Delhi District Court
Cbi vs S. Venkat Raman on 28 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided by: Ms. SONAM SINGH-I
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR No. RC-217/2012/A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi.
Branch: ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi
Under Section: Sections 217 & 218 of the Indian Penal Code,
1872 (In short "IPC").
Case No: CBI/312/19
CNR No. DLCT12-000931-2019
Date of institution : 31.01.2013
Date of reserving : 31.05.2024
Date of pronouncement : 28.06.2024
INDEX TO THE JUDGMENT:
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE OF PROSECUTION...4 to 5
COURT PROCEEDINGS.......................................5
CHARGE..........................................................6
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE.............................. 6 to 17
i) Prosecution witnesses....................................6 to 10
ii) Documents on record....................................10 to 17
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS.............17 to 18
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S. 313 CrPC...........18 to 20
CBI Case No. 312/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 1 of 77
DEFENCE EVIDENCE..........................................20 to 21
FINAL ARGUMENTS......................................21
LEGAL PROVISIONS......................................22 to 23
DETAILED DEPOSITION OF CBI
WITNESSES.............................................................23 to 44
DETAILED DEPOSITION OF DEFENCE
WITNESS.................................................................45
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS..............................45 to 76
i) WHETHER THE BEST EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY
THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE ISSUES IN
CONTROVERSY I.E. CHARGESHEET WAS NOT FILED AND
CONSEQUENTLY NOTINGS OF ACCUSED TO HIS
SUPERIORS WERE FALSE ?....................................55 to 62
ii) WHETHER THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER
CONDUCTED FAIR INVESTIGATION ?......................62 to 66
iii) OTHER MISSING LINKS IN THE PROSECUTION CASE:
...............................................................................66 to 75
a) NON-PRODUCTION OF THE DISPATCH REGISTER:
..................................................................................66 to 68
b) SUPPRESSION OF CERTAIN PART FILES/ NOTINGS
PERTAINING TO RC-1/2005: ....................................68 to 71
c) DESPITE REGULAR INSPECTIONS BY SUPERIORS,
THERE IS BELATED RESPONSE OF CBI IN SEEKING
INFORMATION:........................................................71 to 72
CBI Case No. 312/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 2 of 77
d) LACK OF INVESTIGATION QUA THOSE WHO
ACCUSED TRIED TO SAVE:................................72 to 73
e) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL ACT AND
CARELESSNESS:............................................74
iv) OTHER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. PP FOR CBI:
..........................................................................75 to 76
CONCLUSION:..........................................76 to 77
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the : CBI/312/2019 case
b) Date of commission of : From the period 2005 to 2011 offence
c) Name of the : Sh. S. L. Garg, Inspector, CBI, complainant ACU-VI, New Delhi
d) Name, parentage and : S. Venkat Raman (in short "S.V. address of the accused Raman.") S/o Sh. V. Subrahmanian R/o. Plot No. 89, Phase-IV, CBI Colony, Vanasthlipuram, Hyderabad-70
e) Offence complained of : Section 217 and 218 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 217 and Section 218 IPC.
h) Date of Decision : 28.06.2024
CBI Case No. 312/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 3 of 77
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. Vide this judgment, the accused S. Venkat Raman stands acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 217 and 218 IPC in this case for the reasons mentioned below:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. In brief, the facts of the present case are that the accused, namely, Sh. S.V.Raman, while being the Investigating Officer in RC 1/2005/BS& FC/CBI/New Delhi (in short "RC 1/2005") did not file its chargesheet and its accompanying documents. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused made incorrect noting in the office files and gave false information to his supervisory officers that the charge-sheet has been filed in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Nasik on 25.07.2007 and subsequently reported to his superiors that it was pending trial before the Court of Ld. Special Judge, Nasik. It is alleged that investigation revealed that Chargesheet of RC 1/2005 was not filed on the said date and after repeated false reports about filing of the chargesheet, a fresh charge-sheet was CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 4 of 77 filed by the accused on 25.08.2011 in the Court of Ld. Special Judge, Nasik. It is alleged that the accused being a public servant disobeyed directions of his superiors and prepared false reports with intent to save or knowing it to be likely that he would save accused from legal punishment. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is alleged that the accused S.V. Raman, committed the offences punishable U/s. 217 and 218 of IPC.
3. The Investigation of the case was done by the IO/Inspr. Sh. Bharat Singh, CBI/ACU-VI/New Delhi who filed the final report/chargesheet under Section 173 of CrPC in respect of the offence punishable under Section 217 and 218 IPC against the accused.
COURT PROCEEDINGS:
4. The Ld. Predecessor Judge of this court took cognizance upon the said final report/chargesheet on 26.02.2013 and issued summons upon the accused who was stated to be chargesheeted without arrest. On 18.04.2013, accused appeared, admitted to court bail and he was supplied with the copies of chargesheet/final report alongwith its documents.CBI Case No. 312/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 5 of 77 CHARGE:
5. Vide order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 217/218 IPC was framed, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, vide order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the Ld. Special Judge-IV, (PC Act), CBI, Tis Hazari Courts, in a Revision Petition filed by the accused, the order of framing of charge dated 27.01.2015 was set aside on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court framed the charge in the absence of his counsel and one opportunity was granted for addressing arguments on framing of charge against the accused. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, a fresh Charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 217/218 IPC was framed to also which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
6. Thereafter the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
(I) Prosecution Witnesses:
7. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution in all has examined, 09 witnesses, namely:CBI Case No. 312/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 6 of 77 Sr. No. Designation and Name of the Role in the present Witness case
1) PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, at the In the year 1998, he time of recording of his was posted in SIU-X deposition, he was posted as, as a Public Deputy Legal Advisor, Lucknow Prosecutor and Zone, CBI, Lucknow, UP. accused S.V. Raman, the then Deputy SP was also posted in the same branch.
2) PW2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar, at the He was working with time of recording of his CBI in SIU (X), deposition, he was posted as, Delhi from Inspector CBI Academy, 18.11.1998 to Ghaziabad, EC-59187 13.06.2005. He was posted as LDC and was working as Crime Clerk under the supervision of Sh.
L.C. Minocha, Head Clerk. As a Crime Clerk, he was looking after the cases under investigation and under trial in the Branch and that in BS & FC Delhi Branch, he was looking after the work of only under investigation cases.
3) PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad. He was posted in BS&FC branch of CBI from 2000 to CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 7 of 77 2012 as Head Clerk/Crime Assistant and looking after the work of establishment, accounts and administrative matters. As Crime Assistant, his duty was specifically to maintain the crime files, investigation files etc. relating to investigation and trial as well as to carry out correspondence with various agencies and was In-charge of Crime Section in the year 2008.
4) PW 4 G.S.Meena, at the time of He was posted in recording of his evidence he was BS&FC, CBI, New posted as Inspector, CBI, AC-II, Delhi from March New Delhi 2011 till March 2014 as an Inspector. He was the Pairvi Officer in RC no.1/2005.
5) PW5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey, at the In the year 2009, he time of recording of his was posted in BS & deposition, he was posted as FC Branch, New Crime Assistant, Admn. Section, Delhi as UDC in CBI Headquarters Crime Section. His duty was to maintain the crime files and CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 8 of 77 crime register in respect of all the cases registered in the branch.
6) PW 6 Sh. Sham Lal (S.L.) Garg Complainant who also conducted the Preliminary Enquiry of the accused. In the year 2012, he was posted as Inspector of Police, CBI, ACU-
VI, New Delhi.
7) PW 7 Sh. Raghvendra Shankar In the year 2012 he
Ankalgi. was working in the
District Court Nasik
as Judicial
Superintendent and
his duty was to
receive the fresh
filing of the cases.
8) PW 8 Sh. M.P. Rama Rao. During the year 2012
to 2014, he was
posted as Under
Secretary, in Advice
Vigilance Division-II
(B) of DOP & T,
Government of India.
He signed the
sanction of
prosecution.
9) PW 9 Sh. Bharat Singh Investigating Officer
of the present case.
From the year 1998
to December 2013,
he was posted as
Inspector in AC-II
CBI Case No. 312/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 9 of 77
Zone of CBI
(II) Documents on record:
8. The prosecution witnesses relied on the following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibits/Mark Nature of Documents
1) Ex.PW1/A (Also FIR dated 31.01.2005 in admitted as Ex. A1) respect of RC 1/2005, BS&FC, CBI New Delhi.
2) Ex.PW1/B (colly) Noting vide para 444/N to 445/N dated 27.06.2007 and 28.06.2007 respectively mention that after the completion of investigation, the competent authority approved the prosecution of accused persons and marked the file to Special Director (SD) and who in turn marked the file to JD(E) and finally the file was marked to SP Sh.
Mahipal Yadav who further marked the file to IO for compliance.CBI Case No. 312/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 10 of 77
3) Ex.PW1/C Noting vide para no. 515/N dated 24.07.2007 accused S.V.Raman put a note, "Merged and put up. I am filing the chargesheet in the court of Special Judge Nasik by 26.07.2007" bearing the signature of accused at point A.
4) Ex.PW1/D Copy of FAX message addressed to SP, CBI, BS&FC sent by accused S.V. Raman wherein it is reported that chargesheet in RC 1E/2005 has been filed in the Link Court of Sh. A.R. Mahajan, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Nashik as Ld. Special Judge was on leave till this weekend and matter was posted to 26.09.2007 for filing original documents along with copies for accused.
5) Ex.PW1/E Noting at para 1/N dated 05.11.2008 bearing the signature of accused, vide CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 11 of 77 which the progress of case was reported by the accused and file was submitted to DIG BS&FC.
6) Ex.PW1/F Consolidated report dated 15.06.2009 (16.06.2009) under the signature of accused S.V.Raman at point A vide which it was stated that chargesheet in RC 5/99 SIU-X, RC2/99 SIU-X, RC1/98 SIU-
X, 1/2005 BS&FC Delhi and RC6/87 have been filed in the court. (Also exhibited as Ex.PW 9/G (OSR))
7) Ex.PW3/A (OSR) Copy of Production Memo dated 01.07.2011 (D-10) dated 01.07.2011 vide which PW3 Mahavir Prasad had handed over the notesheet portion M-
678, Final Report-I, MR-679, correspondence and copy of chargesheet and copy of charge-sheet with enclosure M- 681/11 regarding the present CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 12 of 77 case to the IO in PE 21720110002(A)/ACU-
V/Delhi, to the IO.
8) Ex.PW3/B Seizure Memo dated 26.03.2012 vide which PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad handed over the CD file of RC1(E)/2005 BS&FC bearing No. M-516/11 regarding the present case to the IO Sh.
Bharat Singh.
9) Ex.PW3/C and 3/D File No. M-678 (D-6) and file No. M-681 (D-9).
10) Ex.PW3/E Noting at para No.7 dated 20.05.2009 (21.07.2009) vide which accused noted regarding proposal of engagement of Special Counsel in the RC-
1(E)/2005 BS&FC, CBI. The said noting bearing the signature at accused at point A.
11) Ex.PW4/A Office copy of Chargesheet of RC No. 1/2005/SIU-X/CBI New Delhi.
12) Ex.PW5/1(Colly) Noting Para No. 455 vide (Para 455 to 459) which the accused put the draft CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 13 of 77 chargesheet which was vetted by Sh. Prabhat Kumar, the then PP for CBI and noting vide para No. 459/N, the draft chargesheet was approved by DIG A.M. Prasad dated 23.07.2007.
13) Ex.PW5/2 (Colly) The copy of the Chargesheet of (pages 41 to 60) case RC BD1/2005/E/0001.
14) Ex.PW6/A (Colly) Copy of Complaint regarding (OSR) (running into 3 some evidence found during pages) Preliminary Enquiry mentioning all the facts which the complainant PW6 Sh.
Sham Lal Garg recovered. The complaint (D-2) is dated 23.01.2012 made to his SPE, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi.
15) Ex.PW7/A Letter (D-8) dated 10.05.2012 sent to SP, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi by PW7 Raghvendra Shankar Ankalgi, Superintendent, District & Sessions Court, Nashik, on the instructions of Ld. In charge CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 14 of 77 Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nashik informing that the chargesheet of RC BDI 2005 E 0001/CBI/ BS&FC/N, Delhi was not filed in the Court of Ld. Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Nasik.
16) Ex.PW8/A (Colly) (4 Forwarding letter dated pages in total) 22.01.2013 addressed to DIG, AC-II, CBI and Sanction of the Prosecution dated 22.01.2013 against the accused.
17) Ex. PW 9/A (OSR), Copy of FIR No. RC (Original in CC 01/2012/CBI/ACU(VI)/New No.313/2019) Delhi.
18) Ex. PW 9/B Letter (D-7) dated 03.04.2012 of Sh. S.K.Bhagat, the then SP, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi addressed to the Ld. Registrar, District & Sessions Courts, Nasik, Maharashtra requesting him to provide necessary information in respect of filing of chargesheet in case RC No. 01/2005/BS &FC, CBI, New CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 15 of 77 Delhi.
19) Ex.PW9/C (OSR) Copy of Handing/taking over (Original in case CC Memo dated 28.02.2012 (D-
No. 313/2019)
10) vide which PW9 IO Bharat Singh had taken over documents mentioned in the memo from Sh. S.L.Garg, the then Inspr. ACU VI, CBI, bearing signature of IO Bharat Singh at point A and that of Sh.
S.L.Garg at point B.
20) Ex.PW9/D (OSR) Copy of Letter dated (Original in case CC 24.04.2012 of Sh. S.K.Bhagat, No. 313/2019) SP, CBI, BS&FC vide which the HoB, AC-II received the documents M 521/12 in the present case.
21) Ex.PW9/E (OSR) Copy of Letter (D-12) dated (Original in case CC 01.08.2012 of SP, CBI, No.313/2019) BS&FC, the HoB AC-II received the documents mentioned and subsequently letter alongwith the documents. were marked to PW9 IO Bharat Singh.CBI Case No. 312/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 16 of 77
22) Ex. PW9/F (Colly) (6 Copy of Document (D-14) i.e., pages in total) (OSR), forwarding letter dated (Original in case CC No. 313/2019) 16.04.2012 alongwith the documents mentioned in the letter of Sh.A.S.Dhillon addressed to SP CBI ACU-VI.
The said letter alongwith documents were marked to PW9 IO Bharat Singh by Sh.
S.K.Bhagat, the then SP,ACU-
VI under his signature at point A.
23) Ex.PW 9/G (OSR), Copy of Reply dated (Original in case No. 15.06.2009/(16.09.2009) of CC No. 313/2019) accused addressed to HoB, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi.
(Also exhibited as PW1/F) ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
9. Vide statement of accused dated 04.03.2020, in compliance with the provisions of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C."), the accused was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of certain documents i.e. (D-3) Copy of FIR RC 1(E)/2005, CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 17 of 77 BS&FC alongwith documents (page 12 to 118), (D-4) Notesheet part of crime file of case RC 1(E)/2005, BS&FC (page 119 to 183), (D-5) Copy of Fax Message dated 25.07.2007 with other documents (page 184 to 268) and (D-
6) File No. M-678/11 with notesheet and correspondence (page 269 to 276). The said documents were admitted by the accused and were accordingly exhibited as Ex. A1 to Ex.A3 and D-6 already Ex.PW3/C. Accused further stated that he had no objection, if the author/signatories of the said documents were exempted from formal examination and that the said documents be read in evidence as per provisions Section 294 CrPC.
10. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 25.11.2022. The court will discuss the testimonies of the said witnesses later i.e., at the time of appreciation of evidence.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C/DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED:
11. The statement of the accused U/s 313 CrPC was recorded on 01.12.2022. He stated that he had mentioned correct details to the department at the appropriate time and had never shielded any information from his superiors at CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 18 of 77 any point of time. He also stated that the chargesheet had been filed before concerned court on the date mentioned by him to his superiors and informed the office by FAX. He stated that he filed the chargesheet of the RC in question on 26.07.2007. Further, he stated that the complete files which include /part files of the RC in question have not been produced before the Court. He also stated that the statement of witnesses examined during Preliminary Enquiry were not produced before the court. He also stated that the prosecution did not seize or produce the relevant documents regarding filing of the chargesheet and also letter dated 10/11.05.2021 of Sh. Raghvendra Shankar Ankalgi, Judicial Superintendent in District Court of Nasik which is Ex.PW7/A was unverified.
12. Further, in his statement, the accused stated that during the period from 1998 to 31.08.2011, he was assigned various duties including investigation, supervision of investigation of cases including searches conducted by his subordinates in various cases, administration, preparing notes for conferences, conducting enquiries, preparation of comments on judgments and whether the case was fit for appeal against the acquittal of accused persons. He also stated that he was also asked to supervise and train the newly inducted 6-7 CISF personnel inducted in the CBI.
CBI Case No. 312/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 19 of 77 Further, he stated that during the said period he had carried out his duties with utmost sincerity and was never communicated any adverse ACR or remarks. He further stated that he received President's Police Medal for distinguished services in 2008. Lastly, he stated that he had been made a scapegoat to hide the procedural irregularities in the CBI at the relevant point of time.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
13. The accused led evidence in his defence.
Defence Evidence (I) In order to prove and substantiate its case, the defence has examined, 01 witness, namely:
Sr. No. Designation and Name of the Role in the present Witness case 1 DW1 Sh. Pawan Kumar, at the He brought the time of recording of his record included the deposition, he was posted as SI, Service Register of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi. accused S.V.Raman from the Malkhana of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi.
14. The accused led evidence in his defence.
Documents on record :
15.(II) The Defence witness relied on the following documents:
CBI Case No. 312/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 20 of 77 Sr. No. Exhibits/Mark Nature of Documents
1. Ex. DW 1/A (Colly, Copies of page nos.
OSR, running into 14 18 to 30 of Service pages) Register containing some loose pages which are tagged with the Service register of accused from Malkhana of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi.
2. Mark DW1/DX Copy of order no.
CBI ID No.
47/Med./PPM-
PM/ID-08/PD-1617
dated 20.08.2008.
16. Thereafter, Defence evidence was closed vide order dated 03.01.2023.
FINAL ARGUMENT:
17. I have heard the submissions of Sh. Vikas Khatri, Ld. PP for the State as well as that of Sh. Shivam Sharma, Ld. counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents and the entire material on record.
CBI Case No. 312/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 21 of 77 LEGAL PROVISIONS:
18. The legal provisions which are involved are Sections 217 and 218 of IPC. The said sections are reproduced below for ready reference:
Section 217 IPC:
217. Public servant disobeying directions of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture-
Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 218 IPC:
218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture. --
Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 22 of 77 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
DETAILED DEPOSITION OF CBI WITNESSES:
19. PW 1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, Deputy Legal Advisor, Lucknow Zone, CBI deposed that from 20.11.1992 to 06.01.1997, he worked as an Assistant Public Prosecutor in CBI, ACB, Delhi and on 07.01.1997, he reported to SIC-I as APP and thereafter on his promotion to Public Prosecutor, he joined in EOW-II from where he again got transferred in SIU-X in 1998. He further deposed that during his posting in SIU-X as Public Prosecutor, Sh. K.N. Tiwari was the Head of the Branch as Superintendent of Police and also that accused S.V. Raman, the then Deputy SP was also posted in the same branch. He further deposed that apart from him there was one another Sr. PP, namely, Sh. Thakur Dass and that later, one APP, namely, Ms. Kiran Bala also joined in the said branch. He further deposed that SIU-X was having jurisdiction of Economic Offences and Bank Fraud related cases and that prosecutors were also attending various trial cases spread all over India.
20. PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar deposed that after the finalization of investigation, final report U/s 173 (2) Cr.PC was prepared by the IO after the receipt of approval orders CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 23 of 77 from the competent authority/HO and then charge-sheet marked to Prosecutor by the Branch Head for vetting. He further deposed that after vetting, the charge-sheet was prepared in the proforma and forwarded by the Branch Head for filing the same in the court of law of competent jurisdiction and charge-sheet also bear the dispatch number of the branch before filing the same in the court. He further on seeing the file D-3 containing FIR No. 1E 2005 BS&FC CBI New Delhi deposed that the FIR was registered under the signatures of Sh. Rajesh Nirwan, SP, BS&FC and the case was entrusted to Sh. S.P.Raman DSP for investigation.
He proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A.
21. PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar deposed that after completion of investigation, the competent authority approved the prosecution of accused persons on 27.06.2007 vide para No. 444/N and marked the file to SD, who in turn marked the file to JD (E) and finally the file was marked to SP and thereafter, SP Mahipal Yadav marked the file to IO for compliance. The noting portion 445/N was proved as Ex.PW1/B(colly). He further deposed that vide para-No. 516/N Sh. S.V.Raman ASP put a note dated 24.07.2007 "Merged and put up. I am filing the chargesheet in the court of Special Judge Nasik by 26.07.2007". He proved the note as Ex.PW1/C and identified the signature of accused S.V.Raman at point A. CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 24 of 77
22. PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar deposed that on 24.07.2007 he accompanied accused S.V.Raman to Nasik and attended the court of Sh. A.R.Mahajan, Ld. Special Judge, CBI but he was on leave, therefore, they both approached the court of Ld. District & Sessions Judge and requested him to accept the chargesheet. He further deposed that since there was a Filing Section in the Nasik District Court, therefore, the Ld. District & Sessions Judge advised them to go in the Filing Section alongwith documents and to file chargesheet there. He alongwith Sh. S.V.Raman visited the Filing Section on the ground floor for filing the chargesheet, but the dealing hand advised them to bring original documents for scanning, failing which, charge-sheet would not be accepted. He further deposed that since accused S.V.Raman was not having relied upon documents, therefore, the dealing hand in the Filing Section did not accept the charge- sheet. He further deposed that he alongwith S.V.Raman returned to the bank situated nearby the court and retired outside the cabin of Manager. He further deposed that S.V.Raman was sitting in the cabin of Manager having conversation with him and writing some papers, which were seen by him outside from the glass window panel, thereafter, they left the bank and proceeded back to Mumbai by a car.
CBI Case No. 312/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 25 of 77
23. PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar deposed on seeing the copy of Fax Message addressed to SP by Sh. S.V.Raman wherein it was reported that chargesheet in RC 1E/2005 BS&FC had been filed. He identified the signatures of Sh. S.V.Raman bearing dated 25.07.2007 at point A and proved the said FAX Message as Ex.PW1/D. He further identified the signatures of SP Sh. Mahipal Yadav at point B, bearing the date '23/7' and FAX message was marked to Crime Clerk by the SP.
24. PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar on seeing the file D-6 noting para 1/N deposed that the noting dated 05.11.2008 bears the signature of Sh.S.V.Raman which is Ex.PW1/E, and the progress of this case was reported by Sh. S.V.Raman and the file was submitted to DIG BS&FC. He further on seeing a consolidated report dated 15.06.2009 under the signatures of Sh. S.V.Raman deposed that the chargesheet in RC No. 5/99 SIU-X, 2/99 SIU-X, 1/98 SIU-X, 1/2005 BS&FC Delhi and RC 6/87 chargesheets had been filed in the court vide report which is Ex.PW1/F bearing signature of Sh. S.V.Raman at point A.
25. PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar deposed that the above said cases were never allocated to him to conduct the prosecution in the court by the branch head. He further deposed that he had never issued court diaries regarding the progress of trial in the court at any point of time during the CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 26 of 77 tenure of his posting either in the SIU-X or BS & FC from 1998 to 2009.
26. PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar was cross examined by ld.
Counsel for accused and during his cross examination, he deposed that the Ld. Special Judge Sh. A.R.Mahajan was on leave on 25.07.2007. He further deposed that after filing of the charge-sheet in the court, charge-sheet is never returned without pronouncing a speaking order and that if the documents are deficient or incomplete, the court directs the IO to file the deficient documents, before proceeding further. He further deposed that at the time of filing of charge-sheet, Ahlmad of the court usually checks the documents, as per the list relied by the prosecution and submits his report and thereafter Charge-sheet is registered by the Court. He further stated that if original documents are not filed alongwith the charge-sheet, Ahlmad apprises the same to the Ld. Judge for appropriate directions. He further deposed that apart from the IO, charge-sheet can be filed by IO, deputed by Head of the Branch and that Branch Head can depute any other IO to file charge-sheet, in case charge-sheet is returned from the court.
27. PW2-Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Inspector CBI Academy, Ghaziabad deposed that he was working with CBI in SIU (X), Delhi from 18.11.1998 to 13.06.2005 and that on CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 27 of 77 12.09.2003, SIU(X), Delhi got merged with BS & FC, Delhi Branch of CBI. He deposed that at the said time the Branch SP was K.N. Tiwari. He further deposed that during the relevant period he was posted as LDC and was working as Crime Clerk under the supervision of Sh. L.C. Minocha, Head Clerk. He deposed that as a Crime Clerk he was looking after the cases under investigation and under trial in the Branch and that in BS & FC Delhi Branch, he was looking after the work of only under investigation cases. He further deposed that whenever any FIR was registered, copy of the same was entrusted to the IO for investigation and to the concerned court. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, the final report Part-I was submitted by the IO of the case to Branch SP, thereafter, Branch SP marked the same to Law Officer of the Branch for opinion as Final report Part-II and then Law Officer prepares the Final Report Part-II and submits the same to the Branch SP/competent Officer. Further, he deposed that competent authority gives his final order in the matter and that if matter is related to the prosecution of the Public Servant, sanction of prosecution is required before filing of the charge-sheet. He further deposed that Branch SP prepares a report and sends it to the concerned department requesting to send sanction for prosecution against the concerned Public Servant. He further deposed that after CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 28 of 77 receipt of sanction for prosecution, draft charge-sheet is prepared by IO of the case, and the same is put up before the SP of concerned branch and after legal vetting of the chargesheet and forwarded by the branch SP as well as signed by the IO, the same is filed in the concerned court. Further, he deposed that IO of the case submits a status report of filing of charge-sheet and the status of the case on the date fixed before the court.
28. PW2- Sh. Rajeev Kumar deposed that RC 1/2005, BS&FC was registered on 31.01.2005 under signature at point A of Sh. Rajesh Nirwan, the then SP BS&FC which is already Ex.PW1/A. He identified the signature/initial of the then SP as he had seen him signing and writing during his official duties as LDC. He deposed the said RC was marked to accused for investigation and copy of the same was sent to Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Nasik. He further deposed that he had been transferred from the said branch on 13.06.2005.
29. PW2- Sh. Rajeev Kumar was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel for accused, wherein he deposed that his examination in chief was based on the documents shown to him from the record of the case and he had no personal knowledge of the case. He further admitted that if compared with seizure memo, all the files pertaining to RC- 1(E)/2005 BS&FC, CBI all the material had not been filed CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 29 of 77 in the court. He further admitted that the copy of the chargesheet in case No. RC 1(e)/2005 BS&FC prepared and approved to be filed in court in the year 2007 was not part of the charge-sheet in this case.
30. PW2- Sh. Rajeev Kumar deposed in his cross examination that the office used to maintain the dispatch register, wherein office maintained the dispatch number of every reply/correspondence/chargesheet/FIR etc. He further deposed that it could not be ascertained from the said register to whom the charge-sheet was entrusted to file in the competent court. He further deposed that the said dispatch register was not in the court record, and he does not remember other cases which were entrusted with the accused for investigation during the relevant time. He deposed that he could not say after seeing the notesheet as to how many part files were opened in particular case. He admitted that record maintained by the crime section was inspected by senior officers including SP, DIG and JD on quarterly, half yearly and yearly basis.
31. PW 3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad deposed that he joined CBI on 30.07.1980 and was posted in BS & FC Branch of CBI from 2000 to 2012 as Head Clerk/Crime Assistant. Further, he deposed that his duty was to look after the work of crime files, investigation files etc. and to carry out CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 30 of 77 correspondence with various agencies. Further, he deposed that vide production memo dt. 01.07.2011 (D-10), he handed over the note-sheet portion i.e., M-678/11, Final Report-I, MR-679, correspondence and copy of chargesheet with enclosure M/680/11, correspondence and copy of chargesheet with enclosure M-681/11 regarding the present case to the IO in PE 21720110002(A)/ACU V/Delhi and proved the said production memo dt. 01.07.2011 (D-10) as Ex.PW3/A (OSR) bearing his signature at point A and signature of S.L. Garg at point B. He further deposed that he had handed over the CD file of RC-1(E)/2005 BS&FC bearing M-516/11 regarding the present case to the IO Sh. Bharat Singh vide Ex.PW3/B bearing his signature at point A and that of Sh. Bharat Singh at point B. He further proved the file M-678/11 (D-6) as Ex.PW3/C and file M-681/11 (D-9) as Ex.PW3/D.
32. PW 3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad deposed that vide noting dated 24.04.2007, para - 516/N accused S.V.Raman noted that the Chargesheet of RC1/(E)/2005 BS&FC, CBI, will be filed before ld. Special Judge, Nasik Court by 26.07.1997 which is already ExPW1/C, and he identified the signature of accused S.V.Raman at point A. Further, he deposed that FAX Message dt. 25.07.2007 of accused placed in the file M-718/11 at page No.57 which is already Ex.PW1/D bears the signature of accused S.V.Raman at point A regarding CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 31 of 77 filing of the chargesheet of RC 1(E)/2005. He further deposed that vide noting para No.1/N dated 5.11.2008 which is already Ex.PW1/E, the accused noted that the charge-sheet of the said RC had been filed on 27.07.2007 and since then, there had been no progress in the trial of the case. Further he deposed that vide noting at para-No.7 dated. 21.05.2009 accused noted regarding proposal of engagement of Ld. Special Counsel in the said RC and proved the said noting as Ex.PW3/E.
33. PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that all the files pertaining to RC-5(E)/99 SIU-X, CBI were not available on record of the court, and he had never seen the trial file. Further, he deposed that trial file was separately maintained by Crime Clerks, who used to work under him. Further, witness deposed in his cross-examination that he did not remember as to what duties were performed by accused S.V. Raman.
34. PW4 is Sh. G.S.Meena who deposed that he was at CBI, BS&FC from March 2011 to March 2014 as Inspector. He further deposed that he was Pairvi Officer in RC No. 1/2005/SIU-X/CBI, New Delhi. He further deposed that the chargesheet in the said case was filed by Sh. S.V.Raman on 25.08.2011 in the court of ld. Special Judge, CBI, Nasik.
CBI Case No. 312/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 32 of 77 Further, on seeing the document D-16 (M-521/2012) which was the office copy of chargesheet of RC No. 1/2005/SIU- X/CBI, New Delhi on page No. 110(418 of court record) and proved the same as Ex.PW4/A bearing the signature of accused S.V.Raman at point A and B at page No. 136 (392 of court record), that of at point A on page N. 106(422 of Court record) and also on page No.81 (460 of court record) at point A.
35. PW4 Sh. G.S.Meena was cross examined by the ld.
Defence counsel for the accused and deposed that he was appointed as Pairvi officer by then officer S.K.Raman or Sh. M.P.Singhal. He further deposed that there was no document on record of the court which shows that he was appointed as Pairvi Officer and that he had no personal knowledge about the RC No. 1/2005/SIU-X/CBI,New Delhi prior to he being appointed as Pairvi officer.
36. PW 5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey deposed that he was working in CBI Headquarter, Admin. Section as Crime Assistant and in 2009 he was posted in BS & FC Branch, New Delhi as UDC in Crime Section. Further, he deposed that his duty was to maintain the crime files and crime register in respect of all the cases registered in branch. Further, he deposed that the present case was registered in BS & FC Branch, CBI on 31.01.2005 and identified the CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 33 of 77 signature of Sh. Rajesh Nirwan, the then Superintendent of Police, CBI, BS & FC on FIR (already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A) dated 31.01.2005, of the case i.e., RC BD1/2005/E/001.
37. PW 5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey was shown the note-sheet vide para no. 444 to 445 file bearing No. M-715/2011 which is already Ex.A-2, the notesheet vide para-No. 444 and 445, vide which the Director CBI approved filing of chargesheet in RC No. BD1/2005/E/0001. He deposed that thereafter, the file was marked to accused S.V.Raman for necessary action and the para-No. 445 is already Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that vide para-No. 455, accused S.V.Raman also put the draft chargesheet in above case which was vetted by Sh. Prabhat Kumar, the then PP for CBI. He further deposed that vide para-No. 459/N, the draft sheet was approved by DIG A.M.Prasad dated 23.07.2007 and the para-No. 455 and 459/N were proved as Ex.PW5/1 (colly) (para-No. 455 to 459).
38. PW 5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey deposed that vide para-
516/N, accused S.V. Raman made a note on 24.07.2007 that he was filing the charge-sheet in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Nasik by 26.07.2007 and the last note on the file (Ex. A2) was of 22.11.2007 and that the para was already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/C. CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 34 of 77
39. PW 5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey deposed that on the page-41 to 60 of the file (already exhibited as Ex. PW 3/D), copy of charge-sheet of case BD1/2005/E/0001 was available and at page 41 of the charge-sheet, he identified the signature of Sh. Prabhat Kumar, the then PP who vetted the charge-sheet on 27.07.2007. Charge-sheet was exhibited as Ex. PW 5/2 (Colly) (Pages 41 to 60).
40. PW 5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey also deposed that the first noting at para-1 from point B to B on Ex. PW 3/C, was made by accused S.V. Raman which was already proved as Ex. PW 1/E and he identified signatures of accused at point A. Further, he deposed that noting at para-7, from point C to C was made by accused S.V. Raman on 20.05.2009, which was already proved as Ex. PW 1/E and witness identified the signatures of accused at point A. Further, he deposed that FAX message at page 57, 58, in the file numbered as M-718/11 already exhibited as Ex. A3 was sent by accused S.V. Raman to SP, CBI BS & FS Branch on 25.07.2007 (already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/D) and he identified the signature of accused S.V. Raman at point A.
41. PW 5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel wherein he admitted the fact that when compared to the seizure memo of the files pertaining to RC No. BD1/2005/E/001, all the material was not filed in the court. Further, he deposed that the copy of charge-sheet CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 35 of 77 dated 21.03.2011 filed in RC No. BD1/2005/E/0001 was in the court record and was exhibited as Ex. PW 4/A (D-16). He also stated that copy of charge-sheet in RC No. BD1/2002/E/0001 prepared and approved to be filed in the court in the year 2007 was not part of the charge-sheet in the present case. Further, he admitted the fact that whenever a charge-sheet was taken from the office to be filed in the court, an entry was made in the dispatch register and the dispatch register was not a part of court record. Further, he stated that during the relevant period, accused S.V. Raman was also investigating other cases including old and fresh investigation. He stated that record maintained by Crime Section was inspected by Senior Officer including SP, DIG and JD on quarterly, half yearly and yearly basis. Further, he stated that he had not dealt with the trial file in RC No. BD1/2005/E/0001.
42. PW 6 Sh. Sham Lal Garg deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as Inspector of Police, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi. He deposed that a complaint was received by office of CBI, AC-II from BS & FC, CBI, New Delhi regarding accused S.V. Raman for not filing the said charge- sheet and the complaint was marked to him for Preliminary Enquiry. He deposed that he conducted the Preliminary Enquiry and found some evidence against accused CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 36 of 77 S.V.Raman and accordingly, he filed his complaint (D-2) dated 23.01.2012, bearing his signature at point A, to his SPE, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi mentioning all the facts which he recovered during Preliminary Enquiry. Further, he deposed that original complaint dated 23.01.2012 was tagged with the case no 313/2019 and the complaint dated 23.01.2012 was exhibited as Ex. PW 6/A (Colly) (OSR) (running into 3 pages).
43. PW 6 Sh. Sham Lal Garg was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel in which he deposed that when any complaint was received from the superiors for PE, the same was registered by giving a specific number and in the present case the PE number was mentioned in the subject of his complaint dated 23.01.2012 (D-2). Further, he deposed that he does not remember if he handed over the written complaint received from Sh. Santosh Macherla, HoZ (BS & FC), CBI, New Delhi to the IO of the present case. He handed over all the documents prepared, and statement recorded by him during PE to the IO of the present case. Further, he deposed that he inquired from the relevant court concerned regarding filing of charge-sheet by the accused as claimed by him. Further, he deposed that statements recording during Preliminary Enquiry were not made part of the present charge-sheet. Further, he deposed that after submission of PE, the Branch takes further course of action CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 37 of 77 as per law and that he could not remember the name of Senior Officer on whose instructions the FIR was registered.
44. PW7 is Sh. Raghvendra Shankar Ankalgi, deposed that in the year 2012, he was working as Judicial Suprintendent in District Court Nasik. He on seeing the document D-8 i.e., letter dated 10/11.05.2012 deposed that it was issued by him, after the directions of his superior In charge, Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nasik in terms of the letter bearing No. 19962172012A0001/CBI/ACU- VI/N.D. dated 03.04.2012 (D-7) received from CBI, New Delhi. He further deposed that he sent letter D-8 to SP, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi informing that the chargesheet of RC BDI 2005 E 0001/CBI/BS&FC/N.Delhi was not filed in the Court of Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Nasik after going through the case institution register maintained at the District Court, Nasik of the period July 2007 to December 2010. He identified his signature on the letter D-8 which is Ex.PW7/A.
45. PW7 is Sh. Raghvendra Shankar Ankalgi was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross examination, he deposed that in the present case he had not met any CBI official, nor his statement was recorded. He further deposed that he had not provided any copy of case CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 38 of 77 institution register maintained in the District Court Nasik to CBI. He deposed voluntarily that the report regarding the letter Ex.PW7/A was also sent to Ld. District Judge-04, Nasik and thereafter, he was directed to send the report to the CBI. He further voluntarily deposed that if they return any chargesheet to the concerned officer, they maintain the record. The following question was put to PW7 during his cross examination:
Q: Did you provide the above-mentioned record to the CBI stated by you in the voluntarily statement ?
Ans. No such record was found because the chargesheet in question never presented.
46. PW7 is Sh. Raghvendra Shankar Ankalgi deposed in his cross examination that he did not remember where he was posted in 2007. He further deposed that he came to his present post in October 2011. He further deposed in his cross examination that he had deposed in his examination in chief on the basis of record available and not on his personal knowledge.
47. PW8 is Sh. M.P.Rama Rao deposed that he was posted as Under Secretary in Advice Vigilance Division-II (B) of DOP&T, Government of India from the year 2012 to 2014. He further deposed that, on receipt of the present CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 39 of 77 case from CBI in respect of Sh S.V.Raman, after carefully examining the facts and circumstances of the case and also the documents and statements of witnesses pertaining to the case exercising due diligence and application of mind and with approval of Sanctioning Authority, the present prosecution sanction was signed by him and communicated to the agency (CBI). He identified his signature at point A on the forwarding letter dated 22.01.2013 addressed to DIG, AC-II, CBI and Sanction of the Prosecution dated 22.01.2013 at point A on each page. He proved the forwarding letter alongwith Sanction of prosecution as Ex.PW8/A (colly 4 pages in total).
48. PW8 Sh. M.P.Rama Rao was cross examined by ld.
Counsel for accused and during his cross examination, he stated that the Sanction was sought in relation to the omissions and commissions in submission of a case by the accused in the court of law. He further volunteered that in total there were four cases. During his cross examination he further denied the suggestion that he had not scrutinized the documents or that he had passed the Sanction order in a mechanical manner. He further denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind to the facts and the documents provided by the CBI to him or for this reason there was no mention of details of the documents or the list of witnesses in his sanction order.
CBI Case No. 312/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 40 of 77
49. PW-9 is Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that he was posted as Inspector in the AC-II Zone of CBI from the year 1998 till December 2013. He further deposed that in the year 2012, an FIR vide RC No. 1/2012 was registered in the ACU-VI branch of CBI on 08.02.2012 against accused Sh. S.V.Raman, retired SP CBI on the allegations that he had been the investigating officer of four cases viz. RC No. 1/1998/SIU-X CBI, RC No. 2/1999/SIU-X CBI, RC No. 5/1999/SIU-X CBI and RC No. 1/2005/BS&FC CBI Delhi and that he had not filed the chargesheet in respect of these cases after conclusion of the investigation and that subsequently he also submitted false reports to his supervisory officers that chargesheet in these cases had been filed and that these cases are under trial in the concerned court.
50. PW-9 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that this case was registered on the basis of the complaint of Sh. S.L.Garg already Ex.PW6/A. He proved the copy of FIR RC 01/2012/CBI/ACU (VI)/New Delhi as Ex.PW9/A (OSR, original in CC No. 313/2019) bearing the signature of Sh. S.K.Bhagat, the then SP CBI, ACU-VI New Delhi at point A. He identified his signatures as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official work and FIR was marked to him for investigation.
CBI Case No. 312/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 41 of 77
51. PW-9 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that the document (D-7) letter dated 03.04.2012 of Sh. S.K.Bhagat, the then SP, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi addressed to the Registrar District & Sessions Courts, Nasik, Maharashtra requesting him to provide necessary information in respect of filing of chargesheet in RC No. 01/2005/BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi was proved as Ex.PW9/B and he identified the handwriting and signature of Sh. S.K.Bhagat.
52. PW-9 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that vide handing/taking over memo dated 11.05.2012 (D-10) he had taken over documents mentioned in the memo from Sh. S.L.Garg, the then Inspector ACU VI CBI and proved the copy of same as Ex.PW9/C (OSR, original in case CC No. 313/2019) bearing his signature at point A and that of S.L.Garg at point B.
53. PW-9 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that vide letter dated 24.04.2012 of SP CBI, BS&FC, the HoB AC-II received the documents mentioned and subsequently letter alongwith the documents were marked to him for necessary action by endorsement of then then SP, Sh. S.K.Bhagat at point B alongwith signature. He had also signed on the letter at point A. He proved the copy of said document as Ex.PW9/D (OSR, original in case CC NO. 313/2019). He further deposed that vide letter dated 01.08.2012 (D-12) of SP CBI, BS&FC, the HoB, AC-II received the documents CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 42 of 77 mentioned and subsequently letter alongwith the documents were marked to him. He proved the copy of said letter as Ex.PW9/E (OSR, original in case CC NO. 313/2019).
54. PW-9 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that vide seizure memo dated 26.03.2012 (D-13) which was already Ex.PW3/B, he had seized the documents mentioned in the memo from Mahavir Prasad, Crime Assistant, BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi, bearing his signature a point B and that of Sh. Mahavir Prasad at point A, which he identified as said Mahavir Prasad had signed in his presence. He further deposed that the document (D-14) i.e., forwarding letter dated 16.04.2012 alongwith the documents mentioned in the letter of Sh. A.S.Dhillon to SP CBI ACU-VI, were marked to him by Sh. S.K.Bhagat, the then SP ACU-VI under his signature marked at point A which was proved as Ex.PW9/F colly (6 pages in total) (OSR, Original in case CC No. 313/19).
55. PW-9 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that vide Ex.PW9/F, he had received the reply dated 15.06.2009 of accused addressed to HoB, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi and proved the copy of said reply separately as Ex.PW9/G (OSR, original in case CC No.313/19). He identified the signature of CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 43 of 77 accused at point A on Ex.PW9/G as he had seen the accused signing on various documents.
56. PW-9 Sh. Bharat Singh was cross examined and in his cross examination, he admitted that a record of filing of chargesheet is maintained in the concerned court, and he did not personally check the above said record. He deposed that he had personally visited the concerned court and met the concerned staff including the Ld. Presiding officer in the present matter and he obtained the report regarding the filing/non-filing of the chargesheet in the present matter. He deposed that he had not deputed any other person to check the record of the court in respect of filing of the chargesheet. He further deposed that he had not seized the register mentioned in Ex.PW7/A as the same was court record. He also deposed that he did not obtain the certified copies of the said register and denied the suggestion that he did not seize the said register in order to falsely implicate the accused. He deposed that he had carried out searches of the residence of accused at Hyderabad and had not found any incriminating evidence regarding disproportionate asset. He further deposed that Inspr. S.L.Garg recorded the statements of witnesses during the course of preliminary enquiry and that the said statements were not part of the chargesheet. He volunteered that the same were not required.
CBI Case No. 312/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 44 of 77 DETAILED DEPOSITION OF DEFENCE WITNESS:
57. DW-1 Sh. Pawan Kumar, SI, CBI, AC-II, New Delhi brought the summoned record i.e., Service Register containing some loose pages, tagged with the service register of accused S. Venkat Raman from the Malkhana of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi. The copies of the page No. 18 to 30 of the said register were relied upon as Ex.DW1/A (colly, OSR, running into 14 pages) and copy of the order No. CBI ID No. 47/Med./PPM-PM/ID-08/PD-1617 dated 20.08.2008 was marked as Mark DW1/DX. During his cross examination he deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the entry made in the register and as to who had made the entries and when they were made. He also deposed that the entries were not made in his presence.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
58. Now, coming to the specific allegations against the case, it is the case of the prosecution that RC-1/05 was registered in the BS&FC branch of the CBI on 31.01.2005 which is proved as Ex.PW1/A and also admitted as Ex.A1 by the accused during proceedings u/s 294 CrPC. It is CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 45 of 77 alleged that RC- 01/05 was marked to the accused Sh. S.V. Raman, the then Dy. SP, CBI, who remained the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case till the conclusion of the investigation.
59. It is alleged that as per the final approval, the charge-
sheet in the said case was supposed to be filed against one M/s. Durgesh Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Nashik and its seven Directors, its employees and one Manager of United Bank of India, on the allegations that the said accused persons had cheated the United Bank of India Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 25.83 Crores.
60. It is alleged that on 27.06.2007, Sh. Vijay Shankar Tiwari, the then Director, CBI gave his approval for sending the case for prosecution of the accused persons which is Ex. PW1/B.
61. Further, the Prosecuting Agency has alleged that on 25.07.2007, the accused Sh. S.V. Raman sent a FAX message from Nashik to his supervisory officer, the then SP, CBI, BS&FC, wherein it is reported that chargesheet in RC 1/2005 has been filed in the Link Ld. Court of Sh. A.R. Mahajan, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Nashik as Ld. Special Judge was on leave till this weekend and matter was posted to 26.09.2007 for filing original documents along with copies for accused. The copy of FAX message is Ex.PW1/D. CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 46 of 77
62. Further, it is alleged by the CBI that on 05.11.2008, which is Ex.PW1/E, the accused Sh. S.V. Raman also submitted a Note stating that "the instant case is pending trial in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Nasik. In this case the chargesheet was filed on 27.07.2007 and since then, the case is at pre-charge stage. There is no progress in the trial of the case. The PP of this branch are holding number of cases and I feel that it would be in the fitness of things, if the case is entrusted to Special Counsel. In this regard, I have spoken to Sh. E. Narayanan, SP, CBI, BS&FC, Mumbai who informed me that Sh. V.V. Parikh , Senior advocate has been appointed as Special Counsel for conducting prosecution in one of their cases and he is a competent Advocate who can handle the cases of this nature. The notification got issued by BS&FC, Mumbai in favour of Sh. V.V. Parikh is placed at Flag-X. I recommend that the case be entrusted to Sh V.V.Parekh as Special Counsel. Necessary approval of DCBI and views of DOP may kindly be obtained."
63. It is alleged by the CBI that on 20.05.2009, accused submitted another note which is Ex.PW3/E that: "...I am in regular touch with the court. The proposal for appointment of Special Counsel is pending in the HO. Govt. orders are awaited."
CBI Case No. 312/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 47 of 77
64. Further, the CBI has alleged that the accused sent a report on 15.06.2009 to the then HoB/BS & FC regarding the status of this case, which is Ex.PW1/F (Also exhibited as Ex.PW 9/G (OSR). He mentioned in this report that "
RC 1/2005-BS&FC//DLI, the chargesheet and the copies of the documents have already been filed in the court of Special Judge Nasik. The court has informed that it will take cognizance and issue process to accused on 10.07.2009."
65. Further, it is the case of the Prosecution that charge-
sheet in the above-mentioned case was never filed by accused Sh. S.V. Raman, in the Court of the Ld. Special Judge, Nasik or that of Ld. Link Court or any court as such. It is alleged that the accused filed a fresh chargesheet on 25.08.2011 and prior to the said date, the case RC 1/05 was not pending in the court either for trial or for taking cognizance. It is alleged that the accused did not file the chargesheet, as apparent from the letter/report dated 10/11.05.2012 which is Ex.PW7/A received from the Ld. Judicial Superintendent, District & Sessions Court, Nasik. Further, it was stated by Ld. PP for CBI that the allegations against the accused are corroborated by the testimony of PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, Public Prosecutor of CBI who deposed that he had accompanied the accused to the District Court Nasik but the chargesheet was not accepted as the CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 48 of 77 accused was not carrying the original documents. Hence, it was argued that CBI has proved beyond reasonable that the accused did not file the charge-sheet on 25.07.2007 and he gave false reports to his superiors.
66. In view of the aforesaid specific allegations, CBI has alleged that the accused Sh. S.V. Raman being the Investigating Officer of the case RC- 01/05, by not filing the charge-sheet of case in the court, has knowingly found to have disobeyed the direction of the law with intent to save or knowing it to be likely that he will save some persons from legal punishment. It is also alleged that the accused S.V.Raman is found to have given false reports about filling of the charge-sheet of the case to his superiors and hence, he prepared record/writing in a manner which he knew to be incorrect with an intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will cause, loss or injury to the public or to CBI, with intention to save or knowing it to be likely that he will save certain persons from legal punishment. Thus, the prosecution has alleged that the accused is guilty of commission of offences punishable u/s 217/218 IPC.
67. Now in the light of the aforesaid legal provisions, let us appreciate the evidence available on record. It is an admitted fact that RC 01/05 was registered on 31.01.2005 which is Ex.PW1/A and duly proved by the prosecution. It is an admitted fact that RC- 01/05 was marked to the CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 49 of 77 accused by his supervisory officer, the then SP, CBI, BS&FC. It is also an admitted fact that the accused sent a FAX message from Nasik to his supervisory officer on 25.07.2007 which is Ex.PW 1/D informing him that the chargesheet of the said case had been filed on 25.07.2007 itself.
68. As per the CBI, the accused never filed the chargesheet in the said case on the said date and in fact, the accused gave false reports to his seniors and other officers of CBI that he had filed the chargesheet. It is the case of CBI that this act was done by the accused in order to save the persons qua whom chargesheet was to be filed.
69. In regard to the false reports given by the accused, CBI had alleged that the report of the accused sent by way of FAX message by the accused dated 25.07.2007 from Nasik to his supervisory officer that charge-sheet of the case has been filed in the court on 25.07.2007 which is Ex.PW 1/D is false. CBI has also alleged that the notings made by the accused dated 24.07.2007, 05.11.2008 and 20.05.2009 which are Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW3/E respectively are false notings. The prosecution also alleged that the report sent to DIG/BS&FC dt. 15.06.2009 which is Ex.PW1/F (Also exhibited as Ex.PW 9/G (OSR)) in which the accused has reported that RC 01/05 was pending trial in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Nasik and that the CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 50 of 77 court had informed that it will take cognizance and issue process to accused on 10.07.2009 was a false report.
70. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the letter dated 10.05.2012 received from the Ld. Superintendent, District & Sessions Court, Nasik which is Ex.PW7/A to prove that the accused did not file the chargesheet in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Nasik. The said letter which is Ex.PW7/A is addressed to SP, ACU-VI, CBI, New Delhi and is written by the Ld. Superintendent, District & Session s court, Nasik. The said letter was written as a response to an earlier letter dated 03.04.2012 from SP, CBI which is Ex. PW 9/B.
71. The relevant portion of the said letter which is Ex.PW7/A which is written by Ld. Superintendent, District & Sessions Court, Nasik is reproduced below:-
"I am under instructions of the Hon'ble in charge Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nashik to furnish the information asked by you vide letter under reference No.1.
Accordingly, I am to inform you that no chargesheet in CBI case RC BDI 2005 E 0001/CBI/BS&FC/N.Delhi against Shri. M.L.Kantha Rao, the then Manager, Bank of India and others, was filed in the Court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Nashik earlier during the period from July 2007 to December 2010, as per institution registers of Special Court."
72. The prosecution attempted to prove the said letter Ex.PW7/A by summoning a witness PW7 Sh. Raghvendra CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 51 of 77 Shangar, Ankalgi. He deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as a Judicial Superintendent in District Court, Nasik. He deposed that he issued the said letter Ex.PW7/A, after direction of his Superior In-charge, Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nasik. He identified his signature on the said letter Ex.PW7/A.
73. Further, CBI relied upon the testimony of PW1 Prabhat Kumar, who was the then Public Prosecutor of CBI and who had accompanied the accused S.V.Raman on 24.07.2007 in the Nasik District Court. PW-1 Prabhat Kumar deposed that on 24.07.2007, he accompanied the accused S.V. Raman to Nasik and attended the court of Sh. A.R.Mahajan, Ld. Special Judge, CBI but he was on leave and therefore, they approached the court of Ld. District & Sessions Judge and requested him to accept the chargesheet. PW-1 Prabhat Kumar deposed that there was a Filing Section in the Nasik District Court and hence, Ld. District & Sessions Judge advised them to go to the Filing Section alongwith the documents for the purpose of filing of the chargesheet. He deposed that he alongwith the accused went on the ground floor at the Filing Section, but the dealing hand advised them to bring original documents for scanning without which the charge-sheet could not be accepted. He deposed that since the accused did not have CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 52 of 77 the relied upon documents, the dealing hand of the Filing Section refused to accept the charge-sheet.
74. It is settled law that it is the duty of each party to lead best evidence in its possession which could throw light on the issue in controversy. Further, in case, such material evidence is withheld, the court has the discretion to may draw adverse inference U/s. 114 illustration (g) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short "IEA"). The same was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mussauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam [(2009) 14 SCC 541. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:-
"11. It is the duty of the party to lead the best evidence in its possession which could throw light on the issue in controversy and in case such material evidence is withheld, the court may draw adverse inference under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 notwithstanding that the onus of proof did not lie on such party and it was not called upon to produce the said evidence (vide Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohd. Haji Latif [AIR 1968 SC 1413] )."
75. The aforesaid position of law was also reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 360.
76. Another principle of law is that it is the solemn duty and responsibility of the prosecution to place the best CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 53 of 77 evidence before the court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (1974) 3 SCC 774 also emphasized the role of the Investigating Officer not to only collect evidence to strengthen the prosecution case but to conduct fair investigation which brings out the truth. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:
"11. The duty of the Investigating Officers is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth..."
"12. As neither the prosecution nor the defence have, in the case before us, come out with the whole and unvarnished truth, so as to enable the Court to judge where the rights and wrongs of the whole incident or set of incidents lay or how one or more incidents took place in which so many persons, including Laldhari and Ramanandan, were injured, Courts can only try to guess or conjecture to decipher the truth if possible. This may be done, within limits, to determine whether any reasonable doubt emerges on any point under consideration from proved facts and circumstances of the case."
77. Applying the aforesaid legal position of law to the facts of the case, it is seen that the issues in controversy are:
whether the accused filed the chargesheet or not and whether the noting sent by the accused to his superiors in this regard were false. This court is required to see whether the prosecution has brought the best evidence in its possession to show that the accused did not file the chargesheet and sent false reports to his superiors in this CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 54 of 77 regard. Further, this court is to see whether the Investigating Officer conducted fair investigation which brought out the truth or whether he collected evidence only with intention to bolster the case of the prosecution.
i) WHETHER THE BEST EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE ISSUES IN CONTROVERSY I.E. CHARGESHEET WAS NOT FILED AND CONSEQUENTLY NOTINGS OF ACCUSED TO HIS SUPERIORS WERE FALSE?
78. In the present case, the best evidence to prove that the accused did not file the chargesheet would have been the Institution Registers/ Other relevant registers from the concerned court i.e. of the court of Ld. Special Judge , Nasik or that of Ld. Link Court or the Register of the Filing Counter. Further, the best witness to prove the fact that the chargesheet was not filed would have been the Ahlmad/ Record Keeper of the files of that period i.e. 25.07.2007 of the said court. Further, CBI alleged that the charge-sheet of RC 1/2005 was never filed and after repeated false reports about filing of the chargesheet by the accused, a fresh chargesheet was filed by him on 25.08.2011 in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Nasik. Hence, the best witness to prove the fact that the charge-sheet was not filed would have been the Ahlmad/Record Keeper of the files of the said court or CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 55 of 77 any official from the Filing Counter of the period 25.07.2007.
79. As per the prosecution case, in the alleged false reports sent by the accused to his superiors including the FAX message, he stated that the chargesheet was filed on 25.07.2007. It is the case of the prosecution that the chargesheet was not filed on 25.07.2007. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that PW7 Sh. Raghvendra Shankar Ankalgi in his cross-examination deposed that he did not remember where he was posted in the year 2007 and he was posted as Judicial Superintendent in District Courts, Nasik in October 2011. He deposed that he did not provide any copy of the Case Institution Register maintained in the District Courts, Nasik to CBI. He voluntarily deposed that he had sent a report regarding the letter Ex.PW7/A to Ld. District Judge- 04, Nasik, however, the same was not sent to the CBI as it was for internal use. He admitted in his cross examination that the said record/report which he has mentioned in Ex.PW7/A was never asked by CBI. Considering the testimony of PW7 Sh. Raghvendra Shankar Ankalgi, it is apparent that he was not the Record Keeper or custodian of the files in the year 2007 and hence, he is not a witness to the fact whether the chargesheet was filed or not.
CBI Case No. 312/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 56 of 77
80. A perusal of the letter Ex.PW7/A shows that, it is mentioned that no charge-sheet in CBI case No. RC 1/2005 against Sh. M.L.Kantha Rao, the then Manager, Bank of India and others was filed in the court of Ld. Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Nashik earlier, during the period from July 2007 to December 2010, as per the Institution Registers of the Special Court. However, the said Institution Registers of the said Ld. Special Court were not produced by the CBI nor the relevant copies of those entries from the register were annexed with the copy of the said letter. No explanation was given by CBI as to why the copy of the Institution Registers or the original itself were not produced. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that PW7 Raghvendra Shankar Ankalgi's testimony and letter Ex.PW7/A do not assist the prosecution in proving its case that the chargesheet was never filed by the accused and status of the case reports sent by the accused were false.
81. The prosecution failed to cite Ahlmads of the Ld. Special Judge/Ld. Link Judge, Nashik or/and any official from the Filing Section of that period i.e. year 2007 as prosecution witnesses in the present case. The record keeper/ Ahlmad/official from the Filing Section of the period year 2007 could give the direct evidence with regard to the receiving /non receiving of the chargesheet which would be the best evidence. Further, the non-production of CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 57 of 77 the said registers and not citing the record keepers/ Ahlmads/official from the Filing Section of the period year 2007 as witnesses has prejudiced the fair trial of the accused.
82. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khatri Hemraj Amulakh v. State of Gujarat (1972) 3 SCC 671 held that, the non-examination of a material witness would give rise to an inference that if he is examined, he would not have supported the prosecution case. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the fact that the Ahlmad/ Record keepers/official from the Filing Section of the relevant period (year 2007) have not been cited as a prosecution witness, which gives rise to an inference that in case they were joined as witnesses, they would not have supported the case of the prosecution.
83. The deposition of another witness, PW-6 Sh. Sham Lal Garg is also important. He had conducted the preliminary inquiry on the basis of complaint received from BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi against the accused S.V.Raman for not filing the chargesheet. In his cross examination, PW-06 Sh. Sham Lal Garg deposed that he inquired from the relevant court concerned regarding filing of charge- sheet by the accused as claimed by him. He deposed that CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 58 of 77 the said statements recorded during preliminary inquiry are not made part of present chargesheet. No plausible explanation came forward to state as to why the said statements of the relevant court staff members recorded during preliminary inquiry being important for adjudication of the present case were not filed. Since the said statements were admittedly available with CBI yet not filed, an adverse inference is drawn against it owing to the fact that material evidence has been withheld by the prosecution.
84. Now, coming to an argument of Ld. PP for CBI made in this regard, wherein he argued that the said registers were not summoned as it would have disturbed the daily proceedings of the concerned court. I find no merit in the submission made by Ld. PP for CBI, considering that it is not believable that the said register would be used till date. Moreover, CBI did not bring any evidence to show that the said register was being used till date which would have allegedly caused inconvenience to the said court.
85. Ld. PP for CBI argued that PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar who was the then Public Prosecutor of CBI and who accompanied the accused on 24.07.2007 to the Court of Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Nasik District Court is also a material witness. Ld. PP for CBI argued that as per the testimony of CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 59 of 77 PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, it is well apparent that he was an eyewitness to the fact that the chargesheet was never filed by the accused. PW-1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar deposed that he had accompanied the accused on 24.07.2007, but as per the accused and the case of the prosecution itself, the accused had submitted false reports to his superiors that he had filed the charge-sheet on 25.07.2007, which was the next date. Further, PW-1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, in his examination in chief deposed that RC 1/2005 was not allocated to him for conducting the prosecution in the court by the Branch Head. Considering that the case of CBI is that charge-sheet was not filed by the accused, as per the false report given vide the Fax message Ex.PW1/D on 25.07.2007, the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, does not assist the CBI in proving its case.
86. Further, Ld. PP for CBI argued the letter Ex.PW7/A of the Ld. Superintendent , District Court, Nasik written under the instructions of his superior In-charge, Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nasik is enough evidence to conclude that the chargesheet was not filed. He argued that the Ld. Special Judge, Nasik and Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nasik were not summoned as witnesses to prove the said letter, as per Section 121 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short "IEA"). Section 121 CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 60 of 77 IEA specifically provides for protection of the Judges/Magistrates from being unnecessarily exposed as witnesses before a court. In this regard, he relied upon various judgments passed by the different courts in the cases of Yuvaraj vs. The State Rep. in Criminal O.P. No. 7668 of 2019 and M.P. No. 4193 of 2019 and Criminal M.P. No. 4193 of 2019 decided on 03.06.2019, C.B.I. Thru S.P., New Delhi vs. The State of U.P. And Anr. decided on 14.12.2020 and Union of India vs. Orient Engg. & Commercial Co. Ltd. & Anr 1977 AIR 2445. He argued that the reason why the Ld. Magistrates or Judges are not summoned as witnesses was succinctly explained in the case of Union of India vs. Orient Engg. & Commercial Co. Ltd. & Anr (supra), wherein it was held that the Judges or Magistrates will be put to embarrassing and objectionable proceedings wherein they will be asked to testify as to what weighed in their mind in reaching their verdict which is undesirable. He also argued that by summoning Judges, public administration will suffer.
87. This contention of Ld. PP for CBI lacks merit as the witness to prove the fact that the chargesheet was not filed was the Record Keeper or Ahlmad and not the concerned Judge who was admittedly not the Judge at the time of filing of the chargesheet. Hence, this court is of the opinion that a mere reply by the Superintendent, District & Sessions CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 61 of 77 Judge, Nasik to a letter sent by CBI does not prove the prosecution's case of the accused committing the alleged criminal offences.
88. The next point to consider is whether the Investigating Officer in the present case conducted fair investigation or collected only that evidence which would bolster the case of the prosecution.
ii) WHETHER THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER CONDUCTED FAIR INVESTIGATION ?
89. In this regard, the testimony of the Investigating Officer, PW-9 Sh. Bharat Singh is relevant. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he did not personally check the record of the concerned court, where the official record of chargesheet is maintained. The deposition of PW9 Sh. Bharat Singh in this regard is reproduced below:
"It is correct that a record of filing of chargesheet is maintained in the concerned court. I did not personally check the above said record".
90. PW9 Sh. Bharat in his cross-examination deposed that he did not seize the register mentioned in Ex.PW7/A and that he did not depute any person to check the record of CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 62 of 77 the court in respect of the filing of the chargesheet. PW11 Sh. Bharat Singh failed to give any explanation as to why he did not personally check or depute any person to check the record in the concerned court. He also failed to explain as to why he did not seize the said Register.
91. The fact that the investigating agency did not make any efforts to check the record of the concerned courts personally for seizing or inspecting the official record makes the case of the prosecution very weak. It is apparent that efforts were not made to collect the best evidence itself which would prove the fact that the chargesheet was never filed in the year 2007.
92. Further, PW9 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that during his visit to the concerned Court, it was confirmed that chargesheet was never pending trial in the said Court. Apart from the letter Ex.PW7/A and testimony of PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, there is no other document or evidence to show as to how the prosecution arrived at the conclusion that the chargesheet of "RC-1/2005" was never filed. The investigating officer PW 11 Sh. Bharat Singh should have personally checked the record if he was conducting fair investigation or deputed any person to check the record. Without personally checking the records of the court of Ld. CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 63 of 77 Special Judge, Nasik and without summoning the record keepers/ Ahlmads of those courts, it cannot be ascertained beyond reasonable doubt that the chargesheet of "RC- 1/2005 was not filed by the accused S.V. Raman. Hence, it is apparent by the conduct of the Investigating Officer/Sh. Bharat Singh that he failed in collecting the best evidence in this case, by not checking the record.
93. In this regard, Ld. PP for CBI had argued that evidence of Police Witnesses cannot be discarded on the ground that they belong to Police Force owing to the reason that they are interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. He argued that the credibility of any witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness and there is no rule of law that no conviction can be recorded merely on the testimony of Police Officials. In this regard he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana 2015 AIR SCW 617 and Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2021 decided on 30.08.2022. He also argued that the testimony of Police witnesses cannot be doubted on the ground that they are biased as the correct test of biasness would be whether there appears to be a "real danger of CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 64 of 77 bias" and the probability or preponderance of probability of such bias would not be relevant and in this regard, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Sathyan vs. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the test in checking the presence of bias is that there may be "real danger of bias" and the bald plea of the investigation not being fair has to be tested on this.
94. Ld. PP for CBI argued that in the present case, investigation was conducted fairly and there was no danger of bias against the accused S.V. Raman who was the investigating officer working in CBI. In this regard the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana (Supra) itself points out that as a rule of prudence, the court is to carefully scrutinize and independently appreciate the evidence of police witnesses, as they are interested in the outcome of result of the case. Considering the testimonies of all the police witnesses in the present case, after carefully scrutinizing and appreciating their evidence, it is apparent that they have not come out with the truth. PW9 Bharat Singh being the investigating officer should have personally checked the record of the concerned court and seized the relevant registers but he and the other prosecution witnesses have CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 65 of 77 proved to be only interested in the success of the outcome of the present case and hence, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the Ld. PP for CBI.
iii) OTHER MISSING LINKS IN THE
PROSECUTION CASE:
95. After careful perusal of the evidence, adduced in proof of the fact that the accused allegedly did not file the chargesheet, there are other glaring missing links. Those missing links are factors which make the prosecution doubtful. Those factors include the fact. that the prosecution failed to produce its own dispatch register of the year 2007; all the part files pertaining to RC-1/2005 were not part of the record; belated response from CBI despite regular inspection by superiors of the accused; lack of efforts to trace the case diary and no investigation in regard to role of those persons who were allegedly saved from legal punishment.
a) NON-PRODUCTION OF THE DISPATCH
REGISTER:
96. Firstly, PW-1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar who was the Public Prosecutor at the time of commission of alleged offence deposed that as per procedure, after the finalization of CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 66 of 77 investigation, after the receipt of approval orders from the Competent Authority/HO, the final report U/s. 173 (2) CrPC is prepared by the IO., after the receipt of approval orders from the Competent Authority/HO. He deposed that subsequently thereafter, the chargesheet is marked to Prosecutor by the Branch Head for vetting and after the vetting, the charge-sheet is finally prepared in the proforma and forwarded by the Branch Head for filing the same in Court of Competent Jurisdiction. He deposed that the charge-sheet also bears the dispatch number of the branch before filing the same in the Court.
97. PW-2 Sh. Rajiv Kumar deposed that he who was working with CBI in SIU-X during the period 18.11.1998 to 13.06.2005 as LDC, Crime Clerk. He stated that he was looking after the cases under investigation and under trial in the said branch. PW2 Sh. Rajiv Kumar in his cross examination deposed that the office used to maintain dispatch register, wherein office maintains the dispatch number of every reply/correspondence/chargesheet/FIR etc. He deposed that the said dispatch register was not part of the court record.
98. Further, PW5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey, who deposed that in the year 2009, he was posted in BS & FC Branch, New Delhi as UDC in Crime Section. His duty was to maintain CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 67 of 77 the crime files and crime register in respect of all the cases registered in the branch. PW5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey in his cross examination also deposed that the said dispatch register was not part of the court record.
99. Considering the aforesaid procedure deposed by PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, it was imperative for CBI to have file the dispatch register of the year 2007 to prove that the accused did not file the charge-sheet in the concerned court. The fact that CBI failed to file register and did not give any reasonable explanation as to why the dispatch register was not filed, raises a doubt on the prosecution case.
b) SUPRESSION OF CERTAIN PART FILES/NOTINGS PERTAINING TO RC-1/2005:
100. It is pertinent to note that as per testimonies of PW2 Rajiv Kumar, PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad and PW5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey who are all officers of CBI, it is apparent that all the notings/part files pertaining to RC-1/2005 are admittedly not before this court.
101. In this regard, PW2 Rajiv Kumar in his cross examination deposed that: "it is correct that when compared with seizure memo of the files pertaining to RC- 1(E)/2005, BS&FC, CBI, all the material has not been filed CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 68 of 77 in the court". Further, he deposed that: "I cannot say after seeing a notesheet file that how many part files were opened in that particular case."
102. Further, PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad deposed in his cross examination that all the files pertaining to RC in question are not available on record of the court. Moreover, PW5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey in his cross examination deposed that: "...It is correct that when compared to the seizure memo of the files pertaining to RC-1(E)/2005, BS&FC, CBI, all the material has not been filed in the court...It is correct that after seeing the note sheet file, I cannot say how many part files were opened in this case".
103. It is common knowledge that any development in respect of the case is recorded in the notesheet file and put up to the concerned officers. In the absence of the complete note sheets, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
104. Ld. PP for CBI relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahavir Singh vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 2231 of 2010 decided on 23.05.2014 wherein it was held that in case the question is not put to the witness in cross- examination, he would not get an opportunity to explain a particular issue and hence, the correctness or legality of the CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 69 of 77 said fact/issue cannot be raised. Ld. PP for CBI also relied upon the judgment pronounced in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 2567 of 2024 decided on 15.05.2024 in regard to the importance of giving suggestions and the consequence of failure to give it. Ld. PP for CBI had argued that Ld. Counsel for accused failed to put questions to the prosecution witnesses in regard to the exact notesheets and part files which were not part of the charge-sheet filed against the accused and the contents of the said notesheets and part files. He argued that since those questions were not asked, the prosecution witnesses were not given an opportunity to explain as to which notesheets and part of files were not produced and in case they were asked specific questions in regard to the exact notesheets and part of files, it would not have favoured the accused and thus, this court should draw an adverse inference against the accused.
105. This Court is not satisfied with the argument made by Ld. PP for CBI as Ld. Counsel for the accused could have put the questions in cross-examination to the prosecution witnesses, in regard to the exact notesheets and part files, which were deliberately suppressed only if the accused had access to it. Without access to the complete part files and CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 70 of 77 the notesheets, Ld. Counsel for accused could not have asked specific questions. In fact, Ld. Counsel for the accused pointed out the discrepancies in the case of prosecution by asking the prosecution witnesses as to whether all the notesheets and part files were made part of record and to which they answered in the negative. The CBI is guilty of suppression of notings wherein officers record the developments of a case. The prosecution failed to give any plausible explanation as to why the complete part files and notesheets were not produced. in It is well apparent it CBI is being selective in filing of the notings and something is being hidden from the Court. Accordingly, adverse inference is drawn against CBI in this regard for suppression of the notesheets and part files.
c) DESPITE REGULAR INSPECTIONS BY SUPERIORS, THERE IS BELATED RESPONSE OF CBI IN SEEKING INFORMATION:
106. It is pertinent to mention that PW-2 Sh. Rajiv Kumar and PW-5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey deposed in their cross examination that the record maintained by the Crime Section was inspected by Senior officers, including SP, DIG and JD on quarterly, half yearly and yearly basis. As per the prosecution, the accused had sent a false report about the chargesheet being filed by way of FAX message on CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 71 of 77 25.07.2007 which is Ex.PW1/D. It is also alleged that the accused sent a false status report to HOB, CBI, BS & FC on 15.06.2009 which is Ex.PW1/F (also PW9/G) in which the accused has reported that, "RC 1/2005 -BS&FC/DLI, the charge-sheet and copies of documents have already been filed in the court of Special Judge, Nasik. The court has informed that it will take cognizance and issued process to accused on 10.07.2009." If the record was being regularly inspected by the said senior officers, then it is not clear as to why CBI made inquiries about the chargesheet so belatedly, in the year 2012 from the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nasik vide Letter dated 03.04.2012 issued by the then SP concerned which is Ex. PW 9/B. This is also a gap which was not explained by the prosecution as per the time fixed.
d) LACK OF INVESTIGATION QUA THOSE WHO THE ACCUSED TRIED TO SAVE:
107. As per Section 217 and 218 of IPC, one of the ingredients to be fulfilled for the accused to be held liable is that the accused should have committed the offences with intention to save or knowing that he is likely to save any person from legal punishment. The entire chargesheet is silent on this aspect. The prosecution failed to bring any material evidence on record to show as to how the accused CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 72 of 77 had an intention or knowledge to save the persons from legal punishment. Further, no investigation in regard to role of those persons who were saved from legal punishment was carried out.
108. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for accused relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghubansh Lal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0033/1957 AIR 1957 SC 486 wherein it was held that the intention of the accused that he deliberately made wrong entries has to be gathered from the acts of the accused for him to be liable for the offence punishable U/s 218 IPC. In the light of the said legal position, CBI failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the accused had benefited by way of monetary means or otherwise.
There is no iota of evidence in this regard. In this regard, testimony of the investigating officer, PW9 Sh. Bharat Singh is important who deposed that he had carried out searches of the residence of the accused at Hyderabad but he did not find any incriminating evidence regarding disproportionate asset. If the story of the prosecution is to be believed, some benefit should have been accrued to the accused as a motive for deliberately not filing the chargesheet, but in the absence of any evidence, this ingredient could not be fulfilled.
CBI Case No. 312/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 73 of 77
e) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL ACT AND CARELESSNESS:
109. The accused in his statement U/s. 313 CrPC stated that the motive of CBI to file the present case was to hide the procedural irregularities in the CBI, at the relevant point of time and he was made a scapegoat. He stated that during the period from 1998 to 31.08.2011, he was assigned various duties including that of investigation, supervision of investigation, searches etc. There is a difference between being careless and having criminal intention and criminal knowledge to commit offences punishable under penal laws, such as IPC. Considering that the superiors of the accused, themselves woke up after several years from the date when the false report in regard to the filing of the chargesheet was given shows that there may have been office politics and the accused may have been made a scapegoat. There is a possibility that the file had gone missing, and the liability was fixed on the accused who was the smallest fish amongst his superiors.CBI Case No. 312/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 74 of 77
iv) OTHER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD.PP FOR CBI:
110. Ld. PP for CBI argued that in the statement U/s 313 Cr.PC , the accused should have disclosed the information which was in his special knowledge but he remained evasive in his answers and hence, the case of the prosecution stands proved. Ld. PP for CBI relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indrakunwar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh 2023 LiveLaw SC 932 and Premchand vs. The State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168, wherein it was held that the Statement of the Accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC can be used to examine the veracity of the prosecution case and may be used to lend credence to the case of the prosecution.
In the case of Premchand vs. The State of Maharashtra (Supra), it was held that if there are facts within the special knowledge of the accused which are not satisfactorily explained, that could be a factor which could be used against the accused. In this regard it is pertinent to note that the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC is neither a substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence, as held in the judgment of Indrakunwar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (Supra) itself and it does not discharge the prosecution's burden of leading evidence to prove its case. Further, the CBI Case No. 312/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 75 of 77 prosecution is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that burden cannot be put on the accused. In the present case, the burden has not been discharged by the prosecution which failed to produce the best evidence to prove its case.
CONCLUSION:
111. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading convincing evidence to prove the guilt of accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The accused person cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave may be, cannot take place of proof. Every benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused person.
112. In view of the above discussion, since the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts, hence, the accused S. Venkat Raman stands acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 217 and 218 IPC.
113. Bail bonds/Surety bonds U/s. 437 CrPC stand canceled.CBI Case No. 312/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 76 of 77
114. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 28.06.2024 (SONAM SINGH-I) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI. Digitally signed SONAM by SONAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.06.28 16:43:42 +0530 Certified that this Judgment contains 77 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SONAM SINGH-I) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROUSE AVENUE DISTT. COURTS NEW DELHI.
Digitally signed by SONAM SONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.06.28
16:43:53 +0530
CBI Case No. 312/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 77 of 77