
+0530
(Amitabh Rawat)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-14
Rouse Avenue District Court
New Delhi
CBI Case No. 155/2019 Priya Jain & Ors. (Nav Sarva Priya-CGHS) Page 93