Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar Cghs) on 22 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SAMEER BAJPAI
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) [CBI]-14, ROUSE AVENUE
DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
Case No.- CBI-152/2019
CNR No.- DLCT11-000692-2019
CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS)
FIR No. - RC. BD1/2006/E/0006/CBI/BS&FC, New Delhi
U/Sec. - 120-B r/w section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC &
Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences u/s
420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d)
of PC Act, 1988.
CBI Vs. 1. Atakaputhur Kunnathmana Shankaran @
A.K.Shankaran
S/o late Sh. K. Nambudari
R/o 1596 Type-III, Delhi Administration Flat,
Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
2. Brij Mohan Sethi @ B.M. Sethi (Expired)
S/o Sh. Hira Lal Sethi
R/o L-8, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi.
3. Amar Nath
S/o late Sh. Jeevan Mal
R/o BE-89, Hari Nagar,
New Delhi-110064.
4. Sohan Pal Sharma
S/o Sh. Brham Singh
Village Timkiya, PO-Nek,
Distt. Meerut (U.P).
5. Ajay Kumar Solanki
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh Solanki
R/o 127, Nasirpur, PO-Palam,
New Delhi-110045.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 1 of 144
6. Joginder Singh Solanki
S/o Sh. Risal Singh
R/o Village Nasirpur, PO-Palam,
New Delhi-110045.
7. Virender Mohan Rishi @ V.M. Rishi
S/o Sh. Durga Das Rishi
R/o H-94/9, Shivaji Park,
Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026.
8. Ram Avtar Sharma @ R.A. Sharma
(Expired)
S/o late Sh. Kallumal Mudgal
R/o A-2A, 39 DDA Flat, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058.
9. Neeraj Chopra
S/o Sh. Hira Lal
R/o D-59, East of Kailash,
New Delhi.
10. Madan Mohan Sharma @ M.M. Sharma
S/o late Sh. Khem Chand Sharma
R/o HU-8, 1st Floor, Pitam Pura,
New Delhi-110034.
11. Karta Ram Khanna @ K.R. Khanna
(Expired)
S/o Sh. R.S.D. Khanna
R/o A-103, Ground Floor,
Derawala Nagar, Delhi-110009.
Date of institution of the case - 29.12.2007
Date on which, case has been - 06.05.2011
received in this court
Arguments concluded on - 06.12.2022
Date of pronouncement
of judgment - 22.12.2022
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 2 of 144
JUDGEMENT:
1. Following the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 02.08.2005 and 21.03.2006 in Civil Writ Petition No. 10066/2004, the FIR in the present case was registered. It was allegedly averred in the FIR that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy during the period 1998 to 2000 to cheat the Delhi Development Authority to allot a land to M/s. Raman Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. on the basis of a fraudulent recommendation for allotment of land as obtained from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi by forging resignation letters of original members and applications for regularisation. As a result of the said criminal conspiracy, the accused persons got alloted a land measuring 4008.74 Sq. Meters in plot no. 5A Sector-11, Phase-I, Dwarka, New Delhi during the year 2000 in the name of the Society. The said Society was registered on 11.11.1983 vide Registration No.872 (GH) with 70 promoters members, having its registered office at Government Boys Sr. Secondary School No.2, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. The said Society was formed by the teachers of the said school, other teachers of the nearby schools and their relatives with the object to get a land alloted from the DDA and then to construct flats for its members for residential purpose. During investigation, it was further revealed that 5 more members were enrolled in 1984 to 1985 and a list of 75 members was approved by the RCS on 11.06.1985. The approved list was not sent to the DDA by RCS, however, the same was given to the Society. It was further revealed that 15 members were expelled from the Society in 1991 for default in payment towards the cost of land. In October, CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 3 of 144 1990 through a letter dated 01.10.1990, the DDA intimated the Society to deposit an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as earnest money towards cost of land and accordingly, on 16.10.1990, the Society deposited Rs.5 lakhs. In the meanwhile, 14 new members were enrolled and two cases were transfer cases during the period 1985 to 1991. Further, during 1986 to 1992, about 30 members resigned from the Society. As such against the total initial strength of 75 members, only 44 members remained enrolled with the Society as on December, 1992. Vide letter dated 22.12.1992, the RCS informed the Society that the DDA intended to allot a land in Dwarka and Narela to the Societies whose registration numbers were falling between to 852 to 981. In response to the said letter, the Society submitted a list of 44 members to the RCS and the RCS then forwarded the strength of the members of the Society to the DDA. The DDA could not offer land to the Society as the enrolled strength of the Society was only 44, whereas the mandatory strength required for allotment of land to the Group Housing Societies was 48. It was further revealed during investigation that from 1993 to 1995, 10 more members resigned from the Society and the strength of the members came down to 34. In the General Body Meeting held on 03.09.1994, the matter relating to non allotment of land by the DDA due to shortage of members was discussed and the members demanded refund of their earnest money alongwith the interest and consequently, the DDA refunded earnest money of Rs.5 lakhs to the Society. Thereafter, all 34 members were refunded their deposits by the Society between February to April 1996. The members of the Management Committee consisting of CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 4 of 144 Sh. V.M. Rishi, the Secretary of the Society and Sh. R.A. Sharma, the President of the Society also received full and final payment except their share money of Rs.100, which was retained for the purpose of doing final official formalities in the office of RCS. By the end of 1996, the Society became defunct and non functional. As per the DCS Act, the Society ought to have passed a resolution and sent a copy thereof to the RCS to the effect that it had become defunct but this formality was not done. The records of the Societies remained in possession of Sh. V.N. Rishi, the then Secretary of the Society. Investigation revealed that no correspondence was made by the Society with the office of RCS between April 1993 to February 1998. However, on 21.10.1997, Sh. A.K. Shankaran, Dealing Assistant in the office of AR (West) put up a note to AR (West) regarding non production of original records by the Society for verification of list of members in compliance of the earlier order dated 15.04.1993. On the recommendation of AR (West), the Dy. Registrar, Sh. J.P. Aggarwal issued a direction that a letter may be sent to the Society by Registered Post immediately and an Inspector should also go to the Society and make inspection to see whether the Society was functioning. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 28.10.1997 was issued to the Society by Sh. D.K. Gaur, AR (West) but no reply was received from the Society. Investigation further revealed that during the period 1998 to 2000, A.K. Shankaran (A-1), the then Inspector GR-III in the office of RCS, Sh. B.M. Sethi (A-2), the then Assistant Registrar (West) in the office of RCS, Amarnath (A-3), the then Auditor in the office of RCS, Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma (A-4), the LDC/Dealing Assistant in CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 5 of 144 the office of Deputy Director (GH) DDA by corrupt and illegal means abused their official positions and entered into a criminal conspiracy with Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5), Joginder Solanki (A-
6), V.M. Rishi (A-7), R.A. Sharma (A-8), Neeraj Chopra (A-9), M.M. Sharma (A-10), K.R. Khanna (A-11), Saleek Chand Gola (A-12) and Jai Bhagwan (A-13) (All private persons), with an object to cheat DDA fraudulently got confirmed the freezed strength of a defunct Society i.e. M/s. Raman Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and got alloted a land from the DDA on subsidized rates. Investigation further revealed that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, Sh. V.M. Rishi (A-7) and Sh. R.A. Sharma (A-8) being the then Secretary and President of the Society illegally transferred the documents pertaining to the Societies alongwith original resignation letters of promoter members and other relevant documents to the co-accused Sh. M.M. Sharma (A-10) for unlawful consideration of Rs.6 lakhs through Sh. Mahesh Sharma in January 1998. Further, in pursuance of the alleged criminal conspiracy, Sh. M.M. Sharma (A-10) in connivance with Sh. V.M. Rishi (A-7) and Sh. R.A. Sharma (A-
8) fraudulently showed the enrollment of 30 members by creating false back dated proceedings for the dates 10.03.1996, 24.04.1996, 16.06.1996, 01.08.1996, 14.09.1996, 09.11.1996, 02.01.1997, 12.02.1997 and 20.03.1997, whereas in fact these members were enrolled in January/February, 1998, These false proceedings records were signed by Sh. R.A. Sharma (A-8) and Sh. V.M. Rishi (A-7) as President and Secretary of the society. Investigation further revealed that the names of these 30 CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 6 of 144 members were provided by accused K.R. Khanna (A-11), Sh. Jai Bhagwan (A-13) and Sh. Joginder Singh Solanki (A-6). Further, in pursuance to the alleged criminal conspiracy, false election was shown to have been conducted by the society in which Sh. R.A. Sharma (A-8) was an Election Officer and Sh. M.M. Sharma (A-10) was involved in the election process. Further, in the said election process, a false proceeding dated 25.01.1998 was drawn and Sh. Pritam Singh, Smt. Sushil, Smt. Pushpa Sharma, Sh. Ajay Kumar Solanki, Sh. Shailesh Chander, Sh. Shailender Sharma and Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma were shown as different office bearers. Out of these shown elected office bearers, Smt. Pushpa Sharma was found to be a non-existent person. It was revealed in the investigation that Sh. Pritam Singh, Sh. Shailesh Chandra, Sh. Shailender Sharma and Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma were enrolled as members of the society with the help of Sh. K.R. Khanna (A-11), whereas the other office bearers namely Sh. Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) and his wife Smt. Sushil became members through one Jai Bhagwan (since expired) through false back dated proceedings. All these members except Sh. Ajay Kumar Solanki resigned from the society during 2000-03. It was further revealed in the investigation that in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, Sh. Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) represented himself as Secretary of the society vide letter dated 02.02.1998 and dishonestly informed the RCS about election of the management committee. Alongwith the said letter dated 02.02.1998, Sh. Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) submitted copy of false proceedings of GBM dated 05.01.1998, copy of agenda notice dated 05.01.1998 containing CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 7 of 144 forged signatures of R.A. Sharma (President), forged list containing names of 30 newly enrolled members and xerox copies of applications for membership of 30 newly enrolled members to the office of RCS. Investigation further revealed that the audit of the society for the period 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 was shown to have been conducted by Sh. Amar Nath (A-3), auditor of the RCS from 26.03.1998 to 27.03.1998. Allegedly Sh. Amar Nath (A-3) in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy dishonestly and fraudulently, without visiting the registered office of the society and without doing proper verification submitted a false audit report in order to facilitate the confirmation of the freezed list of members to the society. Further, Sh. Amar Nath (A-3) Gr.-III-cum-auditor was not authorized through any order to conduct audit of the society. The annexures as submitted alongwith the audit report contain forged signatures of Sh. R.P. Aggarwal (Treasurer), whereas Sh. V.M. Rishi (A-7) and Sh. R.A. Sharma (A-8) had dishonestly signed the annexures knowing fully well that these documents contained false contents. Investigation further revealed that in furtherance of the alleged criminal conspiracy Sh. A.K. Shankaran the Dealing Assistant dishonestly and without any order of a superior authority revealed to have conducted the inspection of the society on 02.04.1998 without even visiting the registered office of the society. Sh. A.K. Shankaran (A-1) showed the inspection of the records as provided by Sh. M.M. Sharma (A-10) even when the file was not marked to him and in fact was marked to Sh. N.S. Rawat and he then submitted a false inspection report dated 03.04.1998. It was further revealed during investigation that in CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 8 of 144 furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy A.K. Shankaran (A-1) in his report dated 03.04.1998 showed the present strength of the society as 69 against the approved strength of 75 without collecting the list of members from the society. With his report, Sh. A.K. Shankaran (A-1) enclosed 30 affidavits of new members who were falsely involved and some of the affidavits were forged. Specifically the affidavits of Sh. Praveen Kumar, Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Smt. Phoolwati were found to have been forged by Sh. A.K. Solanki (A-5). Thereafter, the said inspection report was put before Sh. B.M. Sethi (A-2), AR (West), who in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy dishonestly and fraudulently recommended that the strength of the society be fixed at 69 against the freezed strength of 75 and the same may be communicated to DDA. The file was then put before Sh. J.P. Aggarwal, DR (West), who ordered that a certificate be obtained from the society to the effect that no expelled member has gone into arbitration. Sh. A.K. Shankaran (A-1) then put up a letter dated 06.04.1998 purportedly received under the signature of Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) stating that no litigation/arbitration or appeal etc. was pending in any Court qua the resignation of the members and vide his note dated 07.04.1998 Sh. A.K. Shankaran (A-1) recommended that strength of the society as 69 may be conveyed to the DDA. It was further revealed in the investigation that the file was put to the RCS Sh. Gopal Dixit, who raised a query regarding verification conducted with respect to the resignations of the members of the society. A.K. Shankaran (A-1) then dishonestly and fraudulent put up a false note before the RCS, informing that he had checked the original CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 9 of 144 application of resigned members, resolution passed by Managing Committee and also the receipts in original for refund of deposits. He also enclosed photocopies of resignation letters and recommended for approval of 34 resignations and 43 enrollments. Thereafter, the strength of 69 members was approved by RCS on 01.05.1998. It was further revealed in the investigation that Sh. B.M. Sethi (A-2) fraudulently conveyed the present strength of the society as 69 members against the freezed strength of 75 to the Joint Director/GH, DDA vide letter dated 06.05.1998, knowing fully well that the society did not have the strength of 69 members at that time. Further, he did not enclose the list of 69 members alongwith the said letter. The investigation further revealed that the said letter as sent by Sh. B.M. Sethi (A-2) was received in DDA on 08.05.1998. As the said letter did not contain the names of 69 members, a letter dated 22.05.1998 under the signatures of Sh. Sanjeev Ahuja, Dy. Director/GH was sent to the Assistant Registrar (West), RCS asking him to send the approved list of members. A copy of the said letter was also sent to the President/Secretary of the society at their registered office. In response to the letter of DDA, a reply was sent on behalf of the society under the forged signature of Sh. R.A. Sharma (A-8) stating that the RCS has already approved the strength of the society as 69 members. The above- mentioned letter, however, was not replied by the RCS to the DDA. Investigation further revealed that as no reply was received regarding approved list of members from the RCS Office, Sh. Inderpal Malik, the then Dealing Assistant in the office of Dy. Director/GH, DDA recommended on file that matter CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 10 of 144 may be kept pending till a copy of approved list of 69 members is received. Investigation further revealed that despite the orders of Dy. Director/GH, DDA to keep the matter pending till the receiving of the list of 69 approved members, Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma (A-4) successor of Sh. Inderpal Malik in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy fraudulently opened a fresh file and initiated a suo moto proposal for allotment of land to Raman Vihar CGHS Ltd. without receiving the approved list of members from the office of RCS. Thereafter, the proposal for allotment of land to the society was finally approved by the Vice Chairman, DDA after the same was recommended by the Dy. Director and Director of the DDA. Thereafter, an offer-cum-allotment letter to the society was issued on 28.07.1998 by the DDA with direction to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,41,32,000/- towards the cost of land. Investigation further revealed that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, an account in the name of the society was opened in July in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Khari Bawli Branch, Delhi having account no. 01000/028465 authorizing Sh. Neeraj Chopra (A-9) to operate the same on behalf of the society. The account was introduced by Sh. K.R. Khanna (A-11) (now deceased), father-in-law of Sh. Neeraj Chopra (A-9). Sh. K.R. Khanna (A-11) was also working as Special Assistant in the said bank. Another account in the name of the society was opened with Janta Co-operative Bank, Palam on 02.08.1998 by Sh. Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) and his wife Smt. Sushil, who were jointly authorized to operate the said account. The said account was introduced by Sh. Joginder Singh Solanki (A-6). Investigation further revealed that the so called office bearers of the society CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 11 of 144 deposited the first installment of Rs. 46,05,000/- to the DDA in the form of pay orders issued by Janta Co-operative Bank, Palam, SBBJ Khari Bawli, Bank of India, Vijaya Bank, SBI, Bank of Punjab Ltd. and Punjab & Sindh Bank. Investigation further revealed that the request of pay order was made by Sh. Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5), who was the authorized signatory in the Janta Co-operative Bank, Palam. Investigation with regard to the source of money in the first installment revealed that Rs. 42,55,000/- were contributed by the members and Rs. 21,50,000/- were received from the non-members. The amount as received from the non-members was arranged by late Sh. K.R. Khanna (A-11), Joginder Singh Solanki (A-6) and Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) in conspiracy with other accused persons. Investigation further revealed that Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5), the so called Secretary of the society dishonestly and fraudulently submitted an application to DDA in the prescribed proforma for allotment of land to the society at Dwarka and enclosed certified copies of Bye-Laws of the society, Registration Certificate, approved list of society members comprising of 75 promoter members as approved by RCS in 1985 and a list of MC Committee. Investigation further revealed that the second installment of Rs. 56,07,200/- was deposited by the society with DDA on 03.06.2000 in the form of pay orders. The request for issuance of these pay orders was made by Sh. Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5). Out of this amount Rs.29,82,750/- was contributed from the newly recruited members and Rs.26,24,450/- was received from the non-members. One Sh. Rakesh Rana, a non-member was shown to have issued a cheque CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 12 of 144 of Rs.10.80 lacs to the Society. Investigation revealed that Sh. Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) had earlier deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10.80 lacs to the account of Sh. Rakesh Rana in cash and later the said amount was transferred from the account of Sh. Rakesh Rana to the account of the society through cheque. It was further revealed in the investigation that an amount of Rs. 7 lacs was arranged by Joginder Singh Solanki (A-6) in conspiracy with other accused. The third installment of Rs. 21,19,800/- was subsequently deposited by the society to the DDA on 03.08.2008. It was further revealed during investigation that the file of the society was transferred to AR, Dwarka and after receiving the file, the AR, Dwarka raised certain queries regarding audit, which was not done beyond 31.03.1997 and non- filing of list of members by the society as on 31.03.1998 and accordingly a notice u/s 32 of DCS Act, 1972 was issued on 03.11.1998 by the RCS. The said notice was received by accused Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) and he appeared before the RCS alongwith Sh. M.M. Sharma (A-10) and filed the reply alongwith a false xerox copy of the audit report for the period 1997-98, false list of 64 members and xerox copies of Managing Committee Resolution. The matter was then heard by the RCS and order dated 08.04.1999 was passed for withdrawal of show cause notice from the society. Thereafter, in pursuance of the Show Cause Notice u/s 32 of the DCS Act, the audit of the society for the year 1997-98 was conducted by Chartered Account Sh. Shailender Garg in January 1999 on the basis of information provided by accused Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) and submitted his report to the office of RCS in March, 1999. In the CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 13 of 144 said report, all the 34 promoter members who had already resigned during 1996 were shown as members. Thereafter, Sh. Shailender Garg, the Chartered Accountant conducted the audit of the society for the period 1998-99 and in the audit report, two promoter members were shown as members and their share money was also shown in the balance sheet, whereas, in fact, they were not the members of the society during this period. Further, in the list of members, one Sh. R.P. Aggarwal was also shown as a member, although, he had already expired on 15.02.1998. Further, Sh. Shailender Garg in his audit report for the period 1999-00 showed Sh. Umesh Bagga and Sh. R.P. Aggarwal as members, whereas, in fact, Sh. R.P. Aggarwal had already expired and Sh. Umesh Bagga was not a member of the society and their share money of Rs. 100/- shown to have been refunded. The said false audit reports were signed by Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) as Secretary of the society. Further, signature of Sh. Pritam Singh was forged on the audit reports, as opined by GEQD. Investigation further revealed that the society vide letter dated 02.11.1999 of AR, West was then asked to produce the original record for verification of list of members alongwith enrollment/resignation but as the society did not produce the said record, a reminder vide letter dated 17.12.1999 was again sent to the society. In pursuance of the said letter, Sh. Neeraj Chopra (A-9) Secretary of the society submitted a list of resigned and enrolled members during the year 1998 to 2000 under his signature to the office of AR, West on 26.12.2000 for approval. Sh. Neeraj Chopra (A-9) fraudulently and dishonestly showed the names of 32 promoters members in the list of CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 14 of 144 resigned members. He also submitted that the society had enrolled 40 new members during the period 1998 to 2000. Investigation further revealed that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy Sh. Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) appointed Sh. S.C. Gola (A-12), an employee of Sh. M.M. Sharma (A-10) as Election Officer on behalf of the society on 25.05.2000, who conducted fake election on 18.06.2000 in which Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma as President, Sh. Ajay Solanki as Vice President, Sh. Neeraj Chopra as Secretary, Smt. Sushil as member, Smt. Sunita Gupta as member, Smt. Annu Dhawan as member and Sh. Amit Solanki as member were elected as office bearers. Investigation further revealed that a letter dated 22.01.2001 under the purported signature of Neeraj Chopra (A-9) was submitted to AR, West and the letter was accompanied by the Minutes of False GBM dated 26.04.1998, 24.05.1998, 25.06.1998, 07.02.1999 and 07.03.1999. These false GBMs were written by Sh. E.D. Ashokan on the instructions of Sh. M.M. Sharma (A-10) and Sh. K.R. Khanna (A-11). Investigation revealed that vide false proceedings of GBM dated 26.04.1998, 24.05.1998, 25.06.1998, 07.02.1999, 07.03.1999 and 04.04.1999, Sh. Ajay Kumar Solnaki (A-5) fraudulently and dishonestly showed approval of resignation of 34 promoter members, who had already resigned in 1996. The false minutes of GBM contained forged signature of Sh. Pritam Singh and Smt. Pushpa Sharma. Investigation further showed that the resignation and receipt of refund of Rs. 100/- each i.e. share money of 34 promoter members were prepared in the office of M.M. Sharma (A-10) at AJ-9, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi by Sh. A.K. Shankaran (A-1) and CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 15 of 144 signature of Smt. Rita Devi and Sh. J.D. Juneja on the receipt of refund were also forged. Sh. S.C. Gola (A10), who was working in the office of M.M. Sharma (A-10) forged the signatures of Sh. Rajeev Malhotra and Sh. A.K. Ahuja, the promoter members on the resignation letters and receipts of refund. Investigation further revealed that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy Sh. K.R. Khanna (A-11) in connivance with Sh. M.M. Sharma (A-10) got prepared said false General Body Meeting Proceedings, false and forged resignation letters and receipt on refund of promoter members through A.K. Shankaran (A-1) in the office of M.M. Sharma (A-10). 20 new members out of the 30 members in 1998 were also enrolled through false back dated proceedings. Sh. K.R. Khanna (A-11) obtained the signatures of so called office bearers on the false General Body Meeting proceeding records and false audit report for the period 1997-98 to 1999-00. Investigation further revealed that the society was finally allotted the land at Plot No. 5A, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi by DDA in February, 2000. Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma, the President of the society took possession of the allotted land measuring 4008.74 sq. mtrs. On 30.09.2000 from DDA as he was authorized by GBM dated 06.08.2000. Investigation further revealed that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy Sh. Joginder Singh Solanki (A-6), President of the society dishonestly executed lease deed for aforesaid plot on 08.02.2005 on the basis of letter i.e. minutes of GBM dated 05.11.2004, which authorized him to executed the lease deed. The said letter was issued under the forged signatures of Sh. Neeraj Chopra (A-9).
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 16 of 1442. On 30.07.2012, the Court passed Order on Charge and then framed charge against the accused persons on 09.08.2012. The accused Joginder Singh Solanki (A-6) challenged the order and vide order dated 29.05.2013 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi gave an opportunity to the said accused as well as to the CBI to make submissions on charge again. After hearing both the sides, vide order dated 09.01.2014, charge was amended against the said accused.
3.1 The accused A.K. Shankaran (A-1) was charged that while working as a Dealing Assistant in the office of RCS during 1998-00, in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy and abusing his official position as public servant, he obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage without any public interest and recommended and got approved the freeze list of 69 fictitious members of Raman Vihar CGHS against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of forged documents, without checking the genuineness of such documents and conducted false inspection of the society and put false notes and thereby committed an offence u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3.2 He was further charged that during the aforementioned period and places he fraudulently and dishonestly in order to cheat the office of the Registrar Co- operative Societies, Delhi to approve the freeze list of 69 members of Raman Vihar CGHS as against the strength of 75 members, he prepared or got prepared false and forged documents on the basis of which, the land was allotted by the DDA at subsidized rates and thereby committed the offence CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 17 of 144 u/s 468 IPC.
3.3 He was further charged that he in the capacity of Dealing Assistant (Inspector Grade-III) alongwith Sh. B.M Sethi (A-2) (since deceased) the then Assistant Registrar (West), Amar Nath (A-3) the then Auditor (all from the office of RCS), accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A-4) the then LDC/Dealing Assistant in the office of Dy. Director (GH), DDA by corrupt and illegal means abused his official position and entered into a criminal conspiracy during the year 1998-00 with other co-accused persons i.e. Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5), Joginder Singh Solanki (A-6), Virender Mohan Rishi (A-7), Ram Avtar Sharma (A-8) (since deceased), Neeraj Chopra (A-9), Madan Mohan Sharma (A-10) and Karta Ram Khanna (A-11) (since deceased) (all private persons) with an object to cheat the RCS and DDA and fraudulently got confirmed the freeze strength of a defunct society i.e. Raman Vihar Co-operative Group Housing Society on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and subsequently the land was also allotted to the said society at subsidized rates and thus he fraudulently obtained pecuniary advantage for himself and others. Further, while working as Dealing Assistant in the office of RCS, he conducted inspection of the society on 02.04.1998 without visiting the registered office of the society and only on the basis of documents provided to him by co- accused M.M. Sharma (A-10) and conducted the said inspection without the orders from the superior officers and despite the fact that the file was marked to one N.S. Rawat and submitted a false inspection report on 03.04.1998 even though the society was not functional since 1993. Further, he also put up a letter dated CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 18 of 144 06.04.1998 and vide his note dated 07.04.1998, he fraudulently recommended that the strength of the society as 69 may be conveyed to the DDA. Further, he accepted bribe of Rs. 2,000/- from co-accused M.M. Sharma for giving favourable report of the society. Further, he got forged various documents of the society in the office of M.M. Sharma (A-10) and also forged the signatures of Smt. Geeta Devi and Sh. J.D. Juneja, on the basis of which, the freeze list of 69 members of the society was forwarded to the DDA and thus committed offence punishable u/s 120B r/w section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4.1. The accused Amar Nath (A-3) was charged that while working as Auditor Grade-III in the office of RCS, Delhi, he conducted and submitted a false audit report of the society for the period 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 without orders from the superior officers and without visiting the registered office of the society on the basis of false and forged documents and committed criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons as punishable u/s 120B IPC in order to commit the offences u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4.2 He was further charged that while working as Auditor Grade-III in the office of RCS during the year 1999- 2000, by abusing his official position as a public servant he obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage without any public interest and recommended and got approved the freeze list of 69 fictitious members of the society as against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of forged documents without CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 19 of 144 checking the genuineness of such documents and by conducting and submitting audit report for the period 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 without visiting the office of the society he comitted an offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5.1. The accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A-4) was charged that while working as Dealing Assistant in DDA, GH Branch during 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97, he got opened a fresh file and suo moto initiated a proposal for allotment of land to the society without receiving the list of members from the office of RCS, Delhi, while it was made clear by the orders of Dy. Director (GH) that the file may be kept in the receipt of approved list of 69 members and thereby committed criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons as punishable u/s 120B IPC in order to commit the offences u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5.2 He was further charged that while working as LDC (Dealing Assistant) in DDA, GH Branch during the year 1998- 2000 by abusing his official position as a public servant he obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage without any public interest and opened a parallel/part file suo moto and made recommendation for allotment of land to the society and thereby comitted an offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
6.1 The accused Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) was charged that in conspiracy with other co-accused persons, being a Secretary of the society, he fraudulently and dishonestly CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 20 of 144 submitted false and fabricated documents. Further, vide letter dated 02.02.1998 he dishonestly informed the RCS about the election of Managing Committee of the society despite the fact that the society was not functioning during that period. Further, he also submitted a forged list of members and other documents to the RCS. Further, he forged the affidavit Sh. Parveen Kumar, Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Smt. Phoolwati. Further, he dishonestly opened an account in the name of the society in Janta Co- operative Bank, Palam, which was being operated jointly with his wife. Further, he submitted an application to the DDA for allotment of land to the society at Dwarka and with the said application, he enclosed a list of 75 members of the society which was approved by the RCS in the year 1995. Further, he dishonestly and fraudulently provided a false list of members including the names of 34 promoter members to CA Shailender Garg to conduct audit for the year 1997-98 despite the fact that the promoter members have already resigned from the society in the year 1995-96. Further, he became member of the society alongwith his wife through false back dated proceedings. Further, he was involved in the arrangement of money received from the non-members alongwith co-accused Joginder Singh Solanki and K.R. Khanna. Further, he also appointed co-accused S.C. Gola (since deceased) as Election Officer on behalf of the society on 25.05.2005, who was an employee of accused M.M. Sharma and thereby committed criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons as punishable u/s 120B IPC in order to commit the offences u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 21 of 1446.2 He was further charged that during the year 1998- 2000 at Delhi he dishonestly and fraudulently induced the office of Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi for getting approved the freeze list of 69 fictitious members of the society as against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of false and forged documents and to get a land allotted from DDA at subsidized rates and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Further, during the aforesaid period and place, he fraudulently and dishonestly knowing fully well used the fake and fabricated documents to get approved the freeze list of 69 members of the society as against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of false and forged documents which he prepared or got prepared and got a land allotted from the DDA at subsidized rates and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
7.1 The accused Joginder Singh Solanki (A-6) was charged that he alongwith co-accused persons with an object to cheat the RCS office and DDA fraudulently got confirmed the freeze list of a defunct society i.e. Raman Vihar Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and subsequently land was allotted to the said society at subsidized rates.
7.2 He was further charged that he got introduced the account of the society which was opened in Janta Co-opeartive Bank, Palam, Delhi. Further, he alongwith other co-accused Ajay Kumar Solanki and K.R. Khanna was also involved in the arrangement of amounts received from the non-members towards payment of plot to DDA. Further, he dishonestly executed a CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 22 of 144 lease deed for the plot no. 5A, Sector-11, Dwarka in DDA on 08.02.2005 on the basis of minutes of GBM dated 05.11.2004 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and thus he alongwith other co-accused persons committed the offence punishable u/s 120B IPC r/w section 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 8.1 The accused Virender Mohan Rishi (A-7) was charged that earlier he was Secretary of the society and with R.A. Sharma (A-8) he illegally transferred the documents of the society to co-accused M.M. Sharma for unlawful consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs through one Mahesh Sharma in the year 1998. Further, he alongwith co-accused persons fraudulently shown the enrollment of 30 members by creating false and forged back dated proceedings record dated 10.03.1996, 01.08.1996, 02.08.1997 etc., whereas, these members were enrolled in January and February, 1998 and signed these false and forged proceedings as a Secretary of the society and thereby committed criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons as punishable u/s 120B IPC in order to commit the offences u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
8.2 He was further charged that during the year 1998- 2000 at Delhi he dishonestly and fraudulently induced the office of RCS, Delhi for getting approved the freeze list of 69 fictitious members of Raman Vihar CGHS as against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of false and forged documents and to get land allotted from the DDA at subsidized rates and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Further, during CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 23 of 144 the aforesaid period and place, he fraudulently and dishonestly used the fake and fabricated documents to get approved the freeze list of 69 members of the society as against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of false and forged documents, which he prepared or got prepared and got the land allotted from DDA at subsidized rates and committed an offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
9.1 The accused Neeraj Chopra (A-9) was charged that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy he was authorized to operate the account bearing no. 01000/028465 on behalf of the society, which was opened in the name of the society in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Khari Bawli Branch, Delhi. Further, he submitted a letter dated 22.01.2001 under the signatures accompanied by false and forged General Body Meetings. Further, he issued letter dated i.e. Minutes of GBM dated 05.11.2004 authorizing Joginder Singh Solanki (A-6) to execute lease deed for a plot in Dwarka and thereby committed criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons as punishable u/s 120B IPC in order to commit the offences u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
9.2 He was further charged that during the year 1998- 2000 at Delhi he dishonestly and fraudulently the office of RCS, Delhi for getting approved the freeze list of 69 fictitious members of Raman Vihar CGHS as against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of false and forged documents and to get a land allotted from the DDA at subsidized rates and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Further, during CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 24 of 144 the aforesaid period and place he fraudulently and dishonestly used the fake and fabricated documents to get approved the freeze list of 69 fictitious members of Raman Vihar CGHS as against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of false and forged documents, which he prepared or got prepared and thus got the land allotted from the DDA on subsidized rates and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 471 IPC. 10.1 The accused M.M. Sharma (A-10) was charged that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy he illegally obtained the documents of the society and on his instructions false and forged proceedings of GBM were prepared. Further, resignation and receipt of refund of share money of 34 promoter members were prepared in his office at AJ-9, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi by accused A.K. Shankaran (A-1) and thereby committed criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons as punishable u/s 120B IPC in order to commit the offences u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
10.2 He was further charged that during the year 1998- 2000 at Delhi he dishonestly and fraudulently induced the office of Registrar Co-operative Societies Delhi for getting approved the freeze list of 69 fictitious members of the society as against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of false and forged documents and to get a land allotted from DDA at subsidized rates and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Further, during the aforesaid period and place he fraudulently and dishonestly used fake and fabricated documents to get approved the freeze list of 69 fictitious members of the CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 25 of 144 society as against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of false and forged documents, which he prepared or got prepared and got a land allotted from DDA at subsidized rates and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
11. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, when charges were read over and explained to them.
12. Accused Ram Avtar Sharma (A-8) and Karta Ram Khanna (A-11) died during trial of the case, whereas accused B.M. Sethi (A-2) expired earlier and, therefore the proceedings against them were abated.
13. After framing of charge, the prosecution examined its witnesses Smt. Meena Khanna (PW-1), Smt. Neelam Jain (PW-2), Smt. Promila Mehrotra (PW-3), Sh. Shyam Sunder Khurana (PW-4), Sh. Surender Nath Kapoor (PW-5), Sh. P. Venugopala Rao (PW-6) and Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary (PW-7).
14. Thereafter, after amendment of charge the prosecution examined the other witnesses and out of the these witnesses i.e. Smt. Neelam Jain, Sh. P. Venugopala Rao, Smt. Promila Mehrotra, Sh. Shyam Sunder Khurana and Sh. Surender Nath Kapoor were examined again as PW-1, PW-6A, PW-37, PW-38 and PW-47 respectively.
15. PW-1 Smt. Neelam Jain stated that she became member of the society in year 1997-98 on the recommendation of Mr. K.L. Bhutani. She further deposed that she filled up a membership form and deposited Rs. 100/- towards the membership fee. Further, she never attended any meeting of the society and after some time resigned from the society orally. PW-1 deposed that her name and particulars are appearing in the CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 26 of 144 copy of membership register D-31 at page no. 16. She identified her signature at point A on the photocopy of the application form and stated that the particulars of the application belong to her and are correct. She further identified her signatures at points A and A1 on her affidavit. About her resignation letter in D-12 at page no. 52, she stated that the signature appearing at point A is not her signature and she did not submit any such resignation to the society. She further stated that as shown in the Proceeding Register D-15, she never attended GBM dated 25.01.1998 as appearing from pages 25 to 31. She also stated that the signature on the Proceeding Register do not belong to her.
16. PW-2 Smt. Sushil deposed that she became member of the society in the year 1996. She further deposed that as shown in the Proceeding Register D-15 on page no. 5, she attended a meeting of the Management Committee on 24.04.1996. Further, she was elected as President of the society by the management, but after some time she resigned. She also identified her signature on page no. 10 of D-22 i.e. a Balance Sheet of the society. She also identified her signature on her application form for enrollment as a member of the society, at page no. 263/C of D-4 and proved the same as Ex. PW2/A. She again identified her signatures at points A and B on her affidavit Ex. PW2/B. She also stated that IO took her specimen signatures on sheets S-865 to S-868 and proved the same as Ex. PW2/C. Perhaps the IO did not send the same for comparison to the CFSL as it is not shown in the index of the specimen signatures/writings Ex. PW75/N-22 and Ex. PW75/N-24.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 27 of 14417. PW-3 Smt. Kaushalya Devi deposed that she became member of the society after giving application for enrollment as member. She identified her name on page no. 15 of D-31 at Sl. No. 96 of the membership register. She also identified her signatures at point A on her application Ex. PW3/A (photocopy). She also stated that after some time she resigned from the membership of the society.
18. PW-4 Sh. Sukhbir Singh stated that he gave a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the society as membership amount, but he could not arrange the whole amount and later on his deposited amount was refunded. He also stated that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was given by him to Mr. Jai Bhagwan through cheque.
19. PW-5 Sh. Amit Solanki stated that he became member of the society in year 1996 through Mr. Jai Bhagwan. He further stated that initially he deposited an amount of Rs. 110/- as membership fee and then paid Rs. 1,50,000/-. This witness recognized his name on page 14 of D-31 at Sl. No. 92 on membership register Ex. PW5/A (photocopy). This witness also identified his application form for enrollment as a member of the society on page no. 260/C of the file D-4 and identified his signatures at point A and proved the same as Ex. PW5/B. He also identified his signatures at points A and B on his affidavit at page no. 236/C of the file D-4 and proved the same Ex. PW5/C. He also identified his signatures at point A on Sl. No. 17 of page no. 25 of the register D-15. He further identified his signatures at point A on the same register to show that he attended the General Body Meeting dated 25.01.1998.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 28 of 14420. PW-6 Sh. Zafar Iqbal deposed that he was posted as UDC in Pay and Account Office No. XV LNJP Hospital. After seeing page no. 213/C and 214/C in the file D-3 he deposed that these letters were drafted by him under the signatures of Sh. L K Seth, the then AR (West) and these letters were addressed to the Secretary of the Raman Vihar Society for approval of enrollment and resignation. These two letters were given exhibition as Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively. After seeing page no. 43/N of the file D-2 Vol.-I he deposed that the noting dated 12.02.2001 in reference to the letter dated 22.02.2001 is in his handwriting. He further identified the signatures of Mr. L K Seth, AR (West) at point 'B' and identified his own initials at point 'C'. He further deposed that the said noting was in reference to the letter dated 22.02.2001 through which they had called original record of the Society for verification as mentioned therein at point 1 to 7. He proved the said noting as Ex.PW6/C. He further deposed that on page no.44/N the noting from point 'B' to 'B' is in his handwriting and he identified his signature on the said noting at point 'C'. He deposed that the said noting was for a reminder to the Society for original documents. He then identified his initials at point 'C' on pages 45, 46 and 47 of the file D-2 and deposed that the said notings are in his handwriting and he was Dealing Assistant, AR (West), RCS. He explained the said noting on page no. 45/N and that it was mentioned in the noting that the Soceity was not corresponding about its statutory obligations and Inspector be deputed to conduct inspection of the Society.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 29 of 14421. PW-6A Sh. P Venugopala Rao is the handwriting expert who deposed about his opinion on different handwritings of the accused persons.
22. PW-7 Sh. Jaiveer Singh Tomar stated that he became member of the society in the year 2004. He identified his signatures at points A, B and C on his affidavit Ex. PW7/A which is there on page no. 25 of D-27. He also deposed that his name is appearing at Sl. No. 1 as President of the society on page 36 and 37 of the register D-16 Vol. III. He also deposed that he was elected unopposed as President of the society and identified his signatures on page no. 36 and 37 of the election proceedings Ex. PW7/B. 23.1 PW-8 Sh. Shailender Garg deposed that he was working as a Chartered Accountant in the office of RCS since 1996 and used to file audit reports of Raman Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that his specimen signatures S-856 to S-859 were taken by the IO. Further, Mr. Jai Bhagwan used to come to his office for filing audit reports of the society and after preparation of the audit reports by him, Mr. Jai Bhagwan used to procure signatures of the members/management committee on the said audit reports. He identified his signatures on the audit report at point A on pages 4 to 8 of D-20 (actually from pages 4 to 7 but wrongly written in the statement as 4 to 8) and proved the same as Ex. PW8/A. He further identified his signatures on point A on the balance sheet on page 7 to 18 of D-20 (actually from pages 8 to 18 but wrongly written in the statement as 7 to 18) and proved the same as Ex. PW8/B. He also stated that the signatures of President/Secretary/Treasurer on all the pages of Ex. PW8/B CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 30 of 144 were not taken in his presence and they were procured by Mr. Jai Bhagwan. He identified his signatures and also proved audit report/balance sheet of the year 1999 to 2000 on page no. 4 to 22 of file D-22 as Ex. PW8/B (same exhibition mark i.e. Ex. PW8/B, perhaps inadvertently was given to the two documents). 23.2 In cross-examination, this witness stated that the society was maintaining books of account, cash book, ledger and general vouchers and he did not find any error of cash or in the management of the society during his audit tenure. He also stated in his cross-examination that his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was not typed in his presence.
24. PW-9 Smt. Sunita Gupta deposed that she became member of the society in the year 1998 through Mr. R. Dayal. Further, she was in the management committee of the society and also attended general body meeting. She identified her signatures at point A on her application on page 101/C of file D-3 Vol. II and the application was exhibited as Ex. PW9/A (a photocopy). She also identified her signatures at points A and B on her affidavit Ex. PW9/B. She also stated that her name is occurring at Sl. No. 126 of Ex. PW9/C (a photocopy). She again identified her signature on page no. 1-2 of register D-16 Vol. III i.e. the minutes of AGM dated 25.07.1999 and identified her name at Sl. No. 28 at point A and her signature at point B.
25. PW-10 Sh. Gianinder Singh Solanki deposed that he became member of the society in the year 1998. Further, he handed over his membership papers to some society member. Further, he identified his signatures at point A on Ex. PW10/A i.e. photocopy of his membership form. He also identified his CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 31 of 144 signatures at point A on Ex. PW10/B i.e. his affidavit as given alongwith the membership application. He also stated that his name is mentioned at Sl. No. 132 on page no. 19 of D-31 i.e. the membership register (photocopy). He also deposed that he made payment to the society through account payee cheque and after 4- 5 years resigned from the society.
26. PW-11 Smt. Phoolwati deposed that she has three sons namely Ajeet Solanki, Ajay Solanki and Yashpal Solanki. Further, she knows Gajender Singh Solanki as he is resident of her Village Nasirpur. Further, she knows Mr. Jai Bhawan who is also a resident of her village. Further, she became member of the society somewhere in the year 1996 and paid membership fee of Rs. 110/- against receipt. She identified her signatures at point A on Ex. PW11/A i.e. photocopy of her membership form on page no. 262/C of the file D-4 Vol. III. She also identified her signatures at points A and B on her affidavit Ex. PW11/B on page no. 239/C of the above mentioned file. She also deposed that the mentioned affidavit was filled by Mr. Joginder, who is resident of her village. She also identified her name on page 14 of file D-31 i.e. membership register of the society and the same was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW11/C. 27.1 PW-12 Sh. Virender Kumar Bansal was a witness from the office of RCS. He deposed that he remained posted in the office as Assistant Registrar from 31.01.2004 to 31.05.2008 and was looking after banking zone and later on North-West zone also. He deposed that he was conversant with the rules and procedures relating to registration, working, liquidation, revival etc. of co-operative group housing societies based on Delhi Co-
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 32 of 144operative Societies Act, 1972 and Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 and compendium of directives, circulars, notifications as issued by Co-operative department. This witness elaborated the procedure, practice and rules of the Delhi Co- operative Societies Act.
27.2 In his cross-examination, he admitted that he never dealt with any of the record/file related to Raman Vihar CGHS. He also admitted that he has not observed any procedural irregularities in the files of Raman Vihar CGHS.
28. PW-13 Sh. Amar Nath deposed that he was posted as Assistant Registrar (West) with the RCS in the year 2006 and during his tenure he was called by the CBI vide letter dated 11.05.2006 to give certain documents and in response to that letter he handed over certain files to SP, CBI, New Delhi as mentioned in his letter to the CBI Ex. PW13/A placed in the file D-44.
29. PW-14 Sh. M.P. Bajaj deposed that he was posted in the Audit Branch of RCS Office in the year 1990 and was called by the CBI for investigation with regard to the present case and was shown certain documents. On page 1 of the file D-23 he identified the signatures of Mr. B.R. Rawal, posted as AR in the RCS Office and Mr. Amar Nath, the then auditor in RCS office. He further deposed that AR used to appoint auditor for audit of the society. He also deposed that the proforma of audit was introduced in the year 1998. Further, if the turn over of the society was upto Rs. 3 lakhs, the society was audited by the departmental auditor and if the turnover exceeded the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, then the same was audited by the auditor as CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 33 of 144 appointed from the panel of RCS Office. He further deposed that the audit was conducted on the documents as produced by the society and the audit report was submitted to the AR, Audit for his countersignature and thereafter the copy of audit report was forwarded to the zone concerned and to the society.
30. PW-15 Sh. Arun Sikri deposed that he became member of the society somewhere in year 2000 through A-11 Karta Ram Khanna. He further deposed that accused Karta Ram Khanna said to him that if he becomes member of the society he will get a flat and will gain something and then he gave some money to Mr. Karta Ram Khanna and got prepared required documents for membership purposes of the society. This witness identified his signatures on his application form Ex. PW15/A (photocopy) which was placed on page 53/C of the file D-3 Vol. II. He also identified his signatures at points A and B on page no. 52/C of the same file on his affidavit and proved the same as Ex. PW15/B. He further deposed that he had paid Rs. 4 lakhs to the society in installments through cheques and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in cash. He identified his signatures at point A on his resignation application on page 35 of the file D-12 and proved the same as Ex. PW15/C. He again deposed that he was refunded Rs. 3 lakhs only but not his one lakh as the cheque of Rs. 1 lakh as given to him by the society was dishonoured. He proved the said cheque as Ex. PW15/D. He also deposed that out of the total amount he gave some amount in cash to Mr. Khanna at his home.
31. PW-16 Sh. Sandeep Bhutani deposed that he became member of the society in the year 1998 and deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for the cost of land to the society. He identified his CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 34 of 144 name at Sl. No. 115 on page no. 17 Ex. PW16/B (photocopy) in file D-31. He also identified his signatures at point A on his membership application at page 243/C in file D-4. He identified his signatures at points A and B on his affidavit on page no. 218/C of the same file and proved the same as Ex. PW16/C.
32. PW-17 Sh. Rakesh Rana deposed that he never became member of any society including Raman Vihar CGHS but had paid Rs. 10 lakhs to some Mr. Arora for becoming member of the said society. In the file D-60, he identified his signatures on the certified copy of his account opening form in Janta Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW17/A. He deposed that Mr. Parveen Kumar was the introducer for the account opening and identified his signature on the same at point C. He further deposed that a photocopy of his ration card was the enclosure in the said account opening form. He again identified his signatures on certified copies of two cheques amounting to Rs. 5,80,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- and they were collectively exhibited as Ex. PW17/B. He deposed that the credit vouchers of Rs. 5,80,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- on page no. D-56/2 and D-57/2 were deposited by him but filled up by Mr. Arora and these vouchers were exhibited as Ex. PW17/C (Colly.). He further deposed that 13 sheets i.e. the certified copy of his statement of account part of the file D-54 on page no. 54/3 on points A, B and C at Sl. No. 13, 16 & 17, showing transactions of Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 5,80,000/-. The statement of account was exhibited as Ex. PW17/D (Colly.). He further deposed that he heard the name of Ajay Solanki from Mr. Arora, but did not know him personally. As according to the CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 35 of 144 prosecution this witness was resiling from his statement as recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C, Ld. PP cross-examined him, but in the cross-examination he denied the suggestion of the Ld. PP that he knew Ajay Solanki or gave any money at his instance to the society from his account. He further denied that he mentioned the name of Ajay Solanki to the IO.
33. PW-18 Parveen Kumar deposed that he became member of the society. He identified his signatures on point A on page no. 257/C of file D-4 i.e. the application form (photocopy) and the same was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW18/A. He further identified his signatures at point A on his affidavit on page no. 233/C in file D-3 and deposed that he executed this affidavit on 02.04.1998 and proved the same as Ex. PW18/B. He further deposed that his name was mentioned there at point C on page no. 14 of file D-31 i.e. the membership register. The entry of his name was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW18/C (photocopy). He then identified his signature at point A of the resignation letter on page 70 of file D-12 and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW18/D. He also deposed that he did not know Mr. Ajay Solanki and submitted his resignation to some employee of Raman Vihar CGHS.
34. PW-19 Sh. Uday Ram Sharma deposed that he is a practicing lawyer having his office at Tis Hazari Courts and his brother namely Madan Mohan Sharma is also a practicing advocate having his office at Shalimar Bagh as well as at Tis Hazari Courts. He further deposed that he knew accused K.R. Khanna who used to visit Tis Hazari Court's office. He further deposed that he did not know whether his brother was working as CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 36 of 144 consultant regarding CGHS. He further deposed that Mr. Karta Ram Khanna used to come at his brother's office. He also deposed that accused Karta Ram Khanna was neither his relative nor he was known to him earlier, but he met accused Karta Ram Khanna at his brother's office for some purpose. He further deposed that he could not say if accused Karta Ram Khanna used to come at his brother's office for some society purpose. He also deposed that one Ms. Jyoti was working with his brother in their Shalimar Bagh office and Ms. Kulwant Kaur was working as a Typist in his brother's office. He again deposed that he never became member of the society. He then identified his specimen handwriting/signatures on sheets from S-470 to S-492 and those sheets were exhibited as Ex. PW19/A.
35. PW-20 Sh. Maheshwar Dutt Sharma was a witness from the office of RCS. He deposed that vide order dated 08.04.1999 of RCS on page no. 325/C in file D-4 Vol. III, the society was advised to adhere to the statutory obligations cast upon it under the DCS Act/Rules and also to get list of members alongwith enrollments, resignations verified by the department within 30 days. This witness identified signature of RCS Sh. Gopal Dixit and exhibited the order dated 08.04.1999 as Ex. PW20/A. He further deposed that following the said order, he issued a letter dated 02.11.1999 to the President/Secretary of the society and called for verification of a list alongwith enrollment/resignation, audit report and election status. He proved the said letter as Ex. PW20/B. He further deposed that the society did not comply with the said letter and a reminder dated 17.12.1999 was issued. He then proved the letter i.e. CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 37 of 144 reminder as Ex. PW20/C. He in file D-2 Vol. I from page 38 to 41 identified his signatures on the notings at points A and they were accordingly exhibited as Ex. PW20/D (Colly.). He again deposed that he had signed on the notings made by the Inspector RCS suggesting to call upon the society for explaining as to why the list of verification of members alongwith resignation and enrollments have not been submitted. He further deposed that a letter Ex. PW20/B was proposed to be issued to the society and the same was issued on 02.11.1999, however, the society failed to comply with the requirements as per the office notings dated 16.12.1999 encircled in the portion from point B to B. He further deposed that thereafter another reminder letter Ex. PW20/C was issued on 17.12.1999 calling upon the society to appear on 28.12.1999, but as per the noting dated 03.01.2000, the society failed to comply with the directions of the department as mentioned at point C to C of the said noting. He further deposed that thereafter it was ordered in the noting on page 40/N that let the society be inspected and report be submitted till 15.01.2000 urgently. He further deposed that in the office noting dated 31.05.2000, it was mentioned that a letter received from Meera Sharma for supply/issue of documents and it was suggested by the office that the society may be asked to furnish the required information to the members under intimation to the office alongwith comments. This witness identified his signatures on this document at point A. 36.1. PW-21 Sh. Hari Ram Khowl deposed that he remained posted as Sr. Accounts Officer in CS (Co-operative Society) Branch, DDA w.e.f. April, 2006 to 31.08.2008 and he CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 38 of 144 retired from the service on 31.08.2008. Further, he was working in the section and his job was to determine the cost of land allotted to the CGHS. He also deposed that three factors i.e. cost of acquisition, cost of development and usage, occupation and other miscellaneous charges are considered for arriving at the cost of land to be allotted to the CGHS.
36.2 In cross-examination by accused M.M. Sharma (A-
10), he admitted that he was posted in the department of costing, but the same is not related to the allotment of land to the CGHS and the allotment of land to the societies was dealt by the management branch of DDA.
36.3 In cross-examination by the accused Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5), Joginder Solanki (A-6), Ram Avtar Sharma (A-8), Neeraj Chopra (A-9) and Karta Ram Khanna (A-11), he deposed that he could not tell the cost of acquisition pertaining to the property in question.
37. PW-22 Sh. Raj Kumar deposed that he was working as a Postman at the relevant time in Pitampura Post Office and was assigned beat no. 13 covering the area of Vaishali and some parts of Pitampura. He further deposed that the Speed Post ED253865905IN addressed to Smt. Pushpa Sharma w/o Sh. M.M. Sharma r/o CD-94, Pitampura, Delhi was assigned to him for delivery and accordingly he visited the given address and gave endorsement in his own handwriting at the backside of the envelope that the address was incomplete and the post be sent back. He identified his signatures at point A on this envelope and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW22/A. He further deposed that the said address was incomplete as it did not bear A, B, C, D etc. CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 39 of 144 which shows the floor number. He further deposed that he inquired from all the floors of the address CD-94, Pitampura, but no person in the name of Smt. Pushpa Sharma was found residing there. Further, he also inquired from the neighbours about said Pushpa Sharma but she could not be traced. 38.1. PW-23 Sh. Rajat Nath Andley deposed that he has been practicing as a Civil Engineer in an architect firm alongwith his family members. He further deposed that he used to design buildings, make drawings and plan for the buildings and supervise the construction of the buildings and his father was also an architect. Further, all the drawings of Raman Vihar were designed and prepared by his firm M/s Andley Associates Pvt. Ltd. Record shows that his further examination-in-chief was done in question answer form in which he deposed that he did not know the name of the boy from the society who used to come to his office regarding documents of the building plan. He again deposed that the person who used to deliver the documents was a delivery boy and not a member of the society. He also deposed that the signature of the member of the society was required on the building design documents as the same was required by the department, but he did not recall as to who used to sign those documents. He also did not acknowledge Mr. K.R. Khanna. He again was unable to tell if Mr. Khanna visited his office at any point of time. He again deposed that he had never seen the person who used to deliver the documents at the reception and, therefore, was unable to tell if the person who used to come to his office was Mr. K.R. Khanna or not. He identified the signatures of his father at points A on Ex. PW23/A on page no.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 40 of 14479 of file D-29 Vol. II. In answers to the questions as put by Ld. PP in cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had stated in his statement as recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C to the IO that Mr. Karta Ram Khanna (A-11) used to come to his office regarding submission of drawings of Raman Vihar CGHS to be further submitted to the DDA.
38.2 In his cross-examination, he admitted that during investigation his statement was not explained and read over to him by the IO.
39.1 PW-24 Smt. Jyoti deposed that she had been investigated by the CBI in the present matter in the office of Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate at Shalimar Bagh, who used to deal in Chit Funds. She further deposed that she was working with Sh. M.M. Sharma in his office at Shalimar Bagh and her duties were to call members, to call chit fund members for payments and to get money deposited in the bank. Further, Mr. Krishan and Ms. Kulwant Kaur were also working in the office of Sh. M.M. Sharma, Advocate at Shalimar Bagh. She further deposed that she did not know any person in the name of Ashokan and A.K. Shankaran (A-1) as her duties were upto 5.30 pm only. Further, she could not say if after 5.30 pm they used to come at the said office of Mr. M.M. Sharma. She further deposed that Mr. Karta Ram Khanna never visited the office of Mr. M.M. Sharma in her presence.
39.2 On being declared hostile, Ld. Spl. PP cross- examined this witness, but straightforwardly she said that she did not state to the CBI in her examination u/s 161 Cr.P.C as recorded during investigation that Mr. Karta Ram Khanna used to CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 41 of 144 visit the office of Mr. M.M. Sharma for Raman Vihar CGHS work and used to provide information such as enrolment, resignation etc. of the members of the society and Mr. A.K. Shankaran (A-1) and E.D. Ashokan used to prepare documents of the society.
40. PW-25 Sh. Narayan Singh deposed that he remained AR (Audit) in the office of RCS from the year 1998 to 2000 and his duty was to get conducted the audit of the society conducted by the departmental auditor or by the auditor on the panel of RCS. Further, society used to opt auditor from the panel of RCS or concerned zone auditor. This witness on letter dated 16.12.1998 on page no. 3 of D-20 identified his signatures at point B through which Mr. Satender Garg was appointed as auditor for the audit of Raman Vihar CGHS and the said letter was exhibited as Ex. PW25/A (photocopy). He further deposed that page no. 1 of file D-20 was a checklist for submission of audit report and the same was verified by the Dealing Assistant and countersigned by AR Sh. Rajender Singh at point A. The said checklist was exhibited as Ex. PW25/B. He then identified his signatures at point A on option-cum-appointment letter dated 29.11.1999 on page 2 of D-21, through which representative of Raman Vihar CGHS made an application to appoint Mr. Satender Garg as an auditor. He further deposed that through this option- cum-appointment letter he authorized Mr. Satender Garg as an auditor to conduct the audit of the society for the year 1998-99 and exhibited the same alongwith its enclosures as Ex. PW26/C (Colly.). He then identified his signatures at point A on the checklist on page no. 23 of file D-21 and exhibited the same as CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 42 of 144 Ex. PW25/D.
41. PW-26 Sh. Paras Nath deposed that he was working as an Assistant in Group Housing branch of DDA from June, 2004 to March, 2009. He further deposed that the notings on page no. 32/N to 45/N of the file D-29 Vol. II bear his signature at points A and they were forwarded to Sr. Accounts Officer (CS) for calculation of ground rent and he dealt with the said file while working as a Dealing Assistant. He identified his signatures on the notings from the date 16.06.2004 (32/N) to 08.02.2005 (45/N). He further deposed that the society requested for perpetual lease deed and for calculation of dues of ground rent the file was sent to the Sr. AO (CS) on 16.06.2004. The said notings were collectively exhibited as Ex. PW26/A. He further deposed that on page no. 88/C to 94/C in the file D-29 Vol. II the perpetual lease deed is there and the same was executed in favour of Raman Vihar CGHS in the presence of Dr. Joginder Singh, President, Raman Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that Mr. Puran Chand and Subhash Chander were the witnesses to the perpetual lease deed. Further, the deed was executed in the presence of Sh. U.S. Bhardwaj, Lease Administrative Officer, GH Branch, DDA and himself. He then identified his signatures at point A on the said lease deed and the signatures of the lease administrative officer at point B and alongwith the enclosures exhibited the same Ex. PW26/B (Colly.).
42. PW-27 Sh. Vipin Madan deposed that he became a member of Raman Vihar CGHS at the instance of his brother Karta Ram Khanna. He further deposed that his name is there at Sl. No. 134 of the register D-31 (photocopy). Further, the CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 43 of 144 application on page no. 86/C of D-3 for the membership of Raman Vihar CGHS is in his name. Further, the affidavit on page no. 85/C does not bear his signatures at points A. Further, he deposited a cheque of Rs. 1 lakh as his membership fee. He then identified his signatures on resignation letter on page no. 36 of the file D-12 and exhibited the same as Ex. PW27/B.
43. Smt. Neerja Malik (PW-28) deposed that her name is there at Sl. No. 40 of the register D-31 (photocopy). She did not identify her signature at point A on the application for registration of Raman Vihar CGHS at page no. 60/C of D-5 Vol. IV and the same was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW28/A (photocopy). The Court observed that the document Ex. PW28/A was in torn condition and only letters 'ne' were visible at Sl. No. 40 in the column of signatures. She further deposed that she did not attend any General Body Meeting of the society and the signature at Sl. No. 40 at point against her name on page no. 2 of the register D-14 does not belong to her. She, however, identified her signature at point A on receipt dated 01.04.1996 for an amount of Rs. 17,700/- as placed on page no. 30 of D-11 and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW28/C. She further deposed that the receipt of Rs. 100/- for membership fee on page no. 3 of the file D-13 was forged and does not bear her signature at point A.
44. Sh. Kishan Chand (PW-29) deposed that his late father became member of the society. He did not identify signatures of his father on application for membership of the society on page no. 256/C of the file D-4 and the same was given mark X-2. He also did not identify the signature of his father on affidavit on page no. 232/C of D-4 and the same was given mark CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 44 of 144 X-3. He then identified the signatures of his father on page no. 1 at Sl. No. 12 at point A of the register D-16 which bears the minutes of meeting of the society and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW29/A. Further, he did not identify the signatures of his father at points A on page no. 8, 14 and 18 on D-16, the proceeding register of the society and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW29/B (Colly.).
45.1 Sh. Narender Prakash Gupta (PW-30) deposed that he became member of the society through Sh. Satish Aggarwal. He further deposed that he paid Rs. 100/- as his membership fee initially and later on deposited a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/-. He further deposed that as he smelt some fraud in the society, he never signed any document and not attended any meeting of the society and further he was never contacted by the society. He further deposed that despite his demand, his deposited amount has never been refunded. He identified his signature on photocopy of the membership form on page no. 105/C of D-3 and the same was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW30/A and further on his affidavit on page no. 104 of the same file and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW30/B. He again identified his signatures at point A on his resignation form/letter on page no. 111 of the file D-12 and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW30/C. 45.2 In cross-examination of A-5, A-6, A-8 and A-11, certain questions were put by the Ld. Counsel of these accused persons regarding the fact that the deposited amount has been refunded to him vide cheque no. 146763 dated 01.06.2003, but this witness did not give satisfactory answer to those questions.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 45 of 14446. Sh. Lekh Raj Laul (PW-31) deposed that he became member of the society. He further deposed that his name is appearing at point A at Sl. No. 72 on page no. 11 of the membership register of the society D-31 (photocopy). He identified his signature at points A of his affidavit on page no. 76/C of the file D-5 and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW31/A. He again identified his signatures at point A on receipt dated 01.04.1996 on page no. 71 of the file D-11 and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW31/B. He further deposed that the withdrawal form on page no. 44 of the file D-12 was not in his handwriting and the same was forged and this document was exhibited as Ex. PW31/C. He further deposed that he never resigned from the society, but he received his money back after loosing interest.
47. Sh. Amar Nath Kohli (PW-32) deposed that he became member of the society through his brother Sh. Tilak Raj. He identified his signatures on the application form of the society and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW32/A (photocopy) (the Court during the course of the examination of this witness also observed that the said document was in torn condition and no inference can be drawn from it). He deposed that his name is appearing at Sl. no. 44 of page no. 49/C of the file D-5 which are the bye-laws of the society. He then identified his signatures at point A on the same page. He further deposed that his name is appearing at Sl. No. 44 on page no. 7/C of file no. D-31 which is a photocopy of membership register of the society. He further deposed that as per entry dated 03.01.1991 at Sl. No. 30 on page no. 4/C of the register D-6, he had deposited Rs. 10,150/- and the CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 46 of 144 said document was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW32/C. He again identified his name at Sl. No. 18 on page 14/C of the same register D-6 and deposed that he had received back his amount of Rs. 20,500/- on 08.04.1995 and exhibited as Ex. PW32/D. He further deposed that the signature at point A on a resignation letter dated 21.05.1998 on page no. 42 of the file D-12 is not his signature and the same is forged one. This document was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW32/E. He further deposed that the signature as appearing at point A on receipt dated 24.02.1996 amounting to Rs. 13,800/- on page no. 50 of the file D-11 Vol. I is not his signature and the same is forged one and he had never issued any such receipt. This receipt was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW32/F. He further deposed that his brother Tilak Raj Kohli used to attend meetings of the society on his behalf and under his authorization, but he personally never attended any meeting of the society. He further deposed that the specimen signatures on the sheets S-333 to S-336 bear his signatures and he gave his specimen signatures voluntarily. The said sheets were exhibited as Ex. PW32/G.
48. Sh. Inder Bir Singh (PW-33) deposed that he was working as a Relatioship Manager, HDFC, Pitampura Branch, New Delhi and was authorized on behalf of the branch to supply certain documents to the IO of the case. He identified his signatures at point A on the seizure memo dated 16.08.2007 through which he handed over certain documents to the IO. The documents running into 04 pages in the file D-51 have been given exhibition mark as Ex. PW33/B and the seizure memo has been exhibited as Ex. PW33/A in file D-42.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 47 of 14449. Sh. M.K. Tiwari (PW-34) deposed that in the year 2007 he was posted as Inspector Grade-II DASS in RCS Office, Delhi and during that time certain documents were called from the RCS office by CBI official and, therefore, Mr. Amar Dass, Assistant Registrar, RCS Office handed over certain documents to him for further handing them over to the CBI. He then identified his signature at point A on the seizure memo which is part of the file D-43 and proved the seizure memo as Ex. PW34/A (Colly.). He then deposed that he had handed over the file D-25 to the IO as mentioned in the seizure memo Ex. PW34/A and the said file is containing pages 1 to 50 and noting pages from 1 to 3. He further deposed that he never dealt with the file D-25 in the official course of his duty.
50. Sh. Anil Kumar Ahuja (PW-35) deposed that his father late Sh. B.S. Ahuja was a member of the society and he was Vice President and later on was also President of the society. He further deposed that after the death of his father in February, 1990, he became member of the society as the membership was transferred in his name. He further deposed that his brother late Sh. Vineet Kumar Ahuja who expired on 24.05.2011 was also a member of the society. He further deposed that in the year 1995 an amount of Rs. 40,000/- which was deposited either by him or by his father was refunded to him vide receipt annexed in file D- 11 Vol. I on page no. 34 and the same bears his signature at point A. The said receipt was proved by this witness as Ex. PW35/B. He further deposed that on page no. 15 of the register D-6 there is an entry at Sl. No. 34 with respect to the refund of an amount of Rs. 40,000/- in his favour through cheque no. 776602 dated CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 48 of 144 26.06.1995 and bears his signature at point A. The said entry has been given exhibition mark as Ex. PW35/C. He identified his signature on a receipt for an amount of Rs. 21,000/- on page no. 49 of D-11 and proved the same as Ex. PW35/D. He further deposed that the letter dated 21.05.1998 Ex. PW6/47 at page no. 49 in file D-12 does not bear his signatures at Q-312 and handwriting at Q-313. He deposed that he neither signed the letter dated 21.05.1998 Ex. PW6/47 nor had applied for withdrawal from the membership of the society. He further deposed that he had not executed the receipt Ex. PW6/86 at page no. 17 in D-13 and someone has forged his signature at Q-414. He further deposed that the IO obtained his specimen signature and handwriting mark S-340 to S-343 and exhibited the same as Ex. PW35/E (Colly.). He further deposed that the relevant entry of the name of his brother at Sl. No. 28 in the register D-6 shows membership no. 18 and the said entry was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW35/F. He also deposed that through the entry at Sl. No. 5 on page no. 13 an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was refunded to his brother alongwith an amount of Rs. 21,000/- through cheques bearing no. 776601 dated 26.06.1995 and 776612 dated 24.02.1996. He further deposed that the signature on the receipt dated 24.02.1996 at sl. no. 47 of the same register are of his father-in-law and proved the same as Ex. PW35/G. He further deposed that letter Ex. PW6/33 dated 15.11.1998 placed on page no. 63 in the file D-12 bears name and membership number of his brother Vineet Kumar Ahuja at point Q-269, but the signature at point Q-268 does not belong to his brother and somebody had forged the same. He further deposed that his brother neither CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 49 of 144 signed the letter dated 15.11.1998 Ex. PW6/33 nor applied for withdrawal from the membership of the society. He further deposed that his brother had not executed the receipt dated 26.03.1999 Ex. PW6/95 placed on page no. 26 in file D-13 and somebody had forged his brother's signature at point Q-441/1. He further deposed that his brother never applied for withdrawal from the society and the signature of his brother on the said letter is forged. He also identified the handwriting of this brother on specimen sheets mark S-337 to S-339.
51. PW-36 Sh. Naveen Kumar Verma deposed that he became member of the society through Sh. J.C. Dhawan on 10.10.1985 and his membership number was 79. Further, he deposited Rs. 100/- towards membership fee and Rs. 10/- as admission fee. Further, all the meetings of the society were held in the school and Mr. J.C. Dhawan was attending them on his behalf. He further deposed that his name is appearing at Sl. No. 79 on page no. 12 of membership register D-31 (wrongly mentioned as D-1). He further deposed that his name is also appearing in the list of members at Sl. No. 79 on page no. 155/C and the same was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW36/A. He also deposed that his name is also appearing at Sl. No. 68 on page no. 126/C in D-1 and the said document was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW36/B. He again deposed that his name is mentioned at Sl. No. 59 on page no. 6-7 of register no. D-6 and the relevant papers were exhibited as Ex. PW36/C. He also deposed that receipt on page no. 8 in the file D-11 was executed on his behalf by Sh. J.C. Dhawan and the signature of Sh. J.C. Dhawan is appearing at point A and he identified the signatures CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 50 of 144 of Sh. J.C. Dhawan and the receipt was exhibited as Ex. PW36/D. He further deposed that vide Ex. PW36/D an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was refunded to him by the society through cheque no. 793779 dated 08.04.1995. He again deposed that the entry with respect to the above mentioned cheque is reflected at Sl. No. 28 on page no. 15 of the register D-6 and the same was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW36/E. He further deposed that he did not sign and submitted the resignation letter at page no. 53 of the file D-12 already Ex. PW6/43 and the signature in his name at point Q-300 does not belong to him and the same is forged. He also deposed that he did not execute the receipt Ex. PW6/90 and the signature at point Q-423 on the receipt at page no. 13 in the file D-13 does not belong to him and somebody has forged his signature. He further deposed that during investigation the investigating officer had obtained his signature and handwriting mark S-44 to S-47 and the same was proved as Ex. PW36/F (Colly.). He further deposed that in the meeting as shown on 11.01.1986 at page no. 25 in D-14 his name and initial are mentioned at Sl. No. 4 which in fact is incorrect and false as he never attended the meeting dated 11.01.1986 and the signature at Sl. No. 4 does not belong to him. The relevant page no. 25 was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW36/G.
52. Smt. Promila Malhotra (PW-37) deposed that she became member of the society on recommendation of K.L. Bhutani who was Chief Manager in SBBJ and deposited an amount of Rs. 100/- towards the membership fee and Rs. 1 lakh through cheque to the society. She identified her name as appearing at Sl. No. 136 on page no. 21 in membership register CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 51 of 144 D-31. She again identified her particulars on the membership application at running page 84/C on the file D-3 Vol. III and her signatures on it at point A and the same was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW37/A. She also deposed that the handwriting on the said application dated 28.07.1998 belongs to her. She further deposed that she submitted her resignation to the society through Mr. K.L. Bhutani through her resignation letter on page no. 74 of the file D-12. She identified her signature on the resignation letter dated 09.04.2000 and deposed that the same is in her handwriting and proved the same as Ex. PW37/B.
53. Sh. Shyam Sunder Khurana (PW-38) deposed that he became member of the society before the year 2000 through one of his friends working in SBBJ, Lawrence Road Branch and deposited Rs. 1 lakh besides membership fee. He identified his name at point X at Sl. No. 112 on page no. 70 of the register D- 31 and the same was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. He then identified his signatures on membership application on page no. 252/C in file D-4 Vol. III and deposed that the same bears his signature at point A and his handwriting as encircled Q-608 at point X. The application was exhibited as Ex. PW38/A. He further deposed that the affidavit dated 02.04.1998 placed at page no. 227/C in the file D-4 Vol. III bears his signature at point A and was executed by him and the same was marked as Ex. PW38/B. He further deposed that he did not remember if he had resigned from the society, but taken full and final payment from the society. He then identified his name at Sl. No. 6 on page 25 in D-15 at point X in the minutes of meeting dated 25.01.1998 and deposed that the signatures at point X might have been CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 52 of 144 obtained from him in the bank. He further deposed that his name and signatures are mentioned on page no. 15 of the register D-16 showing the proceeding/meeting dated 07.10.2000 of the AGBM, but he did not attend any such meeting and not signed the same and somebody had forged his signatures at point X and the same was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW38/C. He then identified his specimen signatures and writing S-36 to S-39 and deposed that the same was obtained by the IO from him on 23.03.2007 and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW38/D (Colly.).
54. Ms. Reena Mehra (PW-39) deposed that she became member of the society through Sh. K.L. Bhutani who was working as Chief Manager, SBBJ Bank at Lawrence Road Branch. She further deposed that she was allotted membership no. 111 by the society on 09.11.1986 as shown at point Y on page no. 17 of the membership register Ex. PW1/A. She further deposed that the application form on page no. 254/C of the file D-4 Vol. III was filled by her husband and bears her signature at point Q-603. She identified her signatures at point A on the said application and proved the same as Ex. PW39/A. She further deposed that the affidavit on page no. 229/C in file D-4 Vol. III bears her signature at point Q-676 & 677 and the details in the affidavit Ex. PW39/B was filled by her husband which is there in the portion Q-675. She further deposed that she never attended any meeting of the society and resigned from it. She further deposed that her presence has been shown in the minutes of AGBM of the society dated 25.07.1999 on page no. 1, dated 18.06.2000 at page no. 7 and dated 07.10.2000 at page no. 15 of the register D-16 Vol. III but she never attended such meetings.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 53 of 144She further deposed that her signatures at mark X on page no. 1 at Sl. No. 4, at mark X-1 on page no. 7 and at mark X-2 on page no. 15 are not her signatures and somebody has forged the same. The said documents were given exhibition mark as Ex. PW38/C.
55. Sh. K.C. Bhatia (PW-40) deposed that his daughter Indu Bhatia became member of the society and he deposited Rs. 110/- on behalf of his daughter. He further deposed that in audit file of the society D-5 Vol. IV Ex. PW40/A application for registration of the society containing 02 pages is there on page no. 61/C. He further deposed that his daughter submitted application to the Secretary of the society regarding transfer of the membership in the name of his brother Arun Kumar Bhatia. He further deposed that affidavit dated 10.10.1986 on page no. 45 of the file D-18 was executed by his son Arun Kumar Bhatia and the signature at points A on the said affidavit belong to his son. He further deposed that the name of his daughter is being shown at Sl. No. 7 of the membership register Ex. PW1/A (D-32-
67). Further, as his daughter was transferred to Chandigarh, she transferred her share to her brother Arun Kumar Bhatia and the name of Arun Kumar Bhatia is mentioned at Sl. No. 7 after striking her name i.e. Ms. Indu Bhatia d/o K.C. Bhatia. He further deposed that her son's name is mentioned at Sl. No. 28 of page 26 of D-15 Vol. II Ex. PW40/F and the signatures appearing at Q-109 was not the signatures of his son and someone had forged the same. He identified his signatures at point A on receipt Ex. PW40/H at page no. 54 of D-11 Vol. I and stated that he received full and payment from the society without interest. He further deposed that his son never withdrew from the society CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 54 of 144 and the signature appearing on Ex. PW40/J on page no. 66 of D- 12 do not belong to his son. He further deposed that on 10.04.1999 his son was not in India and was in America.
56. Sh. Pritam Singh (PW-41) deposed that he became member of the society in January-February, 1998 through Sat Nam Singh and K.R. Khanna. Further, he did not deposit any money for becoming the member and possibly Sat Nam Singh might have deposited Rs. 3 lakhs for him. He further deposed that on the certified copy of membership register already Ex. PW1/A (D-31) at page no. 16 his name and particulars are there at point Y. The particular page no. 16 was exhibited as Ex. PW41/A. He further deposed that he cannot identify his signatures appearing at points A and A1 on affidavit dated 12.04.1998 already Ex. PW6/194 and he never furnished any such affidavit to the society. He further deposed that he cannot identify the signatures as appearing at point A on page no. 241/C of D-4 Vol. III, which was already exhibited as Ex. PW6/173 and he never submitted any such application to the society. He further deposed that his name has been falsely shown at Sl. No. 1 on page no. 27 on GBM dated 25.01.1998 in D-15 Vol. II exhibited as Ex. PW40/F. He further deposed that at point X1 on page no. 25 of the register D-15 his name at Sl. No. 13 has been falsely mentioned and the signature appearing there is not his signatures. He further deposed that he never attended GBMs as shown on different dates as he never attended any GBM. He further deposed that the signature appearing at point X1 on page no. 6 in the proceeding register D-16 do not belong to him. He further deposed that the signature appearing at point A on copy of CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 55 of 144 receipt voucher in D-13 Vol. II Ex. PW41/B do not belong to him. He further showed his inability to state if the signature appearing at point A on page no. 73 of D-12 Vol. II already exhibited as Ex. PW6/24 belong to him. He further deposed that he had given his signatures to CBI officials from S-344 to S-351 dated 26.03.2007 and S-820 to S-823 dated 25.06.2005 voluntarily and the same were given exhibition mark as Ex. PW41/D and Ex. PW41/C.
57. Sh. Jagdish Chander (PW-42) deposed that in the year 1998 he was on the post of Director (Residential Land) in DDA. Further, allotment of land to the CGHS used to be made on the recommendation of RCS, who was responsible for sending the list eligible for allotment after verification of membership as per the seniority of the society. He identified his signature at point A on a noting on page no. 1 of the file D-29 Vol. II and deposed that the note was regarding allotment of land to the Raman Vihar CGHS having registration no. 872 and he had recommended the case of the society in the year 1998. He further deposed that in his note it has been mentioned that the name of the Raman Vihar CGHS was inadvertently left on the basis of the report of the office which is reflected in the note at point Y on page no. 1 of the same document. He proved both the pages as Ex. PW42/A. He further deposed that the letter dated 06.05.1998 addressed to Joint Director (DDA) placed at page no. 42 of the same file was reflected in the note at point Y. Further, there is another letter dated 08.05.1998 addressed to the Joint Director (GH), DDA from the society. The letter dated 06.05.1998 was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW42/B. CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 56 of 144
58. Sardar Satnam Singh (PW-43) deposed that he was in construction business of society flats and does not know Mr. K.R. Khanna but only knows Mr. Pritam Singh, who was a supplier of building material in his construction business. Further, on the asking of his Manager Darshan Singh, he had deposited Rs. 5,20,000/- as a security amount in the account of DDA on behalf of Raman Vihar CGHS for doing construction work of the flats for the said society. He identified his signatures at points A on the account opening form placed in the file D-30 to 67, D-66/2 having account no. SB11011818 and the same was marked as Mark PW43/A.
59. Smt. Neelam (PW-44) deposed that she became member of the society in the year 1982-83 through her husband Sh. Tilak Raj Kohli. She identified her signatures at point A on page no. 59/C of the file D-5 Vol. IV which was already exhibited as Ex. PW32/A. She also identified her signature at point B at Sl. No. 43 of page no. 49/C of the same file and the said page was exhibited as Ex. PW44/A. She then identified her name as appearing at Sl. No. 34 on page no. 4 of the membership deposit register D-6 and the same was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW44/B. She further deposed that she was refunded the amount of Rs. 20,500/- from the society through cheque. She further deposed that she cannot identify her signatures on the receipt at page no. 12 of the document D-13 Vol. II.
60. Sh. Shantanu Roy Biswas (PW-45) deposed that he was working as Reader to the Registrar Co-operative Societies from August, 1996 to March, 2000. He identified the signatures done by his Ahlmad on his behalf at point A on copy of notice CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 57 of 144 dated 19.11.1998 which was issued to the President/Secretary of the society and proved the same as Ex. PW45/D. He again identified the signatures of his Ahlmad on another notice of the same date to the society and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW45/E. He also identified the signatures of his Ahlmad on copy of notice dated 03.12.1998 on page no. 5/C of D-25 and proved the same as Ex. PW45/F. He deposed that the office of RCS received a letter dated 28.08.1998 placed on page no. 323/C of D-4 Vol. III from the society for change of address and consequently a fresh notice was issued to the society for appearance on 12.01.1999. He again proved Ex. PW45/G, which is another notice dated 06.01.1999 placed on page no. 7/C of D-25. He also proved show cause notice dated 03.11.1998 (D-
8) as Ex. PW45/B. He identified his signature at point B as well as signatures of Sh. Gopal Dixit, the then Registrar on noting on page no. 2/N. He again proved the copy of minutes of meeting dated 22.01.1999 on page no. 9/C of D-25 and proved the same as Ex. PW45/H. He further deposed that as per noting 2/N Sh. Ajay Kumar, Secretary of the society was present on 22.02.1999 and stated that copy of the show cause notice was not received by them and then copy of the same was handed over to him with directions to furnish a reply by 09.03.1999. He clarified that he did not know Sh. Ajay Kumar. He then identified the signatures of Sh. Gopal Dixit, the then Registrar at point C at the bottom of this noting and the said noting was exhibited as Ex. PW45/C. He further deposed that as per noting dated 09.03.1999 Sh. M.M. Sharma, Advocate, representing the society sought adjournment which was granted for 16.03.1999. He further deposed that after CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 58 of 144 that on 16.03.1999 Sh. M.M. Sharma, Advocate representing the society filed his reply and the matter was adjourned for arguments for 19.03.1999. He further deposed that although the matter was adjourned for 13.04.1999, the Advocate of the society Sh. M.M. Sharma appeared on 23.03.1999 seeking early disposal of the matter as the society had already furnished its reply and had nothing to say further. The matter was then submitted to the RCS for passing orders dated 08.04.1999. He identified the signatures of Sh. Gopal Dixit at points D, E and F on page no. 3/N and also identified his own signatures on the same page at points G and H and proved the same as Ex. PW45/J. He further deposed that reply to the show cause notice dated 16.03.1999 u/s 32 of the DCS Act, 1972 was received by the RCS from the then Secretary of the society through its Advocate Sh. M.M. Sharma. He then proved the order dated 08.04.1999 passed by Sh. Gopal Dixit and the same was exhbited as Ex. PW45/K available on page no. 49-50/C of the file D-25.
61. Sh. Mahesh Sharma (PW-46) deposed that he visited the office of RCS in January 1998 for obtaining the membership in any CGHS. One official of the RCS office met him and told that no membership was allotted in this office. It was further told to him that if he wants to become a member in any CGHS, he should contact any CGHS. He then met accused V.M. Rishi for obtaining membership in Raman Vihar CGHS. Accused V.M. Roshi told him that the society Raman Vihar CGHS was not functioning at that point of time and if he wanted to get membership in Raman Vihar CGHS then he will have to arrange new members for this society. He further deposed that thereafter CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 59 of 144 he assured accused V.M. Rishi that he would arrange new members for the society and will again run the society namely Raman Vihar CGHS together. He further deposed that he never met accused M.M. Sharma in this regard.
62. Sh. Surender Nath Kapoor (PW-47) deposed that he became member of the society and his name appears at point X at Sl. No. 116 on page no. 18 of D-31 already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. He identified his signatures on the membership application at point A, encircled as Q-587 on page no. 259/C in the file D-4 Vol. III which was already exhibited as Ex. PW5/A. He again identified his signatures at point A on his affidavit at page no. 235/C in file D-4 Vol. III already marked as Ex. PW5/B. He also identified his signatures at point A on resignation letter dated 06.07.2002 placed on page no. 26 in the file D-12 which was already exhibited as Ex. PW5/C. He then identified his name and signatures at point X at Sl. No. 21 on page no. 25 in the file D-15 already marked as Ex. PW4/D. He deposed that his name appears against Sl. No. 2 in the minutes of meeting dated 12.02.1997 on page no. 17 of D-15, but he never attended this meeting and not signed the minutes at point Y encircled in red. The minutes of meeting were given exhibition mark as Ex. PW47/E. He further deposed that he had not given the application for membership of the society on 24.01.1997 which is mentioned in letter dated 17.02.1997 addressed to the Assistant Registrar (West) regarding submission of the list of the new enrolled members, placed on page no. 167/C of D-4 already exhibited as Ex. PW16/DA. He further deposed that he knew accused K.R. Khanna as he was a colleague in his office.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 60 of 144Further, he could not say as to who had asked him to become the member of the society as long time has passed.
63. Sh. S.N. Bhardwaj (PW-48) deposed that on a notification as published in the year 2000 in a newspaper regarding tender of construction of Raman Vihar CGHS, he applied for the tender and due to the lowest quoted rate, the tender was passed in his favour. Further, at that time, the office bearer of the society was Neeraj Chopra and Ajay Solanki. Further, he had paid a sum of Rs. 19 lakhs, out of which, Rs. 5 lakhs was the earnest money and the rest of the amount of Rs. 14 lakhs was given by him to the society on the asking of office bearers towards loan as the society was in need of money for depositing the same to the DDA against land allotment. He further deposed that he got back Rs. 14 lakhs from the society in the year 2002, but the rest of the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was retained by the society and is yet to be refunded. Further, the construction of the society has already completed.
64. Sh. Sanjeev Ahuja (PW-49) the witness from the DDA deposed that in March, 1998 he was working as Deputy Director, DDA (GH) and the file D-28 Vol. I belonged to his office with respect to allotment of land to Raman Vihar CGHS having registration no. 872. The said file was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW49/A. He further deposed that the letter at page no. 39 of the above mentioned file was received from AR (West), RCS on 08.05.1998 and was marked by him on 12.05.1998 to the Superintendent (GH). The letter informed that Raman Vihar CGHS Ltd. having registration no. 872 has enrolled 43 members who have been approved by the RCS office and the strength of CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 61 of 144 the society is at present 69 against the freeze strength of 75 members. Further, the said letter was for information and consideration for allotment of land to the society. He identified his signature at point A and also the signatures of Sh. Sarhu Ram, the then Superintendent at point B on this letter and the letter was proved as Ex. PW49/B. He further deposed that on receipt of the said letter the file was put by the Dealing Assistant to the Superintendent stating that the society was earlier offered land, but was not allotted the land due to less number of members. He further deposed that as per letter dated 06.05.1998 already exhibited as Ex. PW49/B, RCS office informed that the strength of the society at present is 69 against the freeze strength of 75 members. He further deposed that the noting 8/N shows that through its letter dated 04.10.1995 the society requested to refund Rs. 5 lakhs deposited as earnest money in the year 1990 and the said amount was refunded to the society on 15.12.1995. Further, the notings were written by the then Dealing Assistant Sh. Inder Pal Malik. He identified the signatures of Sh. Inder Pal Malik at point A and the notings were proved as Ex. PW49/C (Colly.). He again deposed that vide letter dated 04.10.1995 as placed at page no. 29 of the above mentioned file the Secretary of the society stated that they are finding it difficult to enroll new members and earnest money of Rs. 5 lakhs be refunded. This letter was received in the office of DDA on 04.10.1995 and the same was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW49/C1. Another letter dated 15.12.1995 Ex. PW49/C2 was exhibited on the statement of this witness. He again deposed that in the noting at page no. 9/N the Superintendent stated that the RCS office vide letter dated CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 62 of 144 06.05.1998 has intimidated the strength of the members of the society as 69 and that the society will be offered the land on its turn. He further deposed that the file was marked to him and he had written the remark that approved list from the RCS may be asked. He identified his signatures on this noting at point A and the same was proved as Ex. PW49/D. He then proved the letter dated 22.05.1998 addressed to AR, RCS, Delhi regarding supply of copy of approved list of 69 members and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW49/E.
65. Sh. Siddharth Shukla (PW-50) deposed that his father, grandmother, sister and uncle became members of the society. The relevant documents like membership application, affidavit, entries in proceeding register, resignation letters etc. of his relatives who became member of the society were exhibited on the deposition of this witness.
66. Sh. Sonu Katahra (PW-51) deposed that he became member of the society in the year 1997 and thereafter deposited Rs. 110/- towards membership fee and approximately Rs. 1.50- 2.00 lakh through cheque. He denied the fact that he knew any person in the name of K.R. Khanna. He recognized his name at Sl. No. 117 of the membership register and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW51/A. He then deposed that he filled all the columns in the membership application already exhibited as Ex. PW6/74, on page no. 240/C of D-4 Vol. III. He further deposed that the signature at point A on his affidavit at page no. 215/C (already exhibited as Ex. PW6/95) are his signatures. He further recognized the appearance of his name at Sl. No. 3 of letter dated 17.02.1997 addressed to AR, West, New Delhi, placed at page CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 63 of 144 no. 167/C of D-4 Vol. III. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of the society as shown on the proceeding dated 25.01.1998 at page no. 25 of the register D-15 Vol. II and the signature at point B is not his signatures. He further deposed that he resigned from the society after 1-2 years.
67. Sh. J.P. Aggarwal (PW-52) deposed that he remained posted in the office of RCS from March, 1997 to June/July, 1999 as Deputy, Registrar. He further deposed that the letter dated 22.04.1993 bearing no. F.147/872/NGH/COOP/9269 was issued by Sh. P.M. Tanwar, the then Assistant Registrar, NGH to Raman Vihar CGHS regarding verification of list of members and the letter was exhibited as Ex. PW52/B. The file D-4 Vol. III in which the said letter was placed was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW52/A. After seeing the file D-2 Vol. I (already Ex. PW45/L), he deposed that the noting at page no. 25/N was put after a gap of 04 years by the Dealing Assistant on 21.10.1997 stating that no reply is found placed in the file of the said letter dated 22.04.1993. After seeing the said noting at page no. 25/N, he further deposed that in the said noting it was mentioned that there was a communication for verification of the list of members, but no reply is found placed in the file and the record of the society for verification may be called. He further deposed that the said note was put up to Assistant Register, West and the signature appears to be of Sh. D.K. Gaur, the Assistant Registrar and then the Assistant Registrar, West proposed to issue show cause notice to the society. The relevant page of the said noting was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW52/C. He further deposed that the Dealing Assistant put up a show cause notice for CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 64 of 144 signature of the AR, West on 22.10.1997 and then, Sh. D.K. Gaur, AR, West forwarded the file to him being Deputy Registrar. This witness identified the signature of Sh. D.K. Gaur at point A on the said noting. He further deposed that after seeing the notings of both the Dealing Assistant and AR, he wrote the noting on 27.10.1997 that apparently the society was not functioning and a letter by registered post may be issued immediately and an inspector should go for inspection of the society. He further deposed that the above-mentioned noting was written, as there was no reply from the society in response to the letter dated 22.04.1993. He further deposed that thereafter the file was marked by him to AR, West, who further marked the same to the Dealing Assistant and accordingly a show cause notice was issued by Sh. D.K. Gaur, AR, West to the society on 28.10.1997. He again identified the signatures of Sh. D.K. Gaur at point A and the relevant page was exhibited as Ex. PW53/D. This witness kept on mentioning what has been written in the notings and exhibited noting on page no. 32/N. He further identified the signature of accused B.M. Sethi on a letter at page no. 306/C of Ex. PW52/A (D-4).
68. Sh. E.D. Ashokan (PW-53) deposed that he was posted as Sub Inspector in RCS office from November 1982 to November 1991. He further deposed that while he was posted in Group Housing Section, accused M.M. Sharma was attending the RCS office in relation to Ksheer Sagar CGHS. Further, the society was being dealt with by him, so he got in contact with accused M.M. Sharma and after his transfer from that office, he requested accused M.M. Sharma to arrange a part time typist job CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 65 of 144 for himself to overcome his financial burdens and accordingly accused M.M. Sharma offered him a part time typist job in Tis Hazari Office. Further, he was doing the typing work for accused M.M. Sharma related to court matters and after sometime, accused M.M. Sharma asked him to attend his office at Shalimar Bagh. Further, initially, he was doing the typing work related to the court cases, but thereafter he also started the typing work related to Ksheer Sagar CGHS. He further deposed that later on accused M.M. Sharma was giving him typing work of one Bramha CGHS. Further, he was doing the preparation work of documents to be submitted to the RCS Office. He further deposed that through accused M.M. Sharma's office, he came to know one Mr. Khanna, who used to visit the said office for preparing documents to be submitted to the RCS office. He further deposed that he was also doing typing work related to one Raman Vihar CGHS on the instruction of accused M.M. Sharma. He further deposed that he knew accused A.K. Shankaran, who was posted in the RCS office. He further deposed that later on, accused A.K. Shankaran used to attend the office of accused M.M. Sharma for doing part time typing work. He further deposed that thereafter, accused A.K. Shankaran was doing the typing work of Raman Vihar CGHS at the instruction of accused M.M. Sharma. He again said that accused A.K. Shankaran was doing the typing work of Raman Vihar CGHS at the instruction of accused Mr. Khanna. He further deposed that he left the office of accused M.M. Sharma in November, 2005. On being shown the page no. 240/C and 241/C in the file D-4 already exhibited as Ex. PW2/A, he identified the handwriting at Q-639 CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 66 of 144 and Q-643 to be the handwriting of accused M.M. Sharma. He, however, did not recognize the handwriting on page no. 41, 44 to 48, 55 to 58 and 70 in D-12 already exhibited as Ex. PW40/J and also marked as Ex. PW40/C. He further did not recognize the handwriting on page no. 9 to 11, 18 to 21, 24, 25, 36 and 38 of D- 13 Vol. II already exhibited as Ex. PW50/K. He identified the handwriting of accused M.M. Sharma in noting on page no. 30 and 31 of the file D-15 Vol. II already exhibited as Ex. PW41/F and the relevant pages were already exhibited as Ex. PW6A/AA-
3. He further deposed that he wrote all the proceedings on the instructions of Mr. Khanna and after preparing minutes of GBM, the proceeding register was handed over to accused Mr. Khanna in the office of accused M.M. Sharma. He did not recognize the handwriting on page no. 54 to 99 of the file D-15 Vol. II already exhibited as Ex. PW40/F. 69.1 Sh. Sahuru Ram (PW-54) deposed that he was posted as a Clerk in the office of DDA from 1969 to April, 2006. Further, he remained posted in the Group Housing Section as Superintendent/AD in DDA, Head Office, Vikas Sadan from January, 1988 to April, 2000. Further, at that time, Sh. Sanjeev Ahuja was posted as Deputy Director and Sh. R.P. Malik and accused Sohan Pal Sharma were posted as LDC/Dealing Assistant in the office of DDA/GH and one K.G. Kashyap was posted as Assistant Director/GH. He further deposed that he was working with the above-mentioned persons. He further deposed that the letter dated 02.04.1998 Ex. PW6/227 placed on page no. 38 addressed to Joint Director (GH), DDA was issued by the Society President, Sh. R.A. Sharma mentioning that the list of 75 CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 67 of 144 members of the society was approved by RCS on 09.08.1995 and a piece of land in Dwarka, Phase-I may be allotted. He further deposed that the list of 75 purported members of the society was also enclosed with the said letter Ex. PW6/227 and the list was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW54/A (Colly.). He further deposed that the aforesaid letter was received from the society in the office of DDA/GH on 13.04.1998 and an entry was made in the diary register vide no. 947 (GH) and thereafter the said letter was received by Sh. I.P. Malik, the then Dealing Assistant who had put a note and marked the same to him and Sh. Sanjeev Ahuja. This witness identified the handwriting and signature of Sh. I.P. Malik at point A and his own signature at point B on the said noting placed at page no. 7/N Ex. PW49/C. He further deposed that thereafter Sh. I.P. Malik put up another letter dated 06.05.1998 received on 13.05.1998 already Ex. PW49/B from RCS Office with the signature of Assistant Registrar, West. This witness then identified the signatures of Sh. Sanjeev Ahuja at point A and his own signatures at point B on the said letter. He further deposed that thereafter a detailed note was written by Sh. I.P. Malik at point X1 to X2 in the note dated 14.05.1998 placed on page no. 8/N in which it was noted that due to less membership strength, the earnest money was refunded to the society vide letter dated 15.12.1995. He then identified his signature at point Y to Y1 on noting at page no. 9/N Ex. PW49/D and deposed that he wrote that the strength of the society was 69 and the society will be offered land on its turn and thereafter the file was marked to Sh. Sanjeev Ahuja, the then Dy. Director (GH) and Mr. Sanjeev Ahuja in the noting from Z to Z1 at page no.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 68 of 14410/N wrote that approved list from the RCS may be asked. He then identified signatures of Sh. I.P. Malik on the said noting at point A and his own signature at point B. 69.2 He then identified the signatures of Sh. Sanjeev Ahuja on letter dated 22.05.1998 already exhibited as Ex. PW49/E. Thereafter, this witness mentioned about letter dated 08.05.1998 placed at page no. 40B (wrongly written in the evidence as 43) of the same file. Thereafter, after seeing page no. 1/N of D-29 Vol. II already exhibited as Ex. PW49/F, this witness deposed that the noting on the said page was written by accused Sohan Pal Sharma. The Court observes now that the said noting is a photocopy and cannot be considered in evidence.
70. Sh. Shiv Kumar Mittal (PW-55) deposed that he was posted as TGT Teacher in Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School, Moti Nagar from 01.08.1974 to 09.08.2011. He further deposed that his father became member of the Raman Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that the name of his father is mentioned at Sl. No. 59 at page no. 59/C which is an application for membership already exhibited as Ex. PW32/A and the signature at point B on this application belongs to his father. He also identified the signature of his father at point B at Sl. No. 59 on page no. 48/C already exhibited as Ex. PW32/A in the audit file (D-5) Ex. PW40/A. He also identified the name of his father mentioned at Sl. No. 59 on page no. 9 of the register D-31 already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A (Colly.). He again identified the signature of his father at point A on receipt at page no. 38 in the file D-11 Vol. I (already exhibited as Ex. PW40/G) and the receipt was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW55/B. He further deposed that the CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 69 of 144 signature appearing at points A at page no. 42 of the resignation letter file D-12 (already exhibited as Ex. PW40/J) does not belong to his father. This particular page i.e. page no. 42 was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW55/C. He further deposed that the signature appearing at point A on page no. 23 of the receipt file no. 2 (D-13 Vol. II) (already exhibited as Ex. PW50/A) does not belong to his father. This particular receipt at page no. 23 was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW55/D.
71. The deposition of Sh. Ashok Kumar Gandhi (PW-
56) is that became the member of Raman Vihar CGHS in 1983 through his brother Sh. Jagdish Chander Gandhi who was a teacher in Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School and deposited Rs. 110/- as membership fee. He identified his name and particulars at Sl. No. 38 of page no. 6 in the register D-31 (already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A (available in file D-30 to D-37 already exhibited as Ex. PW55/A). He identified his name and other particulars at Sl. No. 38 marked at Point C on page no. 60/C (already exhibited as Ex. PW28/A). He again identified his name and particulars at Sl. No. 38 on page no. 49/C at point D and his signatures on the same page at point E (already exhibited as Ex. PW44/A). he also identified his name and particulars at point A on intensive inquiry proforma available at page no. 21/C of D-5 (already exhibited as Ex. PW40/A). He also identified his name at Sl. No. 38 of page no. 2 of the proceeding register D-14 and his signature at point C thereon (already exhibited as Ex. PW25/B). He again identified his signatures and name on the proceeding register appearing at Sl. No. 31 at page no. 8 and the said proceedings were given exhibition mark as Ex. PW56/B. CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 70 of 144 Further, he never attended any meeting of the society dated 25.01.1998 as shown from page no. 25 to 27 in the proceeding register D-15 Vol. II (already exhibited as Ex. PW40/F) and the signatures appearing at Sl. No. 35 (at point C Q-116) on page no. 26 are not his signatures. Further, his name has been falsely mentioned at point A in the proceedings dated 26.04.1998 at page no. 34 and 35 showing the acceptance of his resignation (the said page was already exhibited as Ex. PW6/11). He then identified his signature on a letter Ex. PW56/C on page no. 42 and 43 of the file D-11 and deposed that through this letter he authorized his brother to collect the cheque of Rs. 17,700/- on his behalf from the society towards full and final payment. Further, he never signed the resignation letter Ex. PW56/E and the signature at point A on the said letter on page no. 41 of D-12 does not belong to him. Further, he never received the amount as mentioned in the receipt placed at page no. 24 of the receipt file no. 2 D-13 (already exhibited as Ex. PW50/A) and the signature appearing at point A Q-394 on the said receipt is not his signatures. This paper was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW50/F. He then identified the signature of his brother at point A at Sl. No. 13 of page no. 13 of the membership deposit register D-6 already exhibited as Ex. PW44/B.
72. The deposition of Sh. Inder Pal Malik (PW-57) is that the letter dated 02.04.1998 Ex. PW6/227 placed at page no. 38 of the file D-28 was received in the office of DDA on 02.04.1998 through diary on 13.04.1998. Regarding this letter, a noting from point X to X was written by him on 24.04.1998 at page no. 6/N of the file D-28 and the said noting bears his CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 71 of 144 signature at point A. In the said noting, he clearly mentioned that as the strength of the society was less, the land was not allotted to the society and the amount of Rs. 5 laksh as deposited by the society as earnest money was refunded. He then identified his noting dated 14.05.1998 from point X to X2 at page no. 8/N of the same file D-28 as well as his signature at point A. Thereafter, the file was marked to other officers and when it was again marked to him, following the noting of Sh. Sahru Ram, he prepared a draft letter and when the draft letter was approved, he prepared a fair letter on 21.05.1998 and the same was sent by him to the Dy. Director directly because Sh. Sahru Ram was on leave on 22.05.1998 and then the fair letter was signed by Dy. Director and was dispatched to the office of RCS as well as to the society. Further, noting dated 25.05.1998 at page no. 10/N in D- 28 Vol. I was written by him showing that the President of the society had forwarded a letter dated 06.05.1998 regarding strength of the society.
73. The deposition of Sh. Krishan Lal Nagpal (PW-58) is that the stamp affixed on the backside on the non-judicial stamp papers placed from page no. 210/C to 239/C in D-4 are not his stamps and writing on the stamps are also not his writing, however, the license no. 215 has mentioned on the stamp is his license no. Further, no entries are made about the selling of the affidavits mentioned from pages no. 87 to 93 of the register D-24 and he never sold the said affidavits to anybody.
74. The deposition of Sh. Abhishek Khanna (PW-59) is that he became member of the Raman Vihar CGHS in the year 2001 and initially deposited Rs. 100/- as membership fee and CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 72 of 144 after that Rs. 3 lakhs or Rs. 3.5 lakhs towards cost of land. Further, proceedings of the management committee was held on 27.05.2001 wherein his name was approved and enrolled as member of the society and same is shown at page no. 93 of D-15 Vol. II. The said page was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW59/A. He further identified his name at Sl. No. 16 as well as his signatures at point B on page no. 18 to 22 of the file D-16 Vol. III and the same was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW59/B (Colly.) and deposed that he had attended the annual general body meeting on 10.02.2002 where the said formality was done. He further identified his name and signatures at point A at Sl. No. 12 on page no. 25 to 27 in D-16 Vol. III showing the holding of General Body Meeting and these 03 pages were exhibited as Ex. PW59/C. Further, on 12.11.2003 he resigned from the membership of the society and signature appearing at point A on resignation letter placed at page 2 of D-12 belong to him and the said resignation letter was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW59/D.
75. The deposition of Sh. Leela Kishan Seth (PW-60) is that he was posted as Assistant Registrar, West in the office of RCS, New Delhi during the period August, 2002 to November, 2001. He proved the noting at page no. 41/N of the file D-2 Vol. I showing that Neeraj Chopra, the secretary of the society gave a letter dated 31.08.2000 for change of address of the society. He then identified his signatures at point A on letter dated 31.08.2000 (already Ex. PW60/B) written by Sh. Neeraj Chopra, secretary of the society to him, being the then AR, West informing that office of the society has been shifted to some other place and the future correspondence be done accordingly.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 73 of 144Thereafter, a note with respect to the said letter was marked to him and he noted that the Area Inspector to inspect the new address and report accordingly and he identified his signatures on this noting at point B and B1. He then identified the noting of the Area Inspector at point A to A1 on page no. 42/N of D-2. He then identified the inspection report of House Building/Group Housing Society available on page no. 367/C in D-4 Vol. III and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW60/C. The said report was then put by the Dealing Assistant to him through note available at page no. 42/N of D-2 at points A to A1. Thereafter, the action proposed by the Inspector was approved by him on 21.09.2000 vide his noting at point B to B1 at page no. 42/N and he accordingly proved the said noting as Ex. PW60/D. He then identified his signature at point A on letter dated 02.01.2001 placed on page no. 368/C written to the President/Secretary of the society regarding compliance report in form 16 and action on representation of Ms. Meera Sharma and proved the same as exhibit Ex. PW60/E. He then proved the noting at page no. 43/N in file D-2 from point A to A1 mentioning that the PUC regarding approval and enrollment of the society may be seen and society may be directed to produce the original record for verification. He then identified his signatures at point A on letter dated 26.12.2000 on page no. 374/C of D-4 addressed to himself mentioning that some members have resigned and their resignation and enrollments may be taken on record and the said letter was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW60/G. He then proved letter dated 09.01.2001 issued by him to the President/Secretary of the society calling them to attend the office alongwith the CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 74 of 144 mentioned documents and he identified his signatures on this letter at point A and the letter was exhibited as Ex. PW60/H. Thereafter, a letter dated 22.01.2001 alongwith documents from page no. 1/C to 211/C was received in his office on 22.01.2001 and the same was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW60/J (Colly.). Thereafter, a letter was prepared by the Dealing Assistant placed at page no. 214/C in file D-3 Vol. II addressed to the President/Secretary of the society calling them to produce the original record of the society for verification. He identified his signature on this letter at point A and proved the same Ex. PW60/M.
76. The deposition of Sh. Madhu Kumar Nayyar (PW-
61) is that he became member of Raman Vihar CGHS. Further, his name is mentioned at Sl. No. 41 at page no. 1 and 2 of D-14 showing minutes of meeting of the society held on 23.09.1983, but his signatures appearing at point D do not pertain to him and might have been put by his father on his behalf. Further, the advance as deposited to the society was refunded back. Further, the signature on the authority letter at page 60 of D-11 Vol. I already Ex. PW40/G at point A is not his signatures. He identified signature of his father at point A on page no. 59 of D- 11 showing that his father received a sum of Rs. 21,000/- against his membership no. 41. Further, he had not attended any meeting showing his name at Sl. No. 6 on page no. 35 of D-15 Vol. II (already Ex. PW6/11). Further, resignation letter at page no. 43 of D-12 (already Ex. PW40/C) shows that he had resigned, but he did not sign the said resignation letter and the signature at point A on this letter is not his signature. Further, the signature at point A CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 75 of 144 on receipt dated 30.05.1998 of Rs. 100/- at page no. 22 of D-13 Vol. II is not his signature.
77. The deposition of Sh. Baldev Raj Rawal (PW-62) is that he was posted as Assistant Registrar (Audit) in RCS Office from January 1995 to September 1998. He proved the Audit Report for the period 1994-95 to 1996-97 (D-23) exhibited as Ex. PW62/A and deposed that the audit was conducted by accused Amarnath (A-3), who was posted in the audit branch at that time. Further, the said report was submitted on 31.03.1998 vide diary no. 514 mentioned at page no. 1 at point C and he identified his signature at point A on said page. He identified signatures/initials of accused Amarnath (A-3) on each pages of the said audit report at point B. Further, in the said audit report, no check-list is enclosed. Further, the order of appointment of accused Amarnath to conduct the audit is not available in this file. Further, the signatures of the office bearers should be obtained by the auditor in his presence.
78. The deposition of Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma (PW-
63) is that at the time of becoming member of Raman Vihar CGHS, he was posted as Deputy Head Cashier and then Head Cashier, Chandni Chowk Branch of SBBJ and at that time, he had deposited Rs. 110/- towards admission fee. He identified his name and signatures at point A at Sl. No. 121 on page no. 18 of file D-31. He further deposed that the signature at point A on page no. 268/C D-4 Vol. III which is an application for membership is not his signature. The said page was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW63/A. He further denied his signatures on affidavit in his name at point A (Q-723) at page no.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 76 of 144213/C of the same file D-4 Vol. III. Further, he never submitted these two documents at the time of becoming member of the society. He identified his name as reflecting at Sl. No. 3 of letter dated 26.03.1997 on page no. 166/C of D-4 Vol. III and the said letter was given exhibition mark as Ex. PW63/C. Further, letter dated 28.08.1998 at page no. 323/C of the same file D-4 was written by accused Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) to the office of RCS regarding change of address of the society. He showed his inability to say if the letter dated 31.08.2000 at page no. 334/C of D-4 Vol. III Ex. PW60/B was written by Neeraj Chopra. He identified his signatures at points A on list of members enrolled from 01.04.1998 on page no. 369/C to 371/C and 372/C to 374/C of D-4 Vol. III. and deposed that he signed these documents as President of the society and Secretary Neeraj Chopra (A-9) had already signed these documents and these documents were produced before him by Sh. Bhola Ji and Sh. Jai Bhagwan. That he became member of the Executive Committee of the society in the year 1998. That he was elected Executive Member in absentia. That Sh. Shailender Sharma and Sh. Shailesh Sharma are his sons. That Sh. Ajay Kumar was also an office bearer of the society and he knows him. He identified his signatures at points Z on many pages from pages 31 to 98 of the proceeding register (D-15 Vol. II) already exhibited as Ex. PW40/F. He further deposed that he became President of the society in the year 2000 and remained on the post for one and a half year. Further, seven newly elected members including him had attended the meeting dated 18.06.2000 as shown at page no. 75 of the said register. Further, in the year 2000 Vice President CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 77 of 144 namely Ajay Solanki (A-5) was looking after all the affairs of the society and Sh. Jai Bhagwan and Sh. Bhola Ji were assisting him. Further, he attended Annual General Body Meeting of the society on 18.06.2000 and he was elected as President in the said meeting. Further, apart from him, other office bearers were also elected as named at page no. 7 to 13 of register Ex. PW41/B (D-
16). Further, his other son Shailender Sharma was elected as Treasurer and his younger namely Shailesh was elected as an Executive Member in AGBM dated 25.07.1999 as shown at page no. 1 to 6 of the said register. Further, he submitted his resignation from membership of the society on 10.08.2002 Ex. PW63/F. He identified his signatures on the authorization letter at point A placed on page no. 47 of D-29 Vol. II and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW63/G. He again identified his signatures on document i.e. a letter for taking possession placed on page no. 48 and 49 of D-29 Vol. II and identified his signatures at point A. He then identified signatures of Ajay Solanki (A-5) on two challans Ex. PW63/J1 to Ex. PW63/J4. He then identified his signatures on photocopies of application forms Ex. PW63/L, Ex. PW63/M, account opening form Ex. PW63/N, photocopy of specimen signatures card Ex. PW63/O. Further, his statement on 23.03.2007 was not recorded by CBI. Further, he did not give any statement Ex. PW63/PX to the CBI. He denied the suggestion of Ld. PP that he stated to the IO that he became member of Raman Vihar CGHS on the recommendation of K.R. Khanna (A-11). He further denied the suggestion that he had stated to the IO that K.R. Khanna (A-11) was interested to enroll members.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 78 of 14479. The deposition of Sh. Harsh Vardhan Chopra (PW-
64) is that he was posted as Manager in Janta Co-operative Bank, Nangal Branch from November 2004 to 2008 and the said bank was running in a building of Joginder Singh Solanki. He identified his signatures at point A on the documents dated 22.12.2007 from Sl. No. 1 to 10 in D-53 and stated that these documents were submitted to the CBI and proved them as Ex. PW64/A. He further identified his signatures at point A on statement of account SB No. 0010684 from 02.08.1998 to 31.12.2001 in the name of Raman Vihar CGHS and proved the same as Ex. PW64/B (Colly.). He further identified his signatures at point A on a letter dated 04.04.2007 placed in D-55 and proved the same as Ex. PW64/C. He further identified his signatures at point A on Account Opening Form No. SB10684 lying in D-55/2 & D-55/3 and proved the same as Ex. PW64/D. He further stated that the saving account no. 10684 was in the name of Raman Vihar CGHS and being operated by Sh. Ajay Solanki and his wife Smt. Sushil Solanki on behalf of the society. He further identified the signatures of Sh. Ajay Solanki and his wife Smt. Sushil Solanki at points C and D on Ex. PW64/D. He further deposed that as per Ex. PW64/D, the account opening form was introduced by Joginder Singh Solanki, who was also having a separate saving account no. 10021 in his own name in the said bank. Further, the statement of account pertaining to the account of Raman Vihar CGHS Ex. PW64/B in D-54 shows different amounts credited and debited in the said account on various dates.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 79 of 14480. The deposition of Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma (PW-65) is that he was posted in the office of RCS from 03.04.1997 to 10.07.1998 as UDC. Further, he was interrogated by the IO pertaining to the documents of RCS office. Further, the noting at point X to X1 on document Ex. PW52/C (D-2) Vol. I page 25/N was made by him in which it was mentioned that no reply was filed by the society regarding verification of list of members. Further, the noting at point X2 to X3 on page no. 26/N of D-2 was also made by him. He then identified the signatures of Sh. D.K. Gaur, the then Assistant Registrar on a Show Cause Notice at page no. 161/C D-4 Vol. III.
81. The deposition of Sh. Ghanshyam Rai (PW-66) is that he was posted as DSP in Bank Security and Fraud Cell and conducted a Preliminary Enquiry about Raman Vihar CGHS and after conducting the same, he lodged a complaint Ex. PW66/A to Superintendent of Police Sh. Rajesh Nirwan and on the basis of said complaint and after preliminary enquiry, the FIR was registered. Further, during preliminary enquiry, he had received certain documents and examined witnesses. That he seized the documents already exhibited as Ex. PW44/B (D-6), Ex. PW75/B (D-7), Ex. PW45/B (D-8), Ex. PW69/B (D-9) and Ex. PW75/C (D-10) and these documents were seized through receipt memo already Ex. PW75/A (D-33). Further, through receipt memo dated 09.08.2006 Ex. PW75/D (D-34), he seized some documents from accused V.M. Rishi (A-7). Further, he seized some documents from accused Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) vide receipt memo dated 10.08.2006 already Ex. PW75/E (D-35). Further, through letter dated 15.06.2006 Ex. PW13/A (D-44), he CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 80 of 144 received some documents from the office of SP, CBI, Delhi and those documents are already exhibited as Ex. PW45/L (D-2 Vol. I) (Colly.), Ex. PW75/Y1 to Ex. PW75/Y203 (D-3 Vol. II), Ex. PW52/A (D-4 Vol. III) and Ex. PW40/A (Colly.) (D-5 Vol. IV).
82. The deposition of Sh. Sunder Pal Singh Bhatti (PW-
67) is that he remained posted as Joint Registrar in RCS from 1982 to 1984. Further, as he cannot see due to Cornea Transplant, he is unable to identify any document, if shown to him.
83. The deposition of Sh. G. Narendra Kumar (PW-68) is that in the year 2007 he was serving as Secretary, Technical Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and as a request was received from the CBI, he granted sanction to prosecute Sh. A.K. Shankaran. That he applied his mind while granting sanction and at that time, he was having legal authority to remove Sh. A.K. Shankaran from his job. He proved the sanction order as Ex. PW68/A.
84. The deposition of Sh. Gopal Dixit (PW-69) is that he remained posted as Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi from June, 1997 to June, 1999. Further, he does not remember if he was interrogated by the CBI. On being put leading questions by the Ld. PP, he deposed that the facts mentioned in the statement Ex. PW69/A are correct, but the CBI officials never came to his house. Further, noting at portions E to E on document Ex. PW6/106 (D-2) Vol. I page 33/N was made by him and signed by him at point A on 07.04.1998. Further, the order was marked to JR and then the file was put up before him again and then he made remarks on the same at points E (page 34/N) and signed by CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 81 of 144 him at point A on 17.04.1998. Thereafter, the file was put up before him on 01.05.1998 and the noting of this date (Ex. PW6/107) at point A was signed by him. Further, the same file was put up before him again on 05.05.1998 and he signed it at point A on the document Ex. PW6/107. Further, the file was again put up before him on 03.11.1998 (page 34/N) for approval of show cause notice u/s 32 of the DCS Act, 1972 and he signed document Ex. PW20/D at point A. Further, all the notings on documents Ex. PW45/A, Ex. PW45/E, Ex. PW45/J, Ex. PW45/K of the file D-25 were signed by him. Further, a show cause notice dated 03.11.1998 u/s 32 of the DCS Act was issued to the President/Secretary of the society and the said notice Ex. PW45/B (D-8) was signed by him. Further, a show cause notice to the President/Secretary Ex. PW69/B (D-9) was signed by Sh. S. Roy Biswas, who was his Reader at that time then and he identifies the signatures of Sh. S Roy Biswas.
85. The deposition of Sh. Kailash Chander Mogha (PW-
70) is that in 2007 he remained posted as UDC, Revenue Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and on interrogation by the CBI, he produced original Sale Register Ex. PW58/A (D-24), which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW70/A (D-
41) and was signed by him at point A. Further, SDM/Collector of Stamps, Headquarters authorized him to handover the said register to the IO.
86. The deposition of Sh. Sanjeev Nayyar (PW-71) is that he is running a Banquet Hall at Casa Bella Banquet, Omex Celebration Mall, Gurgaon. He was interrogated by the CBI and his statement was recorded by the IO. In the year 1983-84, he CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 82 of 144 became member of Raman Vihar CGHS through his father, who was a teacher in Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School, Moti Nagar and paid Rs. 100/- as membership fee. He identified his name and his father's name and address at point A at Sl. No. 31 on membership register Ex. PW1/A (photocopy). The signatures in the GBM dated 23.09.1983 on Ex. PW25/B are not his signatures. The signature in GBM proceedings dated 10.12.1993 in his name on Ex. PW6A/B-2 are not his signatures. That he was never elected as member of Management Committee of the Raman Vihar CGHS. He never submitted any application for resignation from the membership of the society and his father used to act on his behalf. The signature at point A on Ex. PW71/A page 61 of D-11 on receipt for an amount of Rs. 21,000/- are his signatures. The signatures in his name on proceedings of meeting of management committee dated 10.03.1996 at point A on Ex. PW6/1 are not his signatures. In all the other documents i.e. Ex. PW6/2, Ex. PW6/3, Ex. PW6/4, Ex. PW6/5, Ex. PW6/6, Ex. PW6/7, Ex. PW6/8, Ex. PW6/9, Ex. PW6/10, Ex. PW6/11, Ex. PW6/12, Ex. PW6/13, Ex. PW6/14, Ex. PW6/15, Ex. PW6/16, Ex. PW6/17, Ex. PW6/32, Ex. PW71/C, Ex. PW40/B, Ex. PW1A/1 the signatures are not his signatures.
87. The deposition of Smt. Shipra Sharma (PW-72) is that on 28.12.2007 she was posted as Branch Manager, Centurian Bank of Punjab, G-14, Kirti Nagar Branch, Delhi and said bank has been merged with HDFC Bank from 2008. On 28.12.2007, she joined investigation in this case and she handed over certified copy of Account Opening Form, certified copy of Pay Order No. CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 83 of 144 131149 dated 13.08.2008 for Rs. 2,20,000/- Pay Order No. 131157 dated 13.08.1998 for Rs. 3,00,000/- to the CBI officer, who came in her office. Aforesaid documents were marked as Mark PW43/A (Account Opening Form), Mark 43/B (Copy of Voters I Card), Mark 43/C and Mark 43/D (Pay Orders). She further deposed that she handed over these documents pertaining to Sh. Satnam Singh to Mr. V.S. Yadav, the then Inspector, CBI, New Delhi through letter Ex. PW72/A (D-66) (in File D-30 to D-
67).
88. The deposition of Ms. Pramila H. Bhargava (PW-73) is that in 2007 she was posted as Commissioner, Personnel, DDA, Delhi and after going through the statements of witnesses and other documents, she accorded sanction to prosecute Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma, the then LDC/Dealing Assistant, Office of DDA, New Delhi. Further, being Commissioner of DDA, she was competent to remove Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma from the job and hence granted sanction to prosecute him. She proved the sanction order Ex. PW73/A (04 pages) (D-69) to prosecute the said accused and identified her signatures on points A.
89. The deposition of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Prasad (PW-74) is that in the year 2006, he was posted as Inspector of Police, CBI, Banks Securities and Fraud Cell (BSFC), New Delhi and this case i.e. Raman Vihar CGHS bearing No. 6/2006 was registered on the basis of a complaint given by Sh. Ghansham Rai who was posted as Addl. SP in BSFC, who conducted the preliminary inquiry in the matter of fraudulent allotment of land to group housing societies including Raman Vihar CGHS. That the FIR was registered on 18.09.2006 by Sh. Rajesh Nirwan, the CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 84 of 144 then SP, CBI, BSFC, New Delhi which also included a copy of preliminary inquiry and the case was marked to him for investigation. Further, he took up the investigation of this case and examined the documents collected by earlier IO during preliminary inquiry and deposited them in the malkhana and recorded statements of two witnesses namely Sh. V.K. Bansal and Sh. Jaivir Singh. Further, after about one and half month further investigation was transferred to another Inspector V.S. Yadav. He identified signatures of Sh. Rajesh Nirwan at points B on copy of FIR Ex. PW74/A . He further deposed that the report of preliminary inquiry has been reproduced in the FIR and same is already Ex. PW66/A.
90. PW-75 Inspector Virender Singh Yadav is the Investigating Officer of the case who deposed about the investigation and exhibited certain documents which were left by the witnesses.
91. PW-76 Sh. Shailender Sharma is also a member of the present Society and deposed that he never signed the application for becoming member of the Society. Further, the affidavit Ex.PW6/198 is in his name but the signature was not put by him on this affidavit at point 'A'. Further, he never became member of Executive Committee of the Society and never attended any GBM. He further deposed that on document Ex.PW6/301 i.e. Balance Sheet for the period 1998-99 as attached with the Audit Report D-21 in his name are not his signature at point 'A'. He further deposed that he signed the documents Ex.PW6/321, Ex.PW6/322, Ex.PW6/323, Ex.PW6/325 to Ex.PW6/333 in the file D-22. Further, the CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 85 of 144 document Ex.PW76/A i.e. the Resignation Letter on page no. 24 of D-12 was signed by him at point 'A'.
92. In their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused persons denied incriminating evidence against them.
93. As per accused A.K. Shankaran (A-1), he performed his duties as Dealing Assistant in the office of RCS, as instructed by his superior officers i.e. Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar and the Registrar. Further, neither any complaint was lodged against him during his career nor any disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in RCS Office. Further, he simply followed inputs/recommendations/information given by his senior officers and has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, he never conspired with anyone. This accused not examined any witness in his defence.
94. Accused Amar Nath (A-3) claimed that being a Govt. Officer, he did whatever directions were given to him by his officers. Further, he complied with their directions by making proper notings. This accused also did not opt to examine any witness in his defence.
95. According to accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A-4), none of the witnesses as examined by the prosecution has deposed against him. Further, some confusion had been created by not examining Mr. Verma, Assistant (Group Housing) and for non- production of original policy file before this Court. Further, said accused filed written statement also submitting that DDA allots land to respective co-operative group housing societies on the basis of recommendation received from the office of RCS, Delhi. A file is maintained in this regard and same is called as Policy CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 86 of 144 File. Part files related to 57 societies were opened with the direction of Superintendent (GH) Sh. Sharu Ram and Dy. Director (GH) Sh. Sanjeev Ahuja. The process of opening part file was being adhered by DDA since 1979-80 and the same are opened to smoothen control of record of respective societies. By opening part file in relation to Raman Vihar CGHS, he did not commit any error. He examined himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C as DW-2.
96. Accused Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) blamed the IO for twisting statements given by the witnesses to implicate him in this case falsely and also to protect some persons, who were actual culprits. This accused also filed written statement. According to him, at the time of becoming member of the said society, he was a young and inexperienced boy. All affairs of the society were handled by Sh. Pritam Singh and Sh. R.S. Sharma. Elections of the society were conducted in the year 2000 and new management committee took over charge wherein Sh. R.S. Sharma became President and Sh. Neeraj Chopra became its Secretary. All the records of the society were handed over to the new management committee. In July-August, 2006, as he was summoned by Sh. Ghanshyam Rai, he went to Chanakya Puri Office of CBI and handed over record of the society. Despite investing hard earned money, he did not get any flat in said society. He examined himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C as DW-3 and Sh. Rajesh, a Junior Assistant from office of RCS, Delhi as DW-4.
97. According to the accused Joginder Singh Solanki (A-6), the allegations against him are that he remained instrumental in arranging funds from non-members of the society for getting land allotted from DDA but there is no evidence CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 87 of 144 against him to prove this fact. He never remained in touch with any of the non-member of the society for arranging funds. He deposited money being member of the said society. IO did not seize/produce requisite documents from the Accounts Section of the society, which created confusion. This accused did not opt to adduce any evidence.
98. According to accused V.M. Rishi (A-7), he remained member of Raman Vihar CGHS since 1983 and was elected as Secretary from 1993 onwards. He resigned from its membership as new members came and he was not financially capable of contributing funds for allotment of flat. He did his job as Secretary bonafidely. All transactions were done through bank i.e. Delhi State Consumer Co-operative Store Bank, Karampura. It was normal practice that some members used to attend meetings through their proxies. This accused also filed written statement reaffirming aforesaid facts. He examined himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C as DW-1.
99. Accused Neeraj Chopra (A-9) stated that he became member of Raman Vihar CGHS, but was never elected as Secretary. No document was executed by him as Secretary of the said society. He never gave his specimen signature to IO during investigation of this case. IO forwarded specimen signatures of some other Neeraj Chopra to GEQD and procured false report against him. Even otherwise, said report is self contradictory. Although, said accused opted to examine his wife in his defence, but did not examine her when case was fixed for DE.
100. Accused M.M. Sharma (A-10) claimed that he was falsely implicated in this case by the IO to protect Sh. E.D. CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 88 of 144 Ashokan and Sh. Mahesh Sharma, who were involved in conspiracy in this case. He was not involved in any financial transaction and was not benefited from the said society except consultancy charges and that too through Account Payee Cheque. Neither he nor any of his family members was member of the said society.
101. I have heard Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor representing CBI and Ld. Counsels appearing for the accused persons.
102. First the Court will see if the offence of criminal conspiracy u/s 120-B IPC and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy the offence of cheating u/s 420 IPC has been committed and then will discuss the role of each accused persons in commission of the alleged offences.
103.1 The present society was registered on 16.11.1983 with 70 promoter members and thereafter some members were added in the year 1986. The freeze list of 75 members was earlier approved on 11.06.1985 and was sent to the society on 09.08.1985. Then the proposal of the land was turned down by the DDA on 10.11.1993 for the reason that the strength of the society was just 44, which was below the requisite strength of 48. Then the society remained dormant from 24.04.1993 to 21.10.1997. Conspiracy started when allegedly some documents i.e. resignation letters, receipts and proceedings of the society were manipulated. In furtherance of the conspiracy, some false notings including the noting on page no. 27/N to 32/N in the file D-2 of the office of RCS was made and the said noting was the basis of the approval of the freeze list of the society. On the basis CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 89 of 144 of the said noting, the strength of the society was shown to be of 69 members, whereas, the list of 69 members was not sent to the DDA. Despite the specific demand of the DDA, no approved list of members was sent to the DDA and on the basis of manipulated figures of 69 members, the land was allotted to the society. As such, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, the land was allotted by the DDA to the society.
103.2 Further, in the file D-2 on page no. 26/N & 27/N list of enrollment of members is there. This list of 43 enrolled members is the part of the final list of the members which must have been sent to the DDA for approval. PW-1 Neelam Jain deposed that her name is shown in the resignation letter on page no. 54 of the file D-12 but as she never became the member of the society the question of her resignation does not arise. In the same way, PW-41 Sh. Pritam Singh deposed that on page no. 73 of the file D-12, the resignation letter in his name is there, but as he never became member of the society, the question of resignation does not arise. Besides these two witnesses, some other witnesses have also deposed the same thing. The testimonies of these witnesses make it clear that they had been shown to have resigned from the membership of the society, but still their names are coming in the list of the enrolled members and the same list is part of the final noting of the RCS office and on this noting only the matter proceeded further and the final list must have been approved by the RCS. As such, finally, the list which was sent to the DDA must have contained the names of these two witnesses and other witnesses also, but they have been shown to have resigned from the society and were deprived of CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 90 of 144 their right in the allotted land. As such, due to the criminal conspiracy by the accused persons, these persons suffered wrongful loss and were cheated.
103.3 Now, comes the question as to why the DDA has been cheated. Although, the witnesses from the DDA deposed that the DDA did not suffer any monetary loss as the land was allotted to the present society on the approved rate, but the Court is not convinced on this. The land was allotted on subsidized rates to the present society on the presumption that all the members of the society were the genuine members, but benefit of the land did not come to those members who have been falsely shown to have resigned from the society. To the mind of the Court, had the land was allotted by the DDA to some person other than the society, the same would not have been allotted on subsidized rates and the DDA suffered the monetary loss of the money which was subsidized. As such, the DDA has also been cheated due to the criminal conspiracy of the accused persons. 104.1 A.K. Shankaran (A-1) 104.2 Ld. Counsel for this accused argued that this accused was not involved in any of the alleged offences and did everything in his official capacity.
104.3 Accused A.K. Shankaran (A-1) was first charged with the offence punishable under section 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The relevant provision is reproduced as under -
13 (1) (d) - if he -
i) By corrupt or illegal means obtains for himself or for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 91 of 144
ii) By abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
iii) While holding office as a Public Servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
104.4 The plain reading of this provision makes it clear that by using corrupt and illegal means the accused must have obtained some valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person.
104.5 The prosecution has examined only PW-46 Sh. Mahesh Sharma who must have stated in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C that the accused had taken Rs. 2,000/- towards illegal gratification from accused M.M. Sharma for conducting inspection of the society, as after getting the said witness hostile, the Ld. Public Prosecutor put a suggestion to the witness that accused A.K. Shankaran had taken Rs. 2,000/- towards illegal gratification, but the witness denied the suggestion. Thus, PW-46 was the witness who could prove that the accused had infact taken any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage in lieu of doing the alleged acts of cheating and forgery, but this witness did not support the prosecution at all.
104.6 Apart from PW-46, prosecution has examined three more witnesses i.e. PW-52 Sh. J.P. Aggarwal, PW-53 Sh. E.D. Ashokan and PW-24 Smt. Jyoti.
104.7 PW-52 Sh. J.P. Aggarwal deposed that was posted in the office of RCS and proved certain notings on the file D-2 and D-4 but this witness also nowhere deposed about taking any CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 92 of 144 pecuniary advantage or some valuable thing by the accused from any person.
104.8 In the same way PW-53 Sh. E.D. Ashokan who was posted at RCS office during the relevant time also not deposed such fact about the accused.
104.9 PW-24 Smt. Jyoti could support the case of the prosecution against accused A.K. Shankaran, but in her examination-in-chief itself she deposed that she did not know any person by the name of A.K. Shankaran. She further showed her inability to say if after 5.30 pm, the present accused used to come to the office of accused M.M. Sharma.
104.10 PW-52 Sh. J. P. Aggarwal was deposed in the office of RCS and proved certain notings on the file D-2 and D-4 but this witness also nowhere deposed about taking any pecuniary advantage or some valuable thing by the accused from any person. In the same way PW-53 Sh. E. D. Ashokan who was posted at RCS office during the relevant time also not deposed such fact about the accused.
104.11 As such the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has either taken any pecuniary advantage or valuable thing from any person in order to do any work of the society in the RCS office and thus, prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused under section 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused is accordingly acquitted for this offence. 105.1. The accused was further charged with the offence punishable u/s 468 IPC, which reads that whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 93 of 144 shall be used for the purpose of cheating shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may be extend to 07 years and also liable to fine.
105.2 Definition of forgery u/s 463 IPC reads that whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with the intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 105.3 Now, the relevant portion of section 464 IPC regarding making a false documents reads that a person is said to make a false document or a false electronic record.....
First - who dishonestly or fraudulently
a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document.
b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record.
c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record.
d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature.
with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 94 of 144105.4 Accused A.K. Shankaran (A-1) has allegedly forged several documents, which are contained in five files i.e. D-2, D- 4, D-12, D-13 and D-15.
105.5 In the file D-2 the documents are the notings of the office of the RCS, in the file D-4 the document is the inspection report in respect of house building/group housing societies which the accused A.K. Shankaran (A-1) has allegedly prepared without having any authority or order from the superior officers, in the file D-12 the documents are the resignation letters of the members in the file D-13, the documents are the cash receipts issued to the different members for refund of their share money and other deposits, whereas in the file D-15 (proceeding register), the document is the proceedings of a meeting of the managing committee as held on 04.04.1999.
105.6 As far as the notings in the file D-2 are concerned, there are two questions, first whether the contents of the notings are false and second whether the present accused has made those notings with the knowledge that he was making false notings and with the intention that those notings will be used for the purpose of getting the freeze list of the society approved. 105.7 Now comes the first question if the notings on the file D-2 are false. On page no. 30/N of the file D-2, the names of the enrolled members have been shown. The prosecution has examined many members out of this list of enrollment. Some members in their deposition have not supported the case of the prosecution, whereas some have supported.
105.8 PW-36 Sh. Naveen Kumar Verma deposed that he had never attended any meeting on 11.01.1986 as shown on page CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 95 of 144 no. 25 of D-14 and the signature at Sl. No. 4 on this page is not his signatures.
105.9 In the same way, PW-41 Sh. Pritam Singh deposed that he never submitted any application for becoming the member of Raman Vihar CGHS and never attended any meeting of the society. On being shown the application on page no. 241/C in the file D-4 Vol. III, he did not identify his signature appearing at point A. Further, after seeing the resignation letter on page no. 73 of the file D-12 Vol. II, he categorically deposed that he never became member of the society and as such there is no question of resignation arises.
105.10 The testimony of these two witnesses show that their names have been falsely shown in the list of enrolled members as mentioned on page no. 30/N of the file D-2. As such, the contents of the noting from page no. 27/N to 32/N are false. 105.11 Now the question is if the present accused prepared the said notings with the knowledge that he was preparing false notings and with the intention that these false notings would be further used.
105.12 Being an official of the RCS, the present accused was not supposed to check each and every thing and had to rely on the material as provided to him by the office bearers of the society. To the mind of the Court, the present accused cannot be held liable for mentioning the names of those members in the list of enrollment if a wrong list was provided to him by the office bearers of the society.
105.13 In the file D-2 on page no. 26/N, the IO picked questioned writing marked Q-455 on page no. 27/N, Q-457 & Q-
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 96 of 144458 on page no. 28/N, Q-459 & Q-460 on page no. 29/N, Q-461 & Q-462 on page no. 30/N, Q-463 & Q-464 on page no. 31/N, Q- 465 & Q-466 on page no. 32/N, Q-467 & Q-468 on page no. 33/N, Q-469 & Q-470 on page no. 34/N, Q-471 & Q-472 on page no. 35/N, Q-472 (A), Q-473 & Q-474 on page no. 36/N, Q-475, Q-476 & Q-477 on page no. 37/N and Q-478, Q-479 & Q-480 on other pages, which according to the report of the GEQD were made by accused A.K. Shankaran (A-1).
105.14 It is very important to note that none of the prosecution witnesses has categorically deposed and proved that the said noting from page no. 27/N to 32/N was made by accused (A-1). PW-52 Sh. J.P. Aggarwal has been examined by the prosecution to prove the notings in the file D-2. Surprisingly, this witness explained the said noting, but showed his inability to identify the signature of Dealing Assistant and gave reason that as the name of the Dealing Assistant was not mentioned below his signature, he could not identify the same. More surprisingly, this witness specifically stated the names of the other persons who dealt with the other notings, but did not name the present accused. Like, regarding the noting dated 21.10.1997 on page no. 25/N of D-2, this witness categorically stated that the signature on the said note appears to be of Sh. D.K. Gaur and he further identified the signatures of Sh. D.K. Gaur and Sh. B.M. Sethi on the other notes, but did not identity either the signature or the handwriting of the present accused. When this witness was dealing with the said file, he was supposed to depose clearly as to by whom the most important note from page no. 27/N to 32/N was written.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 97 of 144105.15 In order to prove that the said note from page no. 27/N to 32/N and other notes in the file D-2 were written by the present accused, the prosecution relied only upon the opinion of the GEQD, who has mentioned in his report that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings (specimen writing) stamped and marked S-91 to S-132 (Ex. PW6A/DD-6), S-585 to S-743 (Ex. PW6A/DD-18) and S-869 to S-873 (Ex. PW6A/DD-25) (pertaining to accused A.K. Shankaran) also wrote the enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q-455 to Q-472, Q-472A & Q-473 to Q-480.
105.16 Although, the witnesses from the Office of RCS have not specifically stated that the notings on page no. 27/N to 32/N was written by the present accused, but when the GEQD has given opinion against the present accused, the Court has to consider this aspect taking into consideration the other facts also. It is important to note that the accused has not denied this fact anywhere that he was not working in the concerned department of the RCS at the relevant time and did not prepare any of the notings. Further, the involvement of the accused in the whole episode is there as he worked in the office of co-accused M.M. Sharma and forged many documents relating to the present society. Therefore, the Court has to consider the report of the GEQD against the accused and conclude that the said notings from page no. 27/N to 32/N and other notings in the file D-2 were prepared by the present accused.
105.17 In the file D-4 on page no. 178/C, the IO picked questioned writing and signature marked Q-734 and Q-735 respectively, which according to the report of the GEQD were CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 98 of 144 made by accused A.K. Shankaran (A-1).
105.18 Accused A.K. Shankaran (A-1) had inspected the society despite the fact that the file was marked to Sh. N.S. Rawat or Rawal (name in the noting is not clear). 105.19 The prosecution was thus supposed to prove that accused (A-1) made inspection of the society on his own despite the fact that the file was marked not to him, but to the said Sh. N.S. Rawat/Rawal. None of the prosecution witnesses has deposed and proved that the file was marked to Sh. N.S. Rawat/Rawal for inspection of the society. In order to prove this fact, the prosecution was supposed to examine either Sh. N.S. Rawat/Rawal himself or any other witness who could say that in fact Sh. N.S. Rawat/Rawal was appointed to make inspection of the society and in his place the accused (A-1) made the inspection, but the prosecution has not done so. Even the witnesses from the RCS office as examined by the prosecution have not stated so. The accused was not supposed to prove in his defence that he made the inspection of the society without any authority or without marking of the file to him. Thus, it cannot be said that without being authorized, the accused (A-1) made the inspection of the society and prepared the inspection report. 105.20 In order to prove that the accused A.K. Shankaran prepared the inspection report without visiting the registered office of the society and he prepared the inspection report in the office of RCS only, the prosecution has examined Sh. Mahesh Sharma (PW-46). This witness was the only witness of the prosecution to depose this fact against the accused (A-1), but in his examination-in-chief he did not support the prosecution and CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 99 of 144 in cross-examination he denied the suggestion that accused A.K. Shankaran did not visit the registered office of the society i.e. Government Boys Sr. Sec. School or that he prepared the inspection report in the office of RCS only. Thus, prosecution has not proved that the accused A.K. Shankaran prepared a false inspection report without visiting the registered office of the society.
106.1 In the file D-12, the GEQD gave his opinion regarding many writings on the resignation letters of the members which according to the GEQD after scientific examination were found to be the writings of A.K. Shankaran (A-
1). The GEQD gave his opinion against A.K. Shankaran (A-1) with regard to the writings Q-246, Q-249, Q-257, Q-260, Q-263, Q-266, Q-269, Q-272, Q-275, Q-278, Q-281, Q-283, Q-285, Q- 287, Q-288/1, Q-290, Q-291/1, Q-293, Q-296, Q-301, Q-307, Q- 310, Q-313, Q-315, Q-317, Q-319, Q-323, Q-325, Q-327, Q-329, Q-331, Q-333, Q-336, Q-339, Q-341, Q-343, Q-346, Q-349 and Q-352 on Ex. PW6/26 to Ex. PW6/56 (as these documents were first exhibited by the GEQD).
106.2 In order to prove that the accused (A-1) forged the resignation letters as contained in the file D-12, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimonies of PW-32, PW-35, PW-36 and PW-56 and PW-31 but testimony of only PW-31 is relevant to support the case of the prosecution.
106.3 The prosecution has examined PW-32 Sh. Amar Nath Kohli to prove that the resignation letter Ex. PW32/E on page no. 47 of D-12 was forged. PW-32 stated that the signature appearing on the said resignation letter in his name at point A is CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 100 of 144 not his signature and the same is forged one, but testimony of this witness is silent qua his handwriting on this resignation letter. Thus, the opinion of the GEQD on this resignation letter is not material.
106.4 The prosecution has also examined Sh. Ashok Kumar (PW-56) in order to prove that the resignation letter was forged by accused (A-1). This witness has stated that after 1996 he never signed any document pertaining to the society and as such not signed at point A on the said resignation letter Ex. PW56/E in D-12. He also stated that he had not submitted any such resignation letter. This witness denied his signature on the said document and not said anything about the handwriting. 106.5 Prosecution has also relied upon testimonies of Sh. Naveen Kumar Verma (PW-36) and Sh. A.K. Ahuja (PW-35) in order to prove that some portion on their resignation letters are written by A-1. Although, these witnesses denied their signatures on their resignation letters but their testimony is silent qua the alleged portion of resignation letter written by accused (A-1). 106.6 The only important witness of the prosecution is Mr. L.K. Laul, who has been examined as PW-31. This witness deposed that the contents of the withdrawal form Ex. PW31/C on page no. 44 of D-12 are not in his handwriting and further the same was not signed by him at point A (Q-332) and the same is forged one. This witness denied his signature at point A (Q-332), but there is no opinion of GEQD on this. The witness also denied his handwriting in the red encircled portion (Q-331 & Q-
333) and the GEQD has reported that the specimen writing of the accused (A-1) matches with the writings at Q-331 & Q-333 on CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 101 of 144 this document Ex. PW31/C. Thus, when PW-31 has denied his handwriting on Ex. PW31/C and the GEQD has opined that the writings belong to the accused (A-1), the prosecution has been able to show that the writing on the said document is of accused (A-1). It is pertinent to note that being an official of the RCS, the accused was not supposed to write any such resignation letter on behalf of any of the members.
106.7 Thus, in terms of the definition u/s 464 IPC the accused made a false document with the intention of causing it to be believed that it was made by PW-31 Mr. L K Laul whereas the accused knew that the said document was not made by or under the authority of Mr. L K Laul.
106.8 When the accused has written the whole or part of the resignation letter, which he was not supposed to write, he made a false document.
106.9 In the file D-13, the GEQD gave his opinion regarding many writings on the receipts issued to the members which according to the GEQD after scientific examination were found to be the writings of A-1 A.K. Shankaran. The GEQD gave his opinion against A-1 A.K. Shankaran with regard to the following writings Q-363/1, Q-371, Q-373, Q-376, Q-378, Q- 382, Q-385, Q-390, Q-393, Q-400, Q-402, Q-404, Q-407, Q-410, Q-412, Q-414/1, Q-416, Q-418, Q-421, Q-424, Q-427, Q-429, Q- 431, Q-433, Q-437, Q-439 and Q-441/1 on Ex. PW6/66 to Ex. PW6/101 (as these documents were first exhibited by the GEQD).
106.10 In order to prove that the accused (A-1) forged the receipts as contained in the file D-13, the prosecution has CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 102 of 144 examined many witnesses, but according to the prosecution, the testimonies of two witnesses i.e. PW-36 Naveen Kumar Verma and PW-56 Ashok Kumar Gandhi are important as they have categorically deposed that said receipts were forged and they never executed such receipts. Moreover, said witnesses also denied their signatures on the said receipts. It is once again pertinent to note that being an official of the RCS, the accused was not supposed to write any such receipts. When the accused has written the whole or part of the receipt, which he was not supposed to write, he made a false document.
106.11 In the file D-15, the GEQD picked Q-1053, Q-1054, Q-1055 and Q-1056 from page no. 54 to page no. 57 and according to his opinion the writings are the writings of accused A.K. Shankaran (A-1). Again, accused A.K. Shankaran was not supposed to write the proceedings of the society as he was working in the office of RCS. When the accused has written the said proceedings, which he was not supposed to write, he made a false document.
106.12 It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the Court should not rely only on the opinion of GEQD while holding that the accused has committed the offence of forgery by writing some documents and there are so many judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in this regard. The Ld. Counsel relied upon S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of AP (1996) 4 SCC 596 in which it was held that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. On the other hand, Ld. PP relied upon Murari Lal Vs. State of MP (1980) 1 SCC 704. In CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 103 of 144 the case in hand, the Court is not relying upon only on the opinion of the GEQD as there are other circumstantial evidence against the accused. The present accused was working in the office of RCS and allegedly prepared the notings qua the present society. Further, the presence of the accused is also there in the office of the other co-accused M.M. Sharma in whose office the present office used to work. As such, the opinion of the GEQD is not the only evidence against the present accused and the accused can be connected with the alleged offences at many places. 106.13 As mentioned earlier, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, in view of above discussion, the accused is held guilty & convicted for the offence punishable u/s 468 IPC.
106.14 As far as the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC is concerned, considering the act of the accused, the Court has to draw presumption that he did the acts and committed the alleged offences in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, otherwise there was no reason for the accused to commit the same. Accordingly, the accused is also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC with reference to section 420, 468, 471 IPC.
107.1 Accused Amarnath (A-3) 107.2 Accused Amarnath (A-3) has been charged that while working as Auditor Grade-III in the office of RCS during the given point of time while abusing his official position as a public servant he recommended and got approved the freeze list of 69 fictitious members of the society without visiting the office CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 104 of 144 of the society and checking the genuineness of the relevant documents and committed the offence u/s 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
107.3 In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimonies of PW-14, PW- 25, PW-52 and PW-62.
107.4 The relevant testimony of PW-14 Sh. M.P. Bajaj against the accused Amarnath (A-3) is that the said witness was posted in the Audit branch in the RCS office and he knows accused Amarnath (A-3) the then Auditor who was posted in the RCS office. This witness then identified the signature of accused Amarnath (A-3) at point 'B' on each page of the audit report Ex.PW6/255 of the file D-23 which was earlier got proved by the prosecution through the GEQD. As such this witness has proved that the audit report was signed and prepared by the accused Amarnath (A-3).
107.5 The main deposition of PW-25 Sh. Narayan Singh is that he remained posted as AR (Audit) in the office of RCS from 1998 to 2000 and his duty was to get the audit of the society conducted. He identified his signatures at point 'B' on option cum appointment letter dated 16.12.98 and proved the same to show the fact that on the request of the society Sh. Shailender Garg, the Auditor/Chartered Accountant was appointed and he prepared report Ex. PW8/A (Colly.) pertaining to the year 1997-
98. In the same way this witness proved the appointment letter for the audit of the society for the year 1998-99, for the appointment of Sh. Shailender Garg as Ex.PW25/B following which the Auditor prepared and gave his report which was CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 105 of 144 already exhibited by the GEQD as Ex.PW6/313.
107.6 By proving the reports of the Auditor/Chartered Accountant Sh. Shailender Garg, the prosecution wishes to show that Sh. Shailender Garg prepared the reports for the year 1997- 98 and 1998-99 after being duly appointed, whereas, the accused Amarnath (A-3) prepared and gave his report pertaining to the year 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 without being duly appointed and in pursuance of the conspiracy in order to commit the alleged offences.
107.7 On this aspect that the accused Amarnath (A-3) was not duly appointed, PW-62 Baldev Raj Rawal in his testimony deposed that from January, 1995 to September 1998 i.e. at the relevant time he was posted as Assistant Registrar (Audit) in the RCS office and the audit report for 1994-95 and for 1995-96 in D-23 was prepared and then submitted on 31.03.1998 by accused Amarnath (A-3) in the Audit Branch of the RCS office and no check list with the audit report was enclosed and further the order of appointment of accused Amar Nath (A-3) to conduct audit is not available in the file. In the suggestion as given by Ld. Counsel for A-9 Neeraj Chopra, this witness denied the suggestion that he had appointed accused Amar Nath (A-3) as auditor in this case.
107.8 When the prosecution alleges that the accused (A-3) Amar Nath conducted audit of the society for the financial years 1994-95, 1995-96 & 1996-97 without being duly appointed, it was supposed to prove as to who was in fact appointed to conduct the audit of these years and in fact accused (A-3) Amar Nath conducted the audit on his own being in connivance with CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 106 of 144 other accused persons, ignoring the auditor who was duly appointed. PW-62 deposed that the order of appointment of accused Amar Nath to conduct the audit is not available in the file. Again, it was the duty of the prosecution to bring on record the order showing the appointment of some other auditor for conducting the audit and only then it would have been shown that despite the appointment of some auditor, the present accused did the audit without any appointment.
107.9 Further, when the audit reports as submitted by the accused Amar Nath from the year 1994 to 1997 had been duly accepted by the superior officers, the appointment of the accused A-3 cannot be doubted. If the audit of the society was done by the accused without any due appointment or authority, his senior officers would have raised objections to the report immediately. Further, the reports of accused Amar Nath are consecutively for three years which is a long period and the reports were being considered and accepted by his higher officers continuously and as such there should not be any doubt about his conducting the audit without being duly appointed. It is thus concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused conducted the audit of the society without being duly appointed. 107.10 One of the contentions of the prosecution is that the witnesses PW-32 Amar Nath Kohli, PW-61 Sh. Madhu Kumar Nayyar and PW-71 Sh. Sanjeev Nayyar have deposed that they were not the members of the Raman Vihar CGHS at the relevant time, but they have been shown as members in the list enclosed with the audit report prepared by accused A-3.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 107 of 144107.11 Sh. Anil Kumar Ahuja PW-35 has deposed that his brother Sh. Vineet Kumar Ahuja was not a member of the society at the relevant time, but his name was shown as member in the list enclosed with the audit report prepared by accused A-3. 107.12 Apart from PW-35, Sh. Amar Nath Kohli (PW-32), Sh. Madhu Kumar Nayyar (PW-61) and Sh. Sanjeev Nayyar (PW-71) deposed that they had already left membership of said society before 31.03.1996 by withdrawing their entire money and surprisingly their names were still shown in the list of members annexed with the audit report of the next year.
107.13 As such, despite the fact that the above-mentioned persons had already left the society, their names have been shown in the list of members enclosed with the audit report prepared by A-3.
107.14 The prosecution contents that the auditor A-3 Amar Nath was supposed to verify each and every member and if he has shown the aforesaid persons/witnesses as members in the list enclosed with the audit report, he was part of the conspiracy and committed the alleged offences. The court is not in agreement with this contention of the prosecution. To the mind of the Court, the auditor i.e. the accused A-3 was not supposed to make verification of each and every member of the society and was supposed to rely on the list as given to him by the office bearers of the society. Thus, the Court is of the view that the accused A- 3 has not committed any offence by showing the names of the above-mentioned persons/witnesses in the list of members enclosed with the audit report.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 108 of 144107.15 Now, the question is whether the prosecution has been able to show that by doing the alleged act, the accused Amarnath (A-3) has gained any pecuniary advantage or obtained any valuable thing. No witness of the prosecution has deposed against the present accused that while doing the alleged acts he had received any money or pecuniary advantage to himself or due to his alleged act, any other person got any benefit or advantage. As such, no offence is made out against accused Amar Nath (A-3) punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the PC Act, he is accordingly acquitted for this offence. 107.16 The accused was jointly charged for the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC with reference to section 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but no evidence has come on record against the accused to prove the said offence and the accused is also acquitted for this offence.
108.1 Accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A-4) 108.2 Accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A-4) has been charged that while working as LDC /Dealing Assistant in DDA Group Housing branch, in pursuance of the alleged criminal conspiracy and abusing his official position as a public servant he obtained pecuniary advantage without any public interest by opening a parallel/part file suo moto and recommended the same for allotment of a land to the society and committed the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
108.3 The allegation against the present accused is that he opened a part file suo moto and accordingly recommendation for CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 109 of 144 allotment of land was made to the Chairman, DDA. In this regard, testimonies of PW-42, PW-49, PW-54 and PW-57 are important.
108.4 In the cross-examination of PW-54 Sh. Sahru Ram as done on behalf of this accused, the witness deposed that the file Ex. PW49/E was opened by taking extract from the policy file and the same was in accordance with the procedural guidelines. He further explained that making new file from the policy file by taking extract is a normal practice in DDA and it is not practically possible to maintain the record of different societies in one policy file and for this purpose separate files are opened by taking extract from the policy file. Further, in his cross-examination in the last, he stated that all the societies were having separate files generated on the basis of extract from the main policy file as done in the present case.
108.5 The testimony of this witness makes it very clear that opening of the part file by the present accused was not an irregularity or illegalilty and rather it was in accordance with the procedural guidelines.
108.6 Besides this, if the prosecution alleges that the accused did manipulation in the notings and on his notings, the approval of the land to the society was finally given, the witness PW-54 in his cross-examination deposed that he had put his signatures at point C on the noting Ex. PW42/A after examining the note to be correct. He further deposed that he cross verified the said noting with the main policy file before forwarding and signing the note as typed by accused Sohan Pal Sharma. Thus, considering the testimony of this witness the act of the present CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 110 of 144 accused cannot be doubted.
108.7 Another allegation of the prosecution is that the land to the society was allotted despite the fact that no approved list of members was forwarded by the RCS to the DDA. In this regard, this witness, the PW-54 explained that at the time of allotment of land, DDA does not require the list of members and the same is required only at the time of draw of allotment of flats to the respective beneficiaries. He further explained that at the time of approval of allotment of land, only sanctioned strength of members is required. Finally, this witness also deposed that there was no iota or whisper of any infirmity noted by him for which he can raise his objections with respect to allotment of land to the society Raman Vihar CGHS.
108.8 As far as the other witnesses, PW-45, PW-49 & PW- 57 are concerned, they have just deposed about the relevant files and notings and not deposed anything against the accused Sohan Pal Sharma and their testimonies do not show any incriminating evidence against the present accused and are of no help for the prosecution case.
108.9 Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A-4) has committed the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for this offence.
108.10 The accused was jointly charged for the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC with reference to section 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but no evidence has come on record CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 111 of 144 against the accused to prove the said offence and the accused is also acquitted for this offence.
109.1 Accused Ajay Kumar Solanki (A-5) 109.2 As per Ld. Counsel for accused Ajay Solanki (A-5), to prove allegations against his client, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses Smt. Kaushalya (PW-3), Smt. Phoolwati (PW-11), Sh. Parveen Kumar (PW-18), Sh. Shailender Garg (PW-8), Sh. Rakesh Rana (PW-17), Sh. Harsh Wardhan Chopra (PW-64) and Sh. V.S. Yadav, IO of the case (PW-75). According to the Ld. Counsel, Smt. Kaushalya (PW-3) and Smt. Phoolwati (PW-11) admitted to have become members of Raman Vihar CGHS, both in year 1996, but prosecution did not opt to cross-examine said witnesses. Further, Sh. Parveen (PW-18) on being cross- examined, identified his signatures on affidavit Ex. PW18/B and deposed that the stamp paper on which the said affidavit was executed, was purchased by him. Further, Sh. Shailender Garg (PW-8), Charted Accountant did not find any irregularity in the audit of accounts of the said society. Further, so far as allegation that said accused arranged fund from non-members of said society is concerned, Sh. Rakesh Rana, who was member of the said society disclosed that he paid Rs. 10 lakhs to Mr. Arora for becoming member of Raman Vihar CGHS and said amount was refunded to him. Further, Sh. Harsh Wardhan Chopra (PW-64), the Manager of Janta Co-operative Bank denied the fact that the said account was operated by accused Ajay Solanki alongwith his wife. Further, Sh. Mahesh Sharma (PW-46) denied exchange of money i.e. Rs. 6 lakhs for transfer of record of said society, as alleged by the prosecution. Further, Sh. Ghanshyam Rai (IO) CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 112 of 144 (PW-66) admitted that there was no document on record suggesting exchange of money among Sh. Mahesh Sharma, Sh. M.M. Sharma and Sh. V.M. Rishi. Further, Sh. V.S. Yadav (IO) (PW-75) admitted clearly that he failed to establish any nexus between Sh. M.M. Sharma, Sh. Mahesh Sharma and Sh. V.M. Rishi. Further, according to prosecution, Raman Vihar CGHS became defunct after promoter members of the said society withdrew their amount. Further, a society could be declared as defunct only according to Delhi Co-operative Societies Act and rules framed thereunder and only RCS could make such declaration. Ld. Counsel then referred report of Handwriting Expert. According to him, if GEQD opinion is taken as true, same has opined that the following documents i.e. Q-131, Q-136, Q-551 to Q-556 were not written by accused Ajay Solanki and this fact is well explained by the said accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Further, during investigation of this case, specimen signatures of accused were taken, but the IO did not follow the requirement as given u/s 311A Cr.P.C as amended in year 2005 and hence taking of specimen signatures in such a way was illegal. Ld. Counsel relied upon the following cases on this point-
i. Sapan Haldar & Anr. Vs. State, 2012 VIII AD (Delhi) 533, full bench judgment of Delhi High Court. ii. S.P.S. Rahore Vs. CBI & Anr. (2017) 5 SCC 817. iii. State of U.P. Vs. Ram Babu Mishra, AIR 1980 SC
791. Ld. Counsel further argued that neither there is any direct nor circumstantial evidence to prove that accused Ajay CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 113 of 144 Solanki was part of the conspiracy allegedly hatched amongst accused persons in this case.
109.3 The first allegation against the present accused is that he forged the affidavits of Smt. Kaushalya Devi (PW-3), Smt. Phoolwati (PW-11) and Sh. Parveen Kumar (PW-18). According to the report of GEQD, signatures on these affidavits were made by the present accused, but when these witnesses appeared before the Court for their testimony, they admitted their signatures on their respective affidavits. Once, the witnesses have themselves admitted their signatures on their affidavits, opinion of GEQD in this regard is not material.
109.4 Although, these witnesses have admitted their signatures on their affidavits, but the affidavits are false as the affidavits were attested on 02.04.1998, whereas these members were shown to have been enrolled in the Management Committee meeting dated 10.03.1996. Further, the stamp vendor i.e. PW-58 Sh. Kishan Lal Nagpal deposed that the stamps affixed on the reverse side on the non-judicial papers i.e. these affidavits were not his stamps and the writing made on the affidavits did not pertain to him. He further deposed that no entry was made about the selling of these affidavits and he had never sold the said affidavits. As such, it is clear that the accused prepared a false document and committed forgery.
110.1 One more allegation against the present accused is that he was involved in the arrangement of money received from the non-members alongwith co-accused Joginder Singh Solanki and K.R. Khanna.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 114 of 144110.2 In order to prove this allegation, prosecution has examined Sh. Rakesh Rana (PW-17) who deposed that though he never became member of any society including Raman Vihar CGHS but had paid Rs. 10 lakhs to some Mr. Arora for becoming member of the said society. Said witness identified his signatures on the certified copy of his account opening form in Janta Co- operative Bank Ltd. Ex. PW17/A in the file D-60. He further deposed that Mr. Parveen Kumar was the introducer for the account opening form and he identified his signature on this document at point C. He also identified his signatures on certified copies of two cheques amounting to Rs. 5,80,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- Ex. PW17/B (Colly.). Further, the credit vouchers of Rs. 5,80,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- on page no. D- 56/2 and D-57/2 respectively Ex. PW17/C (Colly.) were deposited by him but filled up by Mr. Arora. Further, he proved statement of account showing the aforesaid transactions as Ex. PW17/D (Colly.) (13 sheets).
110.3 This witness deposed that he heard the name of Ajay Solanki from Mr. Arora, but did not know him personally. Said witness turned hostile and in his cross-examination by Ld. PP he denied the suggestion that he knew Ajay Solanki or gave any money at his instance to the society from his account. He further denied that he mentioned the name of Ajay Solanki to the IO. Lastly the witness stated that he received back his entire money from Raman Vihar CGHS in cash and that too in installments. 110.4 Thus, the prosecution has not proved the involvement of the present accused in arranging the money from the non-members.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 115 of 144111.1 One more allegation against the present accused is that vide letter dated 02.02.1998, he dishonestly informed the RCS about the election of Managing Committee of the society through General Body Meeting proceedings dated 25.01.1998 despite the fact that the society was not functioning during that period.
111.2 Now, comes the question whether the proceedings of GBM as shown to have been held on 25.01.1998, placed on page no. 25 of file D-15 are false.
111.3 PW-41 Sh. Pritam Singh after seeing the file D-15, deposed that on page no. 25 to 27, which shows a General Body Meeting of Raman Vihar CGHS and was shown to have been held on 25.01.1998, his name has been falsely shown at Sl. No. 1 on page no. 27. He further deposed that his name on page no. 25 of the said register is appearing at Sl. No. 13 and he never attended the said meeting and the signature appearing at point X1 is not his signatures. Thus, testimony of this witness clarifies that the proceeding of General Body Meeting from page no. 25 to 27 was false.
111.4 The prosecution has also examined PW-76 Sh. Shailender Sharma who also deposed that he did not attend meeting dated 25.01.1998 and he did not know what happened in that meeting.
111.5 Further, at Sl. No. 3 on page no. 27 of the same register i.e. D-15, name of one Pushpa Sharma has been shown as Member and in the society records her address has been shown as CD-94, Pitam Pura, Delhi-34, whereas the said person was non-existent. In this regard, PW-22 Sh. Raj Kumar, the postman CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 116 of 144 deposed that the given address was incomplete and he made inquiry from the residents of all the floors of the aforesaid address and also made inquiry from the neighbours about said Smt. Pushpa Sharma, but she could not be found as she was not residing there.
111.6 From the testimonies of PW-41, PW-22 and PW-76, it is thus clear that the proceedings dated 25.01.1998 were false. Thus, the letter dated 02.02.1998 informing the RCS about the election of Managing Committee of the society through General Body Meeting proceedings dated 25.01.1998 is also false and same bears the signatures of the present accused as verified by the GEQD at Q-737.
112.1 Further, in file D-20, alongwith the audit report for the year ending on 31.03.1998, list of deposits of the members as on 31.03.1998, was enclosed. In the said list, names of Sh. Amar Nath Kohli and Sh. Naveen Kumar Verma were shown at Sl. No. 18 & 28 respectively and according to the GEQD, said list was signed by the present accused as Secretary of the society at Q-
887. In order to prove that names of these witnesses were falsely shown in the said list, prosecution has examined Sh. Amar Nath Kohli as PW-32 and Sh. Naveen Kumar Verma as PW-36. 112.2 Sh. Amar Nath Kohli (PW-32) deposed that he received back his entire amount of Rs. 20,500/- from Raman Vihar CGHS on 08.04.1995 as he was told that society got defunct and after receing the said amount, he never contacted with the society in any manner.
112.3 Sh. Naveen Kumar Verma (PW-36) deposed that he became member of the said society on 10.10.1985 and amount of CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 117 of 144 Rs. 40,000/- was refunded to him on 08.04.1995. 112.4 Thus, testimonies of these witnesses show that names of Sh. Amar Nath Kohli and Sh. Naveen Kumar Verma were falsely shown in the said list.
112.5 As this list was signed by the present accused as Secretary of the said society, he can be held responsible and it can be concluded that he prepared the aforesaid false list of deposits of members.
112.6 The above discussion shows that the present accused used the document i.e. letter dated 02.02.1998 addressed to the Assistant Registrar, RCS Office. Further, he signed the list of deposits of members as 31.03.1998 enclosed alongiwth the audit report for the year ending on 31.03.1998, as Secretary of the said society and therefore, authenticated the same despite the fact that same was false. Thus, the accused committed the offences punishable u/s 468 and 471 IPC.
112.7 As far as the offence of cheating as punishable u/s 420 IPC is concerned, from the above discussion, inference can be drawn that the mentioned documents and proceedings were forged only with the intention to deceive the office of the RCS as on the basis of these documents and other documents, finally the freeze list was approved. Hence, it is held that the present accused has also committed the offence u/s 420 IPC also. 112.8 Now comes the question of the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC. Although, the accused cannot be connected with anything directly in order to show that he conspired with any person or any co-accused, but the above discussed act of the accused is such that the Court has to draw inference that he was CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 118 of 144 part of the criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, he has committed the alleged offences.
112.9 Hence, in view of the above discussion, it is held that the accused is convicted for the offences punishable u/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC and also for the offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w section 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
113.1 Accused Joginder Singh Solanki (A-6) 113.2 As per Ld. Counsel, Smt. Kaushalya Devi (PW-3), Sh. Sukhbir Singh (PW-4), G.S. Solanki (PW-10), Sh. Parasnath (PW-26) and Sh. Harsh Wardhan Chopra (PW-64) are related to the present accused. Ld. Counsel submitted that PW-3, PW-4 and PW-10 have not deposed anything against his client. Further, PW-26 told about lease deed having been executed in year 2005 in favour of Raman Vihar CGHS. Further, the witness PW-26 was an Assistant in Group Housing Branch of DDA told that that no pecuniary loss to the exchequer was caused due to execution of said lease deed. Further, Sh. Harsh Wardhan Chopra (PW-64) told about the account of Raman Vihar CGHS that it was opened on the introduction of his client i.e. Joginder Singh Solanki and simply to introduce a customer for opening bank account was not an offence. Ld. Counsel contened that the society got never defunct in terms of the rules pertaining to CGHS. 114.1 The accused Joginder Singh Solanki (A-6) was charged that he got enrolled 30 members in the society fraudulently for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs. Further, he introduced the account of the society which was opened in Janta Co-opeartive Bank, Palam, Delhi. Further, he was involved in the arrangement of money received from the non-members CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 119 of 144 alongwith other co-accused Ajay Kumar Solanki and K.R. Khanna. Further, he dishonestly executed a lease deed for the plot no. 5A, Sector-11, Dwarka in DDA on 08.02.2005 on the basis of minutes of GBM dated 05.11.2004. Further, he also arranged an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy towards payment of plot to DDA and thereby committed criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons as punishable u/s 120B IPC in order to commit the offences u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
114.2 He was further charged that during the year 1998- 2000 at Delhi he dishonestly and fraudulently induced the office of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Delhi for getting approved list of 69 fictitious members as against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of false and forged documents and to get a land allotted from DDA at subsidized rates and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Further, during the aforesaid period and place he fraudulently and dishonestly used fake and fabricated documents to get approved the freeze list of 69 members of the society as against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of false and forged documents which he prepared or got prepared and got allotted a land from the DDA and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 471 IPC. 114.3 In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of PW-3 Smt. Kaushalya Devi, PW-4 Sh. Sukhbir Singh, PW-10 Sh. G.S. Solanki, PW-26 Sh. Paras Nath and PW-64 Sh. Harsh Vardhan Chopra.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 120 of 144114.4 PW-3 Smt. Kaushalya Devi just stated that she resigned from the society in the year 2002 and identified her signatures on the relevant documents i.e. application form Ex. PW3/A in D-4 page no. 263/C, her affidavit on page no. 238/C in D-4 Ex. PW3/B and on her resignation letter on page no. 18 of D-12 Ex. PW3/C. As such, this witness did not depose anything in favour of the prosecution as she identified her signatures on all the documents.
114.5 PW-4 Sh. Sukhbir Singh stated that he had given a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the society, but later on got refunded the said amount. He identified his signatures at point A on Ex. PW4/A in D-2 i.e. a voucher as well as his handwriting on the said voucher. As such, this witness also did not depose anything against the accused and in favour of the prosecution. 114.6 The next witness of the prosecution with regard to this accused is PW-10 Sh. G.S. Solanki. This witness also identified his signatures on all the relevant documents like membership form, affidavit and stated that he resigned from the society and got full payment through cheque. He further deposed that he resigned from the society on his own will. Thus, this witness also not supported the prosecution at all. 114.7 PW-36 Sh. Paras Nath was a witness from the office of DDA and deposed that the Perpetual Lease Deed of Raman Vihar CGHS, placed from page no. 88/C to 94/C in file D-29 Vol. II was executed in the presence of Dr. Joginder Singh, President, Raman Vihar CGHS. Ld. Counsel for the accused in his arguments submitted that mere presence of the name of the accused Joginder Singh Solanki in the Lease Deed, does not CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 121 of 144 mean that some cheating or forgery was done by this accused. I agree with the submission of Ld. Counsel that merely representing the society as a President and having name in the Lease Deed does not show that the present accused committed the alleged offences as charged against him.
115. The next witness as allegedly deposed against the present accused is PW-64 Sh. Harsh Vardhan Chopra. The deposition of Sh. Harsh Vardhan Chopra (PW-64) is that he was posted as Manager in Janta Co-operative Bank, Nangal Branch from November 2004 to 2008 and the said bank was running in a building of Joginder Singh Solanki. He identified his signatures at point A on the documents dated 22.12.2007 from Sl. No. 1 to 10 in D-53 and stated that these documents were submitted to the CBI and proved them as Ex. PW64/A. He further identified his signatures at point A on statement of account SB No. 0010684 from 02.08.1998 to 31.12.2001 in the name of Raman Vihar CGHS and proved the same as Ex. PW64/B (Colly.). He further identified his signatures at point A on a letter dated 04.04.2007 placed in D-55 and proved the same as Ex. PW64/C. He further identified his signatures at point A on Account Opening Form No. SB10684 lying in D-55/2 & D-55/3 and proved the same as Ex. PW64/D. He further stated that the saving account no. 10684 was in the name of Raman Vihar CGHS and being operated by Sh. Ajay Solanki and his wife Smt. Sushil Solanki on behalf of the society. He further identified the signatures of Sh. Ajay Solanki and his wife Smt. Sushil Solanki at points C and D on Ex. PW64/D. He further deposed that as per Ex. PW64/D, the account opening form was introduced by Joginder Singh Solanki, CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 122 of 144 who was also having a separate saving account no. 10021 in his own name in the said bank. That the statement of account pertaining to the account of Raman Vihar CGHS Ex. PW64/B in D-54 shows different amounts credited and debited in the said account on various dates. As such in the testimony of this witness, only two facts are there with reference to the present accused, first that the bank was being run in the building of this accused and second that the present accused was an introducer in the account opening form of the account of the society. Having a bank account of the society in the bank which is running in the building of the accused and introduction of the account in the name of the society are not incriminating at all against the present accused.
116.1 Although, PW-3 Smt. Phoolwati has identified her signatures on her affidavit, but the affidavit is false and was created to show the enrollment of this witness in the proceedings dated 10.03.1996 on page no. 3 of the file/register D-15. In order to show the falsity of the affidavit, the stamp vendor i.e. PW-58 Sh. Kishan Lal Nagpal deposed that the stamps affixed on the reverse side on the non-judicial papers i.e. these affidavits were not his stamps and the writing made on the affidavits did not pertain to him. He further deposed that no entry was made about the selling of these affidavits and he had never sold the said affidavits. Thus, it is clear that the said affidavit of Smt. Phoolwati was a false document. Smt. Phoolwati although admitted her signature on the said affidavit but clearly deposed that the affidavit was filled up by Mr. Joginder. Thus, it is clear that the present accused created a false document to show anti-
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 123 of 144dated enrollment of Smt. Phoolwati.
116.2 In view of above discussion, it is held that the present accused cannot be convicted u/s 471 IPC as there is no evidence on record whether he had actually used the said affidavit. The above discussion show that the accused has made a false document as defined u/s 464 IPC and committed the offence as punishable u/s 465 IPC. Thus, accused is held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 465 IPC. Though, no specific charge for commission of the offence u/s 465 IPC was framed against the present accused, but as commission of the offence u/s 465 IPC is made out, which is a lesser offence than the offence u/s 471 IPC, there is no legal impediment to convict him for a lesser offence i.e. for the offence u/s 465 IPC. Thus, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 465 IPC. 116.3 As far as the offence u/s 420 IPC is concerned, there is not sufficient evidence to hold the guilty for this offence. Accordingly, he is acquitted for this offence. 116.4 The accused was jointly charged for the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC with reference to section 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but no evidence has come on record against the accused to prove the said offence and the accused is also acquitted for this offence.
117.1 Accused V.M. Rishi (A-7) 117.2 As per Ld. Counsel, three witnesses i.e. Sh. Mahesh Sharma (PW-46), Sh. Ghanshyam Rai (PW-66) and Sh. V.S. Yadav (IO) (PW-75) are related to this accused. He submitted that Sh. Mahesh Sharma (PW-46) in his cross-examination on CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 124 of 144 06.12.2016 denied that he met accused M.M. Sharma regarding transfer of record of society. Further, this witness Mahesh Sharma clearly denied the handing over of the money to his client. Further, Sh. Ghanshyam Rai (PW-66) in his cross- examination admitted that there was no document suggesting transfer of money among Sh. Mahesh Sharma, Sh. V.M. Rishi and Sh. V.M. Rishi. Further, IO Sh. V.S. Yadav in his cross- examination stated that he did not remember whether he had confronted Sh. Mahesh Sharma with accused V.M. Rishi. Further, said witness i.e. IO admitted that no nexus could be established between Sh. Mahesh Sharma, Sh. V.M. Rishi and Sh. M.M. Sharma. Further, none of the promoter members examined in this case deposed against the accused V.M. Rishi. Further, specimen signatures of the present accused were taken during investigation of this case and according to the GEQD, handwriting of the said accused did not match with handwriting of any other person on whole of the record and hence no forgery was proved on the part of the accused.
117.3 The allegation against the accused V.M. Rishi (A-7) is that he illegally transferred the documents of the society to co- accused M.M. Sharma (A-8) for an unlawful consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs and consequently the co-accused M.M. Sharma in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy fraudulently showed the enrollment of 30 members by creating false back dated proceedings dated 10.03.1996, 01.08.1996 and 02.08.1997, whereas these members were enrolled in January and February, 1998 and then these proceedings were signed by the accused V.M. Rishi. Accordingly, the accused was separately charged for CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 125 of 144 the offences u/s 420 & 471 and jointly charged for the offence punishable u/s 120B IPC r/w section 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
117.4 In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimonies of PW-46 Mahesh Sharma, PW-66 Ghanshyam Rai and PW-75 V.S. Yadav, the IO.
117.5 PW-46 Mahesh Sharma is the star witness of the prosecution to prove the conspiracy between the present accused and the co-accused M.M. Sharma, but as he stated that he never met accused M.M. Sharma with regard to the society, he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Ld. PP. In the beginning of the cross-examination by the Ld. PP, this witness stated that his statement was never recorded by the CBI in his presence and also denied the suggestion in this regard. This witness admitted that accused V.M. Rishi asked money from him for handing over the records of the society to anybody, but he (the witness) denied for the same. He also admitted that then he contacted co-accused M.M. Sharma, who was running an office of CGHS at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and he informed the said accused about the status of Raman Vihar CGHS. He further admitted that co-accused M.M. Sharma instructed him to take the records of the society from the present accused V.M. Rishi. Further, he gave answer in affirmative to the question, " When you approached accused V.M. Rishi for the purposes for fetching the records by accused M.M. Sharma, accused V.M. Rishi demanded Rs. 6 lakhs from you. Whether it is correct?".
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 126 of 144However, he denied that thereafter the co-accused M.M. Sharma handed over Rs. 6 lakhs to him for handing over the same to the present accused V.M. Rishi for taking records of the society. He further denied the suggestion as put by Ld. PP in this regard. He further denied that after handing over a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs to accused V.M. Rishi, he handed over the records in return for getting the same delivered to accused M.M. Sharma. He, however, affirmed that he had got the records of the society from the accused V.M. Rishi and had got the same placed in the office of co-accused M.M. Sharma. He further affirmed that he had brought the records at the request of co-accused M.M. Sharma. He then showed his inability to say whether he had stated to the IO while getting his statement recorded that he handed over Rs. 6 lakhs to accused V.M. Rishi in three installments of Rs. 2 lakhs each. He further denied the suggestion that he and accused M.M. Sharma produced the records of the society for inspection before co-accused A.K. Shankaran in the year 1998 and volunteered that he never went to the RCS Office for this purpose. 117.6 In his cross-examination on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Hitendra Nahata, however, he affirmed that he disclosed to the CBI officials that he had not paid even a single penny to the present accused V.M. Rishi and the present accused even not demanded the same. However, in the cross-examination by Sh. S.K. Khurana on behalf of co-accused M.M. Sharma, he again stated that accused V.M. Rishi demanded money from him for providing records.
118.1 As far as the conspiracy part is concerned, the reliance of the prosecution is on the fact that the documents of CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 127 of 144 the society were handed over by the present accused V.M. Rishi to the co-accused M.M. Sharma through PW-46 Sh. Mahesh Sharma for a consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs. Although, the witness PW-46 has denied that Rs. 6 lakhs were handed over to the present accused, but stated that the present accused demanded for the same. To the mind of the Court, the transaction of money was also an important factor, but more important aspect is whether the present accused handed over the documents of the society to the co-accused M.M. Sharma and the witness PW-46 has clearly stated that he got the records of the society from the present accused V.M. Rishi and got the same placed in the office of co-accused M.M. Sharma. Now the question is whether the act of the present accused regarding handing over the documents to co-accused M.M. Sharma was not proper and illegal and can be said to be an act in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy. 118.2 One aspect on this issue is that the present accused just handed over the records of the society to the co-accused M.M. Sharma and there is no evidence on record that the records of the society were handed over by the present accused so that the same can be used for the purpose of alleged cheating and forgery.
118.3 Another aspect of this issue is whether the accused can be said to be part of the conspiracy only by the act of handing over the records of the society to the co-accused M.M. Sharma. Ld. Defence Counsel in the course of his arguments pointed out that the IO (PW-75) admitted in his cross- examination that no nexus has been established interse among present accused V.M. Rishi, the present witness PW-46 Sh.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 128 of 144Mahesh Sharma and co-accused M.M. Sharma. To the mind of the Court, even if the IO has stated that he found no nexus between the said accused persons, but the nexus can be seen by the Court itself from the facts on record. To the mind of the Court, being the Secretary of the society the present accused was not supposed to handover the documents of the society to anybody including the co-accused M.M. Sharma without any lawful purpose. Further, handing over the records of the society without any resolution of the society or knowledge of the other office bearers and members of the society was itself illegal. From these facts, inference can be drawn that the documents of the society were handed over by the present accused to the co- accused M.M. Sharma only in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and in anticipation of some profit.
119.1 Now comes the question whether the present accused forged the documents of the society and committed the offence u/s 471 IPC by creating anti dated proceedings. 119.2 Ld. Defence Counsel argued that there is no evidence on record in regard to making anti-dated proceedings. The prosecution has referred D-15, D-23 and D-26 in order to show the alleged forgery on the part of the present accused. 119.3 File D-15 is a proceeding register of the society and according to the allegations of the prosecution, the proceedings as shown to be held on different dates are false. The prosecution relied upon the testimony PW-41 Sh. Pritam Singh who has stated that he became member of the society in January-February, 1998, but he did not deposit any money for becoming the member. Regarding the proceedings in file D-15 Ex. PW40/F, CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 129 of 144 after seeing the said file/register, he stated that his name has been falsely shown at Sl. No. 1 on page no. 27. He further stated that although his name is appearing at Sl. No. 13 on page no. 25 on the said register, but he never attended the said meeting and signature against his name appearing at point X1 is not his signature. Although these pages have not been signed by the present accused V.M. Rishi as Secretary, but on page no. 7 of the proceeding register accused V.M. Rishi signed as a Secretary at Q-26 and name of Sh. Prtiam Singh has been shown as newly enrolled member at Sl. No. 4. According to the report of the GEQD, the signature at point Q-26 is the signature of accused V.M. Rishi. So, when accused V.M. Rishi was signing the minutes of the Managing Committee, the name of the witness Pritam Singh was supposed to be not there in the proceeding dated 16.06.1996, when the witness Pritam Singh deposed that he became member of the society in the year 1998 and this fact shows that the proceedings were false and anti dated. It is important to note that in letter dated 21.06.1996 Ex. PW6/223 in the file D-26, the name of this witness has been shown in the list of newly enrolled members, which was forwarded to the Office of RCS and according to the report of the GEQD, the signature on this letter at Q-758 is the signature of accused V.M. Rishi. It is further noted that the name of this witness Pritam Singh has been shown at Sl. No. 7 on page 12 of D-23, which is a list of the members enrolled during the year 1996-97 and the list has been signed by the present accused V.M. Rishi as Secretary at Q-819 as reported by the GEQD. It is again important to note that the name of this witness Pritam Singh has been shown at Sl. No. 25 CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 130 of 144 on page no. 30/N in the file D-2 in the list of enrolled members and on the said noting the final proceedings towards the allotment took place. As such, the documents as discussed in the preceding paras were used in getting the freeze list of the society approved and thus it can be concluded that the accused has created false documents and committed the offence u/s 471 IPC. 120.1 As far as the offence of cheating u/s 420 IPC is concerned, to the mind of the Court, the same is made out against the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that no witness in the case has deposed that he was cheated or any wrongful loss or gain was caused. He further argued that even the witnesses from the DDA deposed that no loss of money was caused to the DDA.
120.2 It is true that not a single witness has deposed that any loss was caused to him and the witnesses from the DDA also deposed that no loss of money was caused to the DDA. But the fact is that the land was allotted to the society on subsidized rates on the basis of documents as prepared/signed under the authority of the present accused, being a Secretary of the society. If the land as allotted to the society was in fact given to some other person, the same would not have been given on subsidized rates. As such, wrongful loss has been caused to the DDA and the DDA has been cheated. Further, wrongful loss has been caused to those unknown persons who could have been allotted the flats on the land given to the society and they have not been allotted the same. Although, those persons have not made any complaint that they have been cheated and wrongful loss has been caused to them, but in fact wrongful loss has been caused to them and on CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 131 of 144 the contrary, wrongful gain has been made by those persons who were not the actual members of the society and were allotted flats in Raman Vihar CGHS. It is thus held that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 IPC. 120.3 In view of above discussion, accused V.M. Rishi (A-
8) is convicted for the offences punishable u/s 420 & 471 IPC and for the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC with reference to section 420, 468, 471 IPC.
121.1 Accused Neeraj Chopra (A-9) 121.2 The accused Neeraj Chopra (A-9) was charged that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy he was authorized to operate the account bearing no. 01000/028465 on behalf of the society, which was opened in the name of the society in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Khari Bawli Branch, Delhi. Further, he submitted a letter dated 22.01.2001 under the signatures accompanied by false and forged General Body Meetings. Further, he issued letter dated i.e. Minutes of GBM dated 05.11.2004 authorizing Joginder Singh Solanki (A-6) to execute lease deed for a plot in Dwarka and thereby committed criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons as punishable u/s 120B IPC in order to commit the offences u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
121.3 He was further charged that during the year 1998- 2000 at Delhi he dishonestly and fraudulently induced the office of RCS, Delhi for getting approved the freeze list of 69 fictitious members of Raman Vihar CGHS as against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of false and forged documents and to CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 132 of 144 get a land allotted from the DDA at subsidized rates and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Further, during the aforesaid period and place he fraudulently and dishonestly used the fake and fabricated documents to get approved the freeze list of 69 fictitious members of Raman Vihar CGHS as against the approved strength of 75 members on the basis of false and forged documents, which he prepared or got prepared and thus got the land allotted from the DDA on subsidized rates and therey committed an offence punishable u/s 471 IPC. 121.4 One of the allegations against the accused Neeraj Chopra (A-9) is that he signed letter/Minutes of the Meeting held on 05.11.2004 Ex. PW26/DY-1 (page no. 84/C of D-29) at point A (Q-763), whereby it was decided that the co-accused Dr. Joginder Singh will be authorized to execute the lease deed in favour of the society. Actually, the said letter/minutes of meeting is part of the letter dated 02.02.2005 Ex. PW6/230 (page no. 83/C of D-29) which was allegedly written to the DDA for execution of perpetual lease deed by accused Neeraj Chopra (A-
9) as the same bears his signature (Q-764). In fact, the letter dated 02.02.2005 mentions about the letter/minutes of meeting held on 05.11.2004 at point III. GEQD has opined that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S-87 to S-90 did not write the questioned writings on Q- 763 and Q-764. Further, there are other letters dated 13.08.2004 Ex. PW6/231 on page no. 77/C purportedly bearing signatures of accused Neeraj Chopra at Q-765, letter on page no. 72 mark 26/X-1 purportedly signed by the said accused at Q-766, letter on page no. 71 Ex. PW26/DX purportedly signed by this accused at CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 133 of 144 Q-767 and letter dated 19.12.2002 on page no. 62 (all part of D-
29) Ex. PW26/DY-2 purportedly signed by the same accused at point A (Q-768), but according to the opinion of the GEQD these letters have not been signed by this accused.
121.5 The accused has been charged that he submitted a letter dated 22.01.2001 Ex. PW6/112 (page no. 212/C of D-3) under his signature (Q-484) to the RCS accompanied by false and forged proceedings of the General Body Meetings. The GEQD has opined that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S-87 to S-90 did not write the questioned writing on Q-484. Although, this letter has not been mentioned in the charge, but the GEQD has the same opinion about the purported signature of this accused (Q-481) on letter dated 22.10.2002/28.10.2002 Ex. PW6/109 (page no. 223/C of D-3).
121.6 Although, the documents i.e. a letter dated 21.01.2002 Ex. PW6/110 on page no. 219/C of D-3 having purported signature of this accused at Q-482, notice dated 20.01.2002 Ex. PW6/111 on page no. 217/C of D-3 having purported signature of this accused at Q-483, letter dated 26.12.2000 Ex. PW6/113 on page no. 374/C of D-4 having purported signature of the accused at Q-485, list of enrolled members Ex. PW6/114 on page no. 373/C of D-4 having purported signature of this accused at Q-487, second page of the same list as mentioned above but exhibited as Ex. PW6/115 having purported signature of this accused at Q-489, letter dated 26.12.2000 on Ex. PW63/E (Colly.) having purported signature of this accused at Q-490, list of the resigned members Ex.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 134 of 144PW6/117 on page no. 370/C of D-4 having purported signature of this accused at Q-492, second page of the same list, the first page whereof has been given exhibition mark as Ex. PW6/117 having purported signature of this accused at Q-494, inspection report Ex. PW60/C on page no. 367/C having purported signature of the accused at Q-495, letter dated 31.08.2000 Ex. PW60/B on page no. 334/C of D-4 having purported signature of the accused at Q- 549 and a letter addressed to the Assistant Director, DDA Ex. PW6/235 on page no. 53 of D-29 at Q-769 as well as on the photocopy of a letter dated 05.09.2000 and another letter without any date on page no. 47 and 46 respectively of D-29 having exhibition mark as Ex. PW6/236 and Ex. PW6/237 having purported signature of this accused at Q-771, Q-773 and Q-774 have not been specifically put in charge, but the GEQD has given opinion on them. According to the opinion of the GEQD, the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S-87 to S-90 also wrote on the aforementioned questioned documents.
121.7 Now, the question is whether the opinion of the GEQD on the above-mentioned documents can be taken into consideration against the accused Neeraj Chopra. 121.8 Ld. Defence Counsel in his arguments submitted that specimen signatures of accused Neeraj Chopra have never been taken as stated by the IO (PW-75) himself in his examination-in-chief. The relevant portion as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel of the examination-in-chief of the IO shows that the IO has deposed that he has seen the document Ex. PW6A/DD-5 of D-51 i.e. S-87 to S-90 and they are the specimen CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 135 of 144 signature/handwriting of accused Sukhdev Singh which was taken on 01.05.2007 in the presence of independent witness Sh. Sukhdev Singh. Although, the submission of the Ld. Counsel is correct, but the same appears to be a typographical mistake as the first line on the top of each page of the document Ex. PW6A/DD- 5 i.e. the pages of the specimen signatures show the name of the accused Neeraj Chopra and not of the accused Sukhdev Singh. Further, no person in the name of Sukhdev Singh ever came into picture as an accused in this case. Although, in routine, in order to prove the genuineness of the process of taking of the specimen handwriting, the witness of the specimen handwriting is examined, but unfortunately in the case in hand the witness Sukhdev Singh has not even been cited by the IO in the list of witnesses and the IO has admitted this fact in his cross- examination done on behalf of this accused.
121.9 As pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused at the time of arguments in the chargesheet in para 34 the IO himself has written that the investigation has further revealed that a letter dated 22.01.2001 under the purported signature of Sh. Neeraj Chopra (A-9) was submitted to AR, West. Similarly, in para 37 of the chargesheet, the IO regarding the letter/minutes of GBM dated 05.11.2004 has mentioned that the said letter was issued under the forged signature of Sh. Neeraj Chopra (A-9). One of the defences of the accused Neeraj Chopra (A-9) is that he was not even a member of the society during the period of the commission of the alleged offences and the above-mentioned facts as mentioned by the IO in the chargesheet and as discussed CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 136 of 144 in the preceding paras create some doubt in favour of the accused.
121.10 The testimony as discussed above makes it clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the present accused Neeraj Chopra and the accused is accordingly acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 420 & 471 IPC. 121.11 The accused was jointly charged for the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC with reference to section 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but no evidence has come on record against the accused to prove the said offence and the accused is also acquitted for this offence.
122.1 Accused M.M. Sharma (A-10) 122.2 Ld. Counsel for accused M.M. Sharma (A-10) argued that out of all the witnesses as examined by the prosecution, only Sh. Uday Ram Sharma (PW-19), Ms. Jyoti (PW-24), Sh. Santanu Roy Bishwas (PW-45), Sh. Mahesh Sharma (PW-46), Sh. E.D. Ashokan (PW-53) and Sh. Gopal Dixit (PW-69) are related to his client. Further, PW-19 has not deposed anything against his client. Further, Ms. Jyoti (PW-24) specifically denied that she knew anything about Mr. Shankaran and Ms. Ashokan. Further, Sh. Sanatanu Roy Bishwas (PW-45), who was an employee in the office of RCS, Delhi, told about show cause notice having been issued to Raman Vihar CGHS. Further, Sh. Mahesh Sharma was examined by the prosecution to prove the monetary transaction to purchase record of Raman Vihar CGHS, but did not support the case of the prosecution, rather told the Court that he never met accused M.M. Sharma.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 137 of 144Even otherwise, said witness i.e. Sh. Mahesh Sharma was not a reliable witness, having given contradictory statement in the Court. Further, Sh. E.D. Ashoken (PW-53) admitted that he had not done any act in the office of Sh. M.M. Sharma, which was contrary to the provisions of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act. Further, said accused never asked him to do any act. Moreover, according to the said witness (PW-53), whatever proceedings he had written, same were written at the instance of Sh. K.R. Khanna. Further, Sh. Gopal Dixit, who was Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Delhi disclosed that Show Cause Notice u/s 32 of the DCS Act issued against the society was withdrawn. Further, according to said witness, he did not find any illegality in the record of Raman Vihar CGHS. Ld. Counsel relied upon following rulings -
i) Baliya @ Bal Kishan Vs. State of M.P, VIII (2012) SLT 339.
ii) CBI Vs. K. Narayana Rao 2012 (9) SCC 512.
iii) S.P. Bhatnagar Vs. State of Maharashtra 1979 AIR
826.
122.3 Accused M.M. Sharma has been charged that he
dishonestly and fraudulently induced the Registrar Co-operative Societies to approve freeze list of 69 fictitious members. Further, he fraudulently and dishonestly used fake and fabricated documents to get the freeze list of 69 members approved and got the land allotted from the DDA. Further, in furtherance of the conspiracy, he illegally obtained the documents of the society and on his instructions false and forged proceedings of GBM, CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 138 of 144 Resignation Letters and Receipt of refund of share money of 34 promoter members were prepared in his office and as such he was separately charged for the offences u/s 420 and 471 IPC and jointly charged for the offence u/s 120-B with reference to section 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988.
122.4 In order to prove the allegations against this accused, the prosecution has cited 06 witnesses against him. 122.5 The first witness is PW-19 Uday Ram Sharma, who is the brother of the accused M.M. Sharma. This witness showed his inability to state whether his brother M.M. Sharma, the accused was working as a Consultant regarding some CGHS. He stated that Mr. Karta Ram Khanna (now deceased) used to come to his brother's office i.e. the office of accused M.M. Sharma, but again showed his inability to say if he used to come for some society purpose. This witness also stated that Ms. Jyoti used to work with his brother in his Shalimar Bagh Office and Ms. Kulwant Kaur was also working there as Typist. As such, this witness stated nothing in support of the prosecution. 122.6 Ms. Jyoti who has been examined by the prosecution as PW-24 deposed that while working in the office of accused M.M. Sharma at Shalimar Bagh she used to call members for payment of chit funds and get the money deposited in the bank. She showed her inability having any acquaintance or knowledge about Ashokan and A.K. Shankaran (A-1). She further showed her inability to state if they used to come to the office of the accused M.M. Sharma. She also stated that Mr. Karta Ram Khanna never visited the office of M.M. Sharma. This witness CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 139 of 144 was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Ld. PP, but she stated nothing in favour of the prosecution. 122.7 As per the prosecution, PW-45 Sh. Shantanu Roy Biswas is also supporting its case against the accused M.M. Sharma. This witness worked as a Reader to the Registrar, Co- operative Societies from August 1996 to March 2000. He identified notings in the file D-25. Only relevant facts as deposed by this witness regarding accused M.M. Sharma is that as per the noting recorded on 09.03.1999 Sh. M.M. Sharma, Advocate as representing the society sought adjournment which was granted for 16.03.1999 and thereafter on the said date, Sh. M.M. Sharma, Advocate filed his reply and the matter was adjourned for arguments on 19.03.1999. Further, reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 16.03.1999 u/s 32 of the DCS Act, 1972 was sent by the then Secretary through its Advocate Sh. M.M. Sharma. Further, the Vakalatnama of Sh. M.M. Sharma Ex. PW45/I is available at page no. 31/C in the file D-25. 122.8 One aspect of the testimony of this witness PW-45 Sh. Shantanu Roy Biswas on the notings in the file D-25 is that the present accused M.M. Sharma was working as an Advocate on behalf of the society, which he was supposed to do legally. 122.9 Another aspect on this point may be that the presence of the accused M.M. Sharma on different occasions in the office of RCS in relation to the work of the society shows his involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
122.10 The Court has to consider the second aspect against the present accused as he is connected in the conspiracy right CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 140 of 144 from the point when the file of the Raman Vihar CGHS was delivered in his office by PW-46 Sh. Mahesh Sharma after receiving the same from the co-accused V.M. Rishi. 122.11 On this aspect, the deposition of PW-46 Mahesh Sharma is very important, who stated that he never met accused M.M. Sharma with regard to the society and after being declared hostile, Ld. PP cross-examined him. In the beginning of the cross-examination this witness stated that his statement was never recorded by the CBI in his presence and also denied the suggestion in this regard. This witness admitted that accused V.M. Rishi asked money from him for handing over the records of the society to anybody, but he denied for the same. He also admitted that he contacted accused M.M. Sharma, who was running an office of CGHS at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and he informed the said accused about the status of Raman Vihar CGHS. He further admitted that accused M.M. Sharma instructed him to take the records of the society from accused V.M. Rishi. Further, he gave answer in affirmative to the question, " When you approached accused V.M. Rishi for the purposes for fetching the records by accused M.M. Sharma, accused V.M. Rishi demanded Rs. 6 lakhs from you. Whether it is correct?". However, he denied that thereafter accused M.M. Sharma handed over Rs. 6 lakhs to him for handing over the same to accused V.M. Rishi for taking records of the society. He further denied the suggestion as put by Ld. PP in this regard. He further denied that after handing over a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs to accused V.M. Rishi, he handed over the records in return for getting the same delivered to accused M.M. Sharma. He further CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 141 of 144 affirmed that he had got the records of the society from accused V.M. Rishi and had got the same placed in the office of accused M.M. Sharma. He further affirmed that he had brought the records at the request of accused M.M. Sharma. He then showed his inability to say whether he had stated to the IO while getting his statement recorded that he handed over Rs. 6 lakhs to accused V.M. Rishi in three installments of Rs. 2 lakhs each. 117.12 In his cross-examination by Defence Counsel Sh. Hitendra Nahata, he affirmed that he disclosed to the CBI officials that he had not paid even a single penny to accused V.M. Rishi and accused V.M. Rishi even not demanded the same. However, in the cross- examination by Sh. S.K. Khurana on behalf of the present accused M.M. Sharma, he again stated that accused V.M. Rishi demanded money from him for providing records. 122.12 From the deposition of this witness, it is clear that there was no money transaction between the present accused and co-accused V.M. Rishi. However, this witness admitted that he contacted the present accused M.M. Sharma, who was running an office of CGHS at Shalimar Bagh and then categorically deposed that the accused M.M. Sharma instructed him to take the records of the said society from accused V.M. Rishi. Thus, obtaining the file by the present accused from the co-accused V.M. Rishi was illegal and from this act of the accused, the Court can draw inference that he was part of the alleged conspiracy.
123. As far as the offences relating to forging of the documents is concerned, the prosecution has examined PW-53 E.D. Ashokan. This witness deposed that he was doing typing CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 142 of 144 work relating to the Raman Vihar CGHS on the instructions of present accused M.M. Sharma. He identified the handwriting at Q-639 and Q-643 on the documents at page no. 240/C and 241/C in the file D-4 (photocopy). He deposed that the noting on page no. 30 and 31 of the file D-15 Vol. II i.e. the proceeding register was made in the handwriting of accused M.M. Sharma, but the handwriting on these pages was sent by the IO to the GEQD and thus there is no opinion on the said handwriting that the same was written by the present accused M.M. Sharma. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its allegation against the present accused for the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC. 124.1 Now, comes the question whether the present accused has committed offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. The involvement of the present accused has been proved by the prosecution at many places, which showed that he was part of the conspiracy in pursuance of which, the alleged offence u/s 420 IPC was finally committed. Although, there is no direct evidence against the present accused as in this type of cases it is almost impossible for the investigating agency to bring on record such evidence, but from the facts on record showing the involvement of the accused, the Court can only draw inference. The role of the accused in doing the work of the society and his presence are there on record at many places. The Court thus draws inference against the accused that due to his alleged acts, the RCS approved the freeze list of the society and was cheated. Accordingly, the present accused is held guilty for offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 143 of 144124.2 In view of above discussion, accused M.M. Sharma is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC. However, he is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC as well as for the offence u/s 120-B with reference to section 420, 468, 471 IPC.
Announced in Open Court
today i.e. 22.12.2022 (Samer Bajpai)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-14
Rouse Avenue District Court
New Delhi
CBI Case No. 152/2019 CBI Vs. A.K. Shankaran Etc. (Raman Vihar CGHS) Page 144 of 144