Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Mitlesh Verma & Ors. on 13 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA : SPECIAL JUDGE
(CBI-08)
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CC No. : 09/11 (13.07.2011)
PS : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Mitlesh Verma & Ors.
RC No: DST/2007/S/0004
O R D E R ON CHARGE
1.The present case was registered on 29.06.2007 against accused Mitlesh Verma W/o Tarsem Lal Verma and others on basis of source information.
As per case of prosecution, ST certificate dated 06.12.1979 in name of accused Mitlesh Verma W/o Tarsem Lal Verma (D/o Pritam Singh Verma R/o Pilani, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) declaring her to be resident of Pilani, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan and belonging to community of Sonkatkari notified as Scheduled Tribe community in State of Rajasthan was submitted by her for appointment to the post of PGT (Hindi) in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT, Delhi which was reserved for SC/ST category candidates only.
It is further alleged that Sh. Tarsem Lal Verma (husband of accused Mitlesh Verma) also fraudulently procured a Scheduled Tribe Certificate purportedly issued by SDM, Jhunjhunu on 24.01.1979 for which a CC No. : 09/11 CBI Vs. Mitlesh Verma & Ors. Page 1/12 separate case has been registered against him. The certificate procured by Tarsem Lal Verma is also stated to have been used by him for procuring recruitment in 1984 as Photographic Officer in Armed Forces Films and Photography Division, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi as Scheduled Tribe candidate. It is also alleged that accused Tarsem Lal Verma also fraudulently arranged a domicile certificate dated 26.09.09 in favour of his wife Mitlesh Verma purportedly issued by R.P.S. Chauhan, the then SDM, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
It is further the case of prosecution that the said ST certificate was issued in favour of Mitlesh Verma by Sh. Om Prakash Godara, the then SDM, Jhunjhunu, (public servant) and he misused his official position by falsely mentioning accused Mitlesh Verma as person belonging to Sankatkari Scheduled Tribe and a resident of Pilani, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
Contentions on behalf of accused Mitlesh Verma
2. (a)It is contended on behalf of accused Mitlesh Verma and Tarsem Lal Verma that the present proceedings have been fabricated against the accused since accused Tarsem Lal Verma was involved in active litigation in his office and prosecution is actuated with malafides. It is further urged that accused had been resident of Pilani even in 1972 and the proof of residence by way of rent agreement was available with him and even name of accused was also mentioned in the voters' list for the period 1978-79. It is further contended that CBI at the initial stages of bail had only relied on the CC No. : 09/11 CBI Vs. Mitlesh Verma & Ors. Page 2/12 fact that the caste shown in the certificate did not fall in the list meant for Scheduled Tribes and later on changed version that a forged ST certificate had been procured. It is also submitted that the original file which contained the relevant details regarding issue of certificate had not been seized by CBI and only selective documents in favour of prosecution have been filed. It is also pointed out that the caste certificate of Tarsem Lal had also been verified by his office as reflected vide letter dated 18.12.88 issued by Office of District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu and found to be correct. It is further contended that in reply to RTI applications filed by accused, the information provided is contrary to the case of prosecution.
Contentions on behalf of accused Om Prakash Godara
(b)It is contended on behalf of accused Om Prakash Godara the then SDM, Jhunjhunu that accused has been falsely implicated and there is no evidence to show that the accused in any manner had conspired with the co- accused for issuance of the impugned ST certificate in favour of accused Mitlesh Verma. It is also contended that the certificate was issued in the course of duty in accordance with law and since the domicile certificate was produced by the accused which was earlier issued by the other concerned officer and a ST certificate in favour of Tarsem Lal Verma (husband of accused) had also been earlier issued. It is also contended that the original ST certificate contained the issuance no. and date as 836/06.12.79 and was bearing the page no. 108 of the original file which had been weeded out. It has also been urged that no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused merely because GEQD opined that Q-1 to Q-17 on the original CC No. : 09/11 CBI Vs. Mitlesh Verma & Ors. Page 3/12 certificate was in handwriting of Tarsem Lal Verma as duly filled proformas for issuance of ST Certificate was furnished by the applicant at aforesaid time. It is also urged that the officials and the dealing hand posted at aforesaid time could be the relevant witnesses but have not been examined by the investigating agency. It is also submitted that it could not be inferred that SDM, Jhunjhunu was not authorised to issue the said certificate or in case the stamps used for issuing the same were not the official stamps. The investigating agency is also stated to have adopted a pick and choose policy in prosecuting the accused as the SDM who had issued the domicile certificate had not been arrayed as accused. Counsel for accused also relied upon Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Laveti Giri and Another 1995 AIR 1506.
Contentions raised on behalf of CBI
3. On the other hand, Ld. PP for CBI contended that sufficient evidence has been collected during investigation which reflects that both the accused Mitlesh Verma and Tarsem Lal Verma belong to 'Sunar' caste and fraudulently obtained the ST certificate in connivance with SDM, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. Reliance is also placed upon the statements and the background of the other family members of the accused (i.e. father, brothers, mother) whereby none of them had ever claimed the status of ST. It is also pointed out that accused Mitlesh Verma and Tarsem Lal Verma or their forefathers had never been permanent residents of the distt. Pilani from where the ST certificate was claimedand even the statistical data of the distt. reflected that none of the members of Sankatkari Tribe ever resided in CC No. : 09/11 CBI Vs. Mitlesh Verma & Ors. Page 4/12 the area.
4. I have perused the record, statement of witnesses and given considered thought to the contentions raised.
It is well settled that a criminal court is required to write a order showing detailed reasons only if the accused is discharged or it is found that the charge leveled against him by the prosecution is groundless. If the court comes to a conclusion on the basis of material placed before it that the charge is to be framed, this can be ordered without detailed reasons being recorded (Kanti Bhandra Shah & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal, JT 2000(1) SC 134).
Observations in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh: 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohan Lal Soni 2000(20) JCC(SC) 676 may also be referred in this context, which lays down that at the stage of charge the truth, veracity and facts of the prosecution evidence is not to be meticulously judged, nor any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused and it is not obligatory on the court to consider the evidence relied upon by both sides in detail or to weigh it in a sensitive balance.
In the case of Hem Chand Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2008 IV AD (S.C.) 94, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed ".... The Court at the stage of framing charge exercises a limited jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out. Whether case of probable conviction for commission of an offence has been made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation should be the concern of the court. It, at that stage, would not delve deep into the matter for the purpose of appreciation of evidence".
CC No. : 09/11 CBI Vs. Mitlesh Verma & Ors. Page 5/12The basic time tested principle is that the court has to form a reasonable opinion about existence of grave suspicion regarding commission of offence and for the aforesaid purpose the court may sift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused is made out.
5. In order to establish the case against the accused Mitlesh Verma and Tarsem Lal Verma, the prosecution has relied upon the following pieces of evidence during investigation:
(i) As per the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation Sh. Pyare Lal Verma R/o Village Jawal, Prakhand- Arnia, Tehsil
- Khurja, Distt.- Buland Shahar, Uttar Pradesh was the grandfather of accused Smt. Mitlesh Verma. In the year 1950 Pyare Lal Verma alongwith his family members shifted from Jawal to Khurja. Sh. Pyare Lal Verma had four sons and two daughters namely Brij Lal Verma, Mahavir Prasad Sharma, Late Sh. Pritam Singh Verma, Raghuvar Dayal Verma (sons) and Shakuntla & Prakashwati (daughters). Accused Mitlesh Verma happens to be daughter of Late. Pritam Singh Verma and was brought up at Khurja under the guardianship of Mahavir Prasad Verma (elder brother of Pritam Singh Verma) who had no issue of his own. The witnesses categorically stated that accused did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe category as claimed.
(ii) The investigation also revealed that accused Mitlesh CC No. : 09/11 CBI Vs. Mitlesh Verma & Ors. Page 6/12 Verma got her primary education at Khurja, Uttar Pradesh and as per school records, the caste was reflected as "Sunar".
(iii) It is also in evidence against the accused that accused Mitlesh Verma was married to Tarsem Lal Verma (S/o Sh. Madan Lal Verma) in the year 1977-78 who also happened to be "Sunar" by caste and the marriage was solemnized at Chandigarh. At the aforesaid time in 1978 accused Tarsem Lal was serving as photographer of General category in Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab. The couple thereafter shifted to Pilani, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan wherein Tarsem Lal Verma was selected as Photographer Artist (General category candidate) in CEERI, Pilani on 05.05.1978. Sh. Tarsem Lal Verma is further alleged to have procured a Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued by SDM, Jhunjhunu on 24.01.1979 for which a separate case has been registered and was asked to resign from the institute. Sh. Tarsem Lal Verma finally resigned on 04.09.79.
(iv) Evidence has been further collected by the prosecution to the effect that both the accused Mitlesh Verma and Tarsem Lal Verma did not belong to Sonkatkari Scheduled Tribe and were rather "Sunar" by caste. It is also alleged that Tarsem Lal Verma also fraudulently arranged a domicile certificate dated 26.09.1979 in favour of his wife Mitlesh Verma purportedly issued by Sh. R.P.S. Chauhan, SDM, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) wherein accused Mitlesh Verma has been shown as R/o Ward no.1, Pilani, Tehsil Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan though she was not resident of aforesaid address.
The statement of the witnesses reflecting the family background of accused Mitlesh Verma and Tarsem Lal Verma clearly show that the CC No. : 09/11 CBI Vs. Mitlesh Verma & Ors. Page 7/12 accused prima facie fraudulently procured the Scheduled Tribe certificate which was further used for recruitment.
The contention raised on behalf of counsel for accused Tarsem Lal and Mitlesh Verma that the proceedings have been fabricated since in the bail application, the only stand taken by the prosecution was that the caste which was shown in the certificate did not fall in the list meant for Scheduled Tribes does not appear to be of any merit to discharge the accused. The said stand appears to have been taken only at the stage of investigation and the categorical case of the prosecution is that the ST certificate had been fraudulently obtained though the accused did not belong to the ST category. The mere correspondence exchanged for purpose of verification of ST certificate produced by accused Tarsem Lal for his employment, as reflected in letter dated 18.12.88 issued by Office of District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (produced by accused) does not lead to the conclusion that accused belonged to ST category as the detailed investigation by the investigating agency has prima facie revealed that the ST status had been fraudulently claimed by the accused.
The defence of the accused that he had residence in Pilani even in 1972 and his name was also mentioned in the voters' list of 1978-79 can only be assessed after the documents are proved on record in the evidence to be led by the accused. Merely on the basis of aforesaid contention, it cannot be concluded that the accused Tarsem Lal and Mitlesh Verma belong to ST category contrary.
The contention raised on behalf of accused Tarsem Lal that he deserves to be discharged as he had no role in the present case appears to CC No. : 09/11 CBI Vs. Mitlesh Verma & Ors. Page 8/12 be devoid of any merit. The opinion of handwriting expert is categorical to the extent that the blanks in the ST certificate were in handwriting of Tarsem Lal. Even the background of the case reflects that a false ST certificate was allegedly obtained by accused Tarsem Lal alongwith domicile certificate in favour of his wife on an earlier date. The active role of accused Tarsem Lal is evident on record.
6. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of accused Om Prakash Godara, it needs to be noticed that the handwriting on the orignal ST certificate at points marked as Q-1 to Q-22 were forwarded to GEQD, Shimla alongwith specimen and admitted writings of Tarsem Lal Verma, Mitlesh Verma and Om Prakash Godara. The opinion of GEQD, Shimla is to the effect that Q-1 to Q-17 on the certificate were written by Tarsem Lal on comparing with the specimen and admitted handwriting. Further Q-18, Q-20 to 22 were written by Om Prakash Godara on comparison with specimen and admitted handwritings. The opinion was not possible so far as Q-21 is concerned. There is no reason that an official document i.e. the Scheduled Tribe Certificate should have borne the writing of Tarsem Lal Verma which had been issued under the signatures of Om Prakash Godara. It does not appear to reason that the official certificates could have been filled up by the accused as contended by the counsel for accused that the filled in proforma was provided by the applicant. There is strong suspicion that certificate appears to have been procured as the accused neither belonged to Sonkatkari Community as claimed, nor was domicile resident of the said Distt. to claim the benefit. The certificates of caste are normally issued only after verification/report by the Office of the CC No. : 09/11 CBI Vs. Mitlesh Verma & Ors. Page 9/12 Tehsildar and thereafter the issuing authority acts on the basis of the same. Unfortunately the original record regarding the issuing of certificates is stated to have been weeded out as reported during investigation but categorical statement of the witnesses of the concerned department is to the effect that the certificate does not appear to have been issued in accordance with procedure. It has been pointed out in statement of PW-48 Dinesh Kumar, IAS, PW-49 Sh. Ram Singh, Personal Assistant to DM, PW-50 Sh. Bhav Chand and PW-67, Sh. Bhagirath, present Tehsildar that the certificate does not appear to have been issued in accordance with the established procedure. It was stated by Sh. Bhagirath Shakh, the present Tehsildar in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that for a resident of Pilani, Tehsildar, Chirava is the competent authority to issue a caste certificate as well as domicile certificate and no certificate is ever issued without proper verification made by the Patwari/Lekhpal of the respective area. Further no caste/domicile certificate is issued without a despatch/issuance no. which is also written in the despatch register of tehsil office. He further clarified that no members of Sonkatkari tribe lived at Pilani, Distt. Jhunjhunu. After seeing the impugned caste certificates dated 24.01.79 and 06.12.79 he categorically observed that the documents have been issued without any issuance no./dispatch no. and Tehsildar, Chirava was the competent authority to issue the certificates but the same have been purportedly issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. He also stated that the court seal impressions and rubber stamp impressions on the above two caste certificates are in English language whereas in the State of Rajasthan, court seals/official stamps containing only Devnagri Script are used. Further the court seal impressions on the above two certificates differed from each other and the said caste certificates did CC No. : 09/11 CBI Vs. Mitlesh Verma & Ors. Page 10/12 not contain specific address of the Tarsem Lal and Mitlesh Verma. He also stated that the voters list of Pilani constituency for the year 1979-80 did not contain the names of accused Tarsem Lal and Mitlesh Verma.
At this stage the aforesaid statement clearly reflects that the certificates do not appear to have been issued in accordance with the established norms. The stand of the accused that no witness working in the department in the relevant year 1979-80 has been examined by the prosecution is not by itself sufficient to discharge the accused and the stand can only be appreciated after the evidence is led on record. At this stage, there is sufficient evidence on record to proceed against all the accused.
The certificate cannot be assumed to have been issued bonafide by accused Om Prakash Godara, S.D.M. merely because a domicile certificate was earlier procured in favour of accused Mitlesh Verma which was purportedly signed by SDM R.P.S. Chauhan or since a fraudulent certificate was also got issued by Tarsem Lal Verma in his favour on 24.01.1979. The certificate as already stated above appears to have been procured otherwise then in routine course and it needs to be established during the course of evidence if the certificate had been issued bonafide in accordance with rules. SDM R.P.S. Chauhan may be liable for the lapse or the offence for issuing an incorrect domicile certificate but the same cannot be made as the ground to discharge the accused Om Prakash Godara. The direct passing of illegal gratification to accused no.3 Om Prakash Godara may not be necessary in such cases as the certificate is alleged to have CC No. : 09/11 CBI Vs. Mitlesh Verma & Ors. Page 11/12 been issued by accused Om Prakash Godara by abusing his position as public servant otherwise than following the due procedure and the benefit was obtained by accused Mitlesh Verma by seeking employment in a Govt. Department.
There is no dispute as to the proposition of law with reference to the authorities cited by the counsel for accused but they are of little assistance to further the case of accused in any manner at this stage.
7. On perusal of the report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., contents of the record seized by the CBI during investigation and after considering the detailed submissions made by the counsels, I am of the considered view that prima facie that there is enough material on record to frame charges for commission of offences punishable U/s 120-B IPC r/w sec 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Sec 13(2) PC Act, 1988 against all the accused. Accused Tarsem Lal Verma and Mitlesh Verma are also liable to be charged for offences u/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Accused Mitlesh Verma be further charged u/s 177 IPC and accused Om Prakash Godara be also charged for offence u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
Announced in the (Anoop Kumar Mendiratta) open Court on 13.07.2011 Special Judge(PC Act) CBI-8, Central District. CC No. : 09/11 CBI Vs. Mitlesh Verma & Ors. Page 12/12