Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Prem Bansal Etc. on 27 August, 2020
CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, CBI-15, ROUSE AVENUE
DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF:
CBI No. : 208/2019
CNR No. : DLCT11-000849-2019
FIR No. : RC-3(E)/2006/CBI/SPE/EOU-VII/New Delhi.
PS : CBI/SPE/EOU-VII/New Delhi.
U/s : 120B IPC r/w Section 420, 468, 471 IPC
and Substantive offences under Section
420/511 & 471 of IPC and
Section 15, 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
State
Through
Central Bureau of Investigation
New Delhi.
Versus
1. Prem Bansal
S/o Late Sh. Shiv Narain Bansal,
R/o H. No. 1007, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar,
CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 1 of 36
CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc.
Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
Also at :-
794, Nehru Market, Jagraon,
Distt. Ludhiana, Punjab. ..................Accused No. 1.
2. Gulshan Kumar Soni
S/o Late Sh. Krishan Lal,
R/o H. No. 974, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
Also at :-
A120, Upper Ground Floor,
Gujrawala Town, Part-I,
Delhi-110009. ..................Accused No. 2.
3. Vinod Kumar Bansal
S/o Late Sh. Shiv Narain Bansal,
R/o H. No. 1007, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
Also at :-
794, Nehru Market, Jagraon,
Distt. Ludhiana, Punjab. .................Accused No. 3.
CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 2 of 36
CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc.
4. Ram Nath
S/o Sh. Bishan Lal,
R/o 192, Gali No. 9,
West Guru Angad Nagar, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092. (since deceased) ...........Accused No. 4.
Date of Institution : 27.10.2006
Date of judgement reserved on : 19.08.2020
Date of pronouncement of judgement : 27.08.2020
J U D G M E N T :-
1. This case relates to a Cooperative Group Housing Society by the name of Blue Sky CGHS Ltd. The three accused namely Prem Bansal, Gulshan Kumar Soni and Vinod Kumar Bansal are alleged to have conspired along with the fourth accused (since deceased) Ram Nath, working as Inspector, Grade-II in the office of Registrar Cooperative Society, New Delhi, in forging and manipulating various records of the said society i.e. resignation letters, refund vouchers etc in order to get the manipulated list of the members of the society approved by the DDA so that land is allotted to the society by DDA at concessional rates for constructions of residential flats.
2. The FIR has been registered pursuant to the order dated 02.08.2006 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 3 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. 10066/2004.
3. It transpires that the Society Blue Sky CGHS Ltd was founded by one Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal and certain other officers of Indian Overseas Bank and the same was got duly registered in the office of Registrar Cooperative Society vide Registration No. 1432 on 06.02.1984. There were 83 promoter members of the society and the membership of was later on increased to 97.
4. It is alleged that in the year 1997, S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand, office bearers of the society Blue Sky CGHS Ltd came in contact with accused Vinod Kumar Bansal (builder/businessman) and his close associate, accused Gulshan Kumar Soni, who were having experience in the Cooperative Group Housing Societies and also were having links in DDA as well as RCS office. These two accused offered their services to the society for getting its list of members approved by RCS and for allotment of land to it by DDA. Accordingly, Vinod Kumar Bansal's younger brother i.e. accused Prem Bansal and Gulshan Kumar Soni became members of the said society in the year 1997. The office of the society was shifted to the office premises of Vinod Kumar Bansal in Namdhari Chambers, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Later on accused Prem Bansal and accused Gulshan Kumar Soni became President and Vice-President respectively of the society on 18.07.1998 and thus took over the management control of the same.
5. Further case of prosecution is that accused Vinod Kumar Bansal, Prem Bansal and Gulshan Kumar Soni forged and fabricated the resignation letters of about 53 promoter members of the society, their refund vouchers and other related documents. They are also alleged to have prepared forged affidavits in the names of these CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 4 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. members. All these forged documents were then submitted in the RCS office on the basis of which request of the society for approval of its list of the members was processed. Accordingly, the list of 97 members of the society was approved by the RCS office on 20.06.1997 and was forwarded to DDA on 04.07.1997 for allotment of land to the society.
6. It has also been alleged that after taking over all the control of the society, the three accuse got the Saving Account No. 3053 opened in the name of the society in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Nirankari Colony, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi. This account was opened on the introduction of accused Vinod Kumar Bansal, who was already having account bearing number 1809 in the said bank. Initially, any two amongst S.B. Sharma, Kailash Chand and Gulshan Kumar Soni were authorized to operate the account but later on name of accused Prem Bansal was also included in the list of the persons authorized to operate the account. Thereafter, accused Prem Bansal and Gulshan Kumar Soni started operating the said account jointly.
7. It is further alleged in the charge-sheet that these three accused enrolled 53 new members in the society fraudulently in place of the original promoter members who were also fraudulently shown to have resigned from the membership of the society. Share money was shown to have been refunded to the resignee members through cash vouchers whereas in the Directive dated 26.03.1990 issued by the RCS Office, same had to be refunded to the resignee members through Account Payee Cheques only. Also no intimation of the prescribed format was given to the resignee members that their resignations have been accepted, which also was requirement in view of the aforesaid Directive. It has come out during the course of CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 5 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. investigation that all the new members enrolled in the society are relatives, friends and acquaintances of these three accused Vinod Kumar Bansal, Prem Bansal and Gulshan Kumar Soni who had collected huge amounts from them in cash in addition to the cheque amounts. Share certificate had been issued to these new members under the signatures of these three accused. The proceedings registers of the society, which had been suitably kept blank, were also manipulated to accommodate the freshly enrolled members.
8. Accused Ram Nath, who had been asked to verify the records of the society regarding 53 members of the society and enrolment of 54 new members in the society, is stated to have falsely mentioned in his note dated 26.03.1999 that he verified the resignation letters of the resignee members as well as payments made to them.
9. The Government Examiner Questioned Documents (DEQD) is stated to have confirmed in its report, the forgery in resignation letters/cash receipts/affidavits/proceedings registers as well as the signature/handwriting of accused Prem Bansal, Gulshan Kumar Soni and Vinod Kumar Bansal on those forged documents.
10. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the four accused namely Prem Bansal, Gulshan Kumar Soni, Vinod Kumar Bansal and Ram Nath. In pursuance to the order on charge dated 20.03.2010 charges under Section 120B IPC, 420 IPC, 511 IPC, 468 IPC, 471 IPC r/w Section 13 (2) and Section 13 (1)
(d) &15 (1) of PC Act, 1988 were framed against all the four accused. Further, charge for substantive offences punishable under Section 15 r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 were also framed against accused Ram Nath. Charge for substantive offence under Section 420/511 and CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 6 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. 471/468 IPC were also framed against accused Prem Bansal, Gulshan Kumar Soni and Vinod Kumar Bansal.
11. All the accused denied charges and accordingly, trial was held.
12. It may be noted here that during the course of the trial, accused Ram Nath expired and hence it was recorded in the order-sheet dated 30.01.2020 that the proceedings against him stand abated. Thereafter, the case continued against the remaining three accused alone.
13. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined 90 witnesses. These included the original promoter members of the society, newly members inducted in the society after 1997-98, official posted in the RCS office, official from DDA, GEQD, witnesses in whose presence search was conducted at the office premises/residence of the accused, witnesses in whose presence specimen signatures/writings of the accused were obtained.
14. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused during their examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C which they denied and claimed false implication. They have stated that most of the original promoter members of the society had lost hopes of flat allotment on account of long wait and therefore, resigned voluntarily from the membership of the society as they were not inclined to make further payment towards the land cost and therefore, fresh members were inducted in the society in their place to complete the strength of the society. They further stated that these resignee members, later on, sent false affidavits claiming continuation of their membership only with a false hope of flats being allotted to them despite they having already resigned from the membership of the society. It is, therefore, their case that they have not committed any fraud/forgery or CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 7 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. manipulation.
15. In order to prove their innocence, accused Vinod Kumar Bansal himself entered the witness box and deposed as DW1. Similarly, accused Gulshan Kumar Soni also deposed as DW2.
16. I have heard the Ld. Public Prosecutor as well as Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Abhishek Prasad, Advocate representing the three accused. I have also gone through the written submission filed by both of them.
17. Ld. Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a clear case of forgery of records and cheating. He argued that the oral deposition of prosecution witnesses coupled with the GEQD opinion clearly proves the charges against the accused beyond any doubt. According to him, all the three accused are liable to be convicted of all the offences which they have been charged.
18. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel argued that no offence envisaged under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been proved during the entire trial of the case. He pointed out that only witness examined in this regard is PW22 Madan Lal Kaler, Assistant Registrar in the office of RCS at the relevant time but he has not supported the case of the prosecution in this regard as he has not deposed anything against the accused public servant Ram Nath. He submitted that even otherwise also, there is no evidence on record to show that any of the three accused namely Prem Bansal, Gulshan Kumar Soni and Vinod Kumar Bansal had been in touch with accused Ram Nath at any point of time or had been dealing, directly or indirectly, with him. He pointed out that the witness PW83 Dilip Bhattacharya examined by the prosecution on this aspect did not depose anything against any of the CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 8 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. accused.
19. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that the forgery/cheating, if any, was done by S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand who were controlling the affairs of the society since beginning and remained in its Managing Committee till the very end when the CBI commenced investigation in this case. He submitted that there is ample evidence showing that the affidavits of resignee members, which are stated to be forged, were handed over during the tenure of these two office bearers S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand. It is claimed that the investigation officer bluntly ignored these material aspects and conducted investigation in completely biased manner. In this regard, Ld. Defence counsel referred to the deposition of PW14, PW16, PW18, PW23, PW25, PW29, PW45, PW50 and PW90 (IO).
20. According to the Ld. Defence counsel, there is no evidence on record to show that any of these three accused had forged any record pertaining to the society. He pointed out that the extracts of all the recorded proceedings of the society including ones in which fresh enrollments/resignations were approved, were duly attested by S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand also by appending their signatures thereon but these aspects were intentionally suppressed by CBI. He further submitted that the testimonies of various promoter members make it amply clear that they had not handed over any document or money to these accused and on the contrary, it was Kailash Chand or S.B. Sharma who collected the documents from them.
21. So far as the charge for the offence of cheating is concerned, it was submitted by the Ld. Defence counsel that prosecution has failed to establish during the trial that DDA used to allot land to the CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 9 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. Cooperative Group Housing Societies at subsidized rates. Further, he pointed out that none of the original promoter members or the newly enrolled members ever lodged complaint of cheating against any office bearer of the society and they all deposed that they had become member out of their free will and volition. He referred to the deposition of PW49 Sh. N.K. Sharma (who worked in the capacity of Joint Registrar at the relevant time in RCS office) who has deposed that as per record there was no regularity in the documents of the society. Relying upon the judgment of the High Court in A.P. Narang vs. CBI, Criminal Revision Petition No. 397/2010 decided on 17.01.2011, Ld. Counsel submitted that even if the original promoter members had not resigned, they were liable for expulsion as per the Rules or Bye- laws of the Society and they did not hold any vested right in the society for being its member despite not making payment towards constructions of the flats. In this judgment, it has been observed by the High Court that the membership of the society is not a property and the membership matures into the property where the members contribute towards purchase of land or towards construction but he does not hold any property right in the Cooperative Group Housing Society and the Society is not bound to allot him any flat. On these observations, it was held that the offences under Section 415 or 420 IPC was not made out in that case.
22. Ld. Counsel, thus, prayed for acquittal of the accused.
23. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both the parties and they scrutinised the oral as well as documentary evidence on record minutely.
24. Before proceeding to scrutinise the evidence lead by the parties CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 10 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. it is important to bear in mind that charge for substantive offence of forgery u/s 468 IPC has not been framed against any of the accused. The accused are facing charges for the offence of conspiracy (to attempt to cheat 420/511 IPC, to use of forged documents us 471/468 IPC and criminal misconduct of a public servant u/s 13(2) r/w 13 (1)
(d) & 15 (1) PC Act, 1988) and for the substantive offences of attempt to cheat (u/s 420/511 IPC) as well as. Use of forged documents (u/s 471/468 IPC). Hence, it is evident that the forgery of the records of the society is not attributed to any of these three accused.
25. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12, PW13, PW14, PW15, PW16, PW17, PW18, PW19, PW20, PW23, PW24, PW25, PW26, PW27, PW28, PW31, PW32, PW33, PW34, PW35, PW36, PW37, PW39, PW42, PW43, PW45, PW50, PW51 and PW52 were the promoter members of the society to having become its members in the year 1983 or 1985-86. All of them deposed that they never resigned from the membership of the society.
26. PW2 has admitted his signature at point A on the affidavit dated 28.04.1997 Ex.PW2/A. In the cross-examination, he deposed that when he furnished this affidavit in the year 1997, S.B. Sharma was managing the affairs of the society. He did not make any enquiry from S.B. Sharma about the affidavit but he was told that the society was about to get allotment of land.
27. PW3 has deposed that his signatures have been forged by someone at points A and B on the affidavit dated 20.04.1997 Ex.PW3/B. He also denied his signatures on the resignation letter dated 03.09.1998 Ex.PW3/C as well as at point B on the cash voucher in the sum of Rs. 100/-. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 11 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. had no right in the society since he was refunded back his money and that he has a house in his name.
28. PW5 denied his signature at point A on the resignation letter dated 03.10.1997 Ex.PW5/C saying that somebody had forged his signatures. He deposed that since he had not resigned from the membership of the society, there is no question of receiving back the membership fee of Rs. 100/-. He denied his signature on the cash voucher Ex.PW5/D saying that somebody has forged the same. He also stated that somebody had forged his signature on the affidavit dated 28.04.1997 Ex.PW5/E as well as another affidavit dated 24.05.1995 Ex.PW5/F. He pointed out that even his signature on these two affidavits are different from each other.
29. PW6 also deposed that the resignation letter dated Ex.PW6/C does not bear his signatures and the same is forged document. He deposed that somebody forged his signatures on the cash voucher Ex.PW6/D also. He denied his signatures on the affidavit dated 02.05.1997 Ex.PW6/E also saying that somebody has forged these signatures in his name. He further deposed that in response to the letter dated 31.03.2005 from the office of RCS Ex.PW6/F, he submitted an affidavit dated 30.07.2005 Ex.PW6/G bearing his signature at points A and B. He stated that this affidavit bears his photograph at point C and is duly attested by Notary Public. He had forwarded the said affidavit along with the certificate duly attested by the Gazetted Officer Ex.PW6/H vide his letter dated 02.08.2005 to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, New Delhi which letter is Ex.PW6/J. He deposed that this clearly shows that he was still a member of the society as on 30.07.2005 and the resignation letter CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 12 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. dated 04.03.1998 in his name was a forged document.
30. PW7 has denied her signature on the resignation letter dated 03.09.1998 Ex.PW7/B and cash voucher Ex.PW7/C saying that somebody forged his signature on these two documents. She identified her signature at points A and B on the affidavit dated 13.04.2005 Ex.PW7/D saying that it bears her photograph at point C. he had submitted that this affidavit along with the verification certificate Ex.PW7/E to the office of the RCS, New Delhi vide letter dated 15.04.2005 Ex.PW7/F which bears the signature of her husband Sh. Arjun Kumar at points A and B. She deposed that these were submitted in response to the letter dated 31.03.2005 received from the RCS office, which letter is Ex.PW7/G.
31. PW9 has identified his signature at points A and B on the affidavit dated 28.04.1997 Ex.PW9/C. He deposed that his name bears at S. No. 29 in the list of members of the society Ex.PW9/B and reiterated that he never resigned from the membership of the society. He deposed that her sister Amarjit Kaur also taken the membership of the said society Blue Sky CGHS Ltd along with him and she too had not resigned from the membership of the society.
32. PW10 denied her signature on the affidavit dated 28.04.1997 Ex.PW10/C saying that she never resigned from the membership of the society.
33. PW11 has denied his signature on the affidavit dated 30.04.1998 which is in his name. He further deposed that he has not received any refund from the society and the signature on cash voucher of Rs. 100/- Ex.PW11/B also does not bear his signature. He also denied his signature at point A on the affidavit dated 28.04.1997 CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 13 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. Ex.PW11/C.
34. PW12 has deposed that she along with her sister Smt. Santosh had become member of Blue Sky CGHS Ltd in the year 1983. She denied her signature on the resignation letter dated 15.03.1998 in her name Ex.PW12/B as well as on the cash voucher dated 30.04.1998 in the sum of Rs. 100/-. She deposed that she has not received any refund from the society. She also denied her signature on the affidavit dated 28.04.1997 Ex.PW12/C.
35. PW13 has deposed that he has never resigned from the membership of the society and denied his signature on the affidavit dated 28.04.1997 Ex.PW13/B. In his cross-examination, he identified his signature on various pages in the proceedings register of the society.
36. PW14 has deposed that in response to the letter dated 31.03.2005 from the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies Ex.PW7/G. She had submitted verification certificate and affidavit dated 27.04.2005 (Ex.PW14/C and Ex.PW14/D respectively). she further deposed that her signatures were taken on the proceedings register of the society by Kailash Chand and identified all those signatures.
37. PW15 has stated that he did not remember whether or not he had resigned from the membership of the society. However, he too had submitted affidavit dated 13.04.2005 and verification certificate (Ex.PW15/E and Ex.PW15/F respectively) along with other documents to the office of the Registrar Cooperative Societies.
38. PW16 is elder brother of Rajiv Aggarwal. He deposed that the CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 14 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. society Blue Sky CGHS Ltd constituted by his brother along with his colleagues S.B. Sharma, Kailash Chand etc. He further deposed that after the death of his brother Rajiv Aggarwal on 28.05.1989, all the documents related to the society were taken by S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand. He stated that there was no question of his resignation from the membership of the society. He too had submitted affidavit Ex.PW16/E and verification certificate Ex.PW16/F in the office of RCS in the year 2005. He deposed that all the documents remained with Kailash Chand and S.B. Sharma. He did not know all the three accused.
39. PW18 is the brother of Kailash Chand. He deposed that he had not resigned from the membership of the society and also had not received any refund voucher from the society. In his cross- examination, he stated that the affairs of the society were being managed by his brother Kailash Chand.
40. PW19 deposed that her husband taken membership of the said society in the year 1985 through Kailash Chand who was their neighbour. He stated that her husband had not resigned from the membership of the society.
41. PW23 had become member of the society in the year 1983 through his colleague S.B. Sharma. He deposed that he has not resigned from the membership of the society and denied denied his signature on receipt Ex.PW23/G and application for resignation Ex.PW23/H. In the cross-examination, he deposed that the membership fee of Rs. 100/- which he had deposited in the society, was refunded to him by S.B. Sharma.
42. PW24 also become member of the society in the year 1983-84 CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 15 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. through his friend S.B. Sharma. He deposed that in the year 1997-98, he had submitted an affidavit Ex.PW24/B to the society, probably through his friend S.B. Sharma.
43. PW25 had become member of the said society through his colleague Rajiv Aggarwal. He deposed that he has not resigned from the membership of the society and denied his signature on the resignation letter Ex.PW25/C and receipt Ex.PW25/D. However, he further stated that on his demand, Rajiv Aggarwal had returned the membership fee Rs. 100/- to him.
44. PW26, PW27 and PW28 had become members of the said society in the year 1993. They have deposed that they had never resigned from the membership of the society. PW28 has further denied his signature on the affidavit dated 28.09.1997 Ex.PW28/B, resignation letter Ex.PW28/C and refund voucher Ex.PW28/D.
45. PW31 had become member of the said society through his colleagues in Indian Overseas Bank. He deposed that he did not resign from the membership of the society and denied his signature on the resignation letter-cum-refund voucher Ex.PW31/A.
46. PW32 deposed that he became member of the said society through one of his friends. He stated that he had never resigned from the membership of the society and denied his signature on the resignation letter Ex.PW32/D and refund voucher Ex.PW32/E. He further deposed that his sister Urmila had also become member of the society and she too had not resigned from the membership of the society. He denied his signatures on the resignation letter and refund voucher in his name Ex.PW32/F and Ex.PW32/G respectively.
CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 16 of 36CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc.
47. PW33, PW34, PW35, PW36 and PW37 had become members of the said society in the year 1985-86. They have deposed that they had never resigned from the membership of the society. Similarly, PW42 and PW43 also deposed that they have not resigned from the membership of the society.
48. PW45 had become member of the society as it was formed by the employees of Janpath Branch of the Indian Overseas Bank, where he was posted as that time. He did not recollect whether he had resigned from the membership of the society and stated that he had given affidavit dated 28.04.1997 Ex.PW45/A in good-faith on the asking of S.B. Sharma, an employee of the said branch of the bank.
49. PW50 had become member of the said society through his brother Prashant. He deposed that he had never resigned from the membership of the society.
50. PW51 and PW52 had become members through their colleague Rajiv Aggarwal. They have stated that they had never resigned from the membership of the society. PW51 denied his signature on the resignation letter and cash voucher Ex.PW51/C. PW52 denied his signature on the affidavit dated 28.04.1997 Ex.PW52/B and refund voucher.
51. From the unrebutted testimony of above noted witnesses, it is manifest that they had taken the membership of the society Blue Sky CGHS Ltd and did not resign from the membership thereafter at any point of time. Since, they have been shown to have resigned from their membership of the society, it becomes evident that the resignation letters, cash vouchers, affidavits etc. in their name have been fabricated and forged by someone.
CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 17 of 36CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc.
52. PW38, PW39, PW40, PW41, PW44, PW46, PW47, PW53, PW56, PW60, PW61, PW62, PW63, PW66, PW67, PW68, PW69, PW70, PW81 and PW87 are the new members which were inducted into the said society Blue Sky CGHS Ltd in the year 1997 or afterwards. All of them identified the documents which they had submitted to the society at the time of taking its membership as well as their signatures on those documents.
53. The case of the prosecution is that the three accused Prem Bansal, Gulshan Kumar Soni and Vinod Kumar Bansal in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy took over the society Blue Sky CGHS Ltd in the year 1997 from previous office bearers S.B. Sharma & Kailash Chand, inducted 54 new members in it in place of 54 original promoter members who were falsely shown to have resigned and submitted the forged resignation letters, cash vouchers and affidavits in the name of 54 promoter members of the society including the above noted witnesses in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies for getting the list of members of the society approved and forwarded to DDA for allotment of land to the society.
54. It is not in dispute that accused Prem Bansal and Gulshan Kumar Soni had become members of the society Blue Sky CGHS Ltd in the year 1997. It is also not disputed that they became the President and Vice-President respectively of the said society on 18.07.1998 i.e. upon completion of mandatory period of one year after they had joined as members. This is also manifest from the result- sheet of the election Ex.PW29/F which further shows that S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand had been elected as Members of the Managing Committee in the said election. It is also not disputed that in CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 18 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. the subsequent election of the Managing Committee held on 13.06.1999, these two accused namely Prem Bansal and Gulshan Kumar Soni were again elected as President and Vice-President respectively of the society. S.B. Sharma was elected as Secretary of the Society in the said election and Kailash Chand was elected as Treasurer. This is manifest from the record of the society which has been submitted in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies and has remained undisputed. Accused also did not dispute that the list of resignee members and the list of newly inducted members of the society had been submitted to the RCS office for approval vide letter dated 25.01.1999 Ex.PW79/Z33 which is signed by accused Gulshan Kumar Soni in the capacity of the Vice-President of the Society. The two lists annexed with the said letter are signed by accused Prem Bansal as President of the Society and Gulshan Kumar Soni as Secretary of the Society. Copies of the resignation letters purportedly submitted by the resignee members of the society were also annexed along with the aforesaid two lists. It is also not disputed on behalf of the accused that accused Gulshan Kumar Soni had been corresponding on behalf of the society with the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies and had sent various letters/replies on behalf of the society to the said office.
55. The prosecution has not led any evidence to support its contention that upon becoming member of the society in the year 1997, accused Prem Bansal and Gulshan Kumar Soni took over its affairs and received all the documents related to the society from previous office bearers S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand. The material witnesses on this aspect would have been S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand themselves but intriguingly none of them has been examined CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 19 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. as a witness in this case. It was pointed out by the Ld. Public Prosecutor that the name of Kailash Chand is mentioned at S. No. 24 in the list of witnesses filed along with the charge-sheet but he could not be examined for the reason that he had already expired before he could be summoned to depose in this case. Order dated 24.07.2012 passed in this case mentions that the summons issued to witness Kailash Chand have been received back with the report that he has expired. However, there is no explanation from the prosecution as to why S.B. Sharma has neither been cited as a witness in the list of witnesses filed along with the charge-sheet nor was sought to be examined after it had came to be known that Kailash Chand has expired. It is also evident from the evidence on record that no investigation had been conducted qua these two persons. The IO (PW90) has admitted in his cross-examination that S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand were office bearers of the society initially. He fairly stated that he did not conduct search at their residences. The IO also could not say as to in whose possession were the records of the society at the initial stage and after the death of Rajiv Aggarwal. He has also admitted that S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand were authorized signatory on behalf of the society to the bank account of the society in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kingsway Camp Branch which had been opened in the year 1998 in addition to other two authorized signatories i.e. accused Prem Bansal and Gulshan Kumar Soni.
56. As already noted herein above, the accused are not charged with the offence of forgery u/s 468 IPC. Even though the resignation letters, cash vouchers, affidavits etc. in the name of the 54 promoter members shown to have resigned, were found to be forged during the CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 20 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. investigation of the case yet it could not be found as to who had done the forgery. The investigating officer (PW90) has admitted in his cross- examination that none of the three accused namely Prem Bansal, Gulshan Kumar Soni, and Vinod Kumar Bansal has forged signature of any of the resigned promoter members of the society on the forged resignation letters, cash vouchers, affidavits etc. He also admitted that he has not mentioned in the charge-sheet as to who had forged these documents. He further admitted that it was not found during the course of investigation that any of those members had made any payment to any of these three accused.
57. The evidence on record does indicate that these forged documents i.e. resignation letters, cash receipts, affidavit etc. were submitted to the office of Registrar Co-operative Societies by accused Prem Bansal and Gulshan Kumar Soni under their signatures in the capacity of President and Vice-President of the Society. It this act of theirs sufficient to hold them guilty of conspiracy to forge these documents?
58. Sections 120 A and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code make conspiracy a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable. The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be :-
(a) an object to be accomplished,
(b) a plan or a scheme embodying means to accomplish that
object,
(c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of
the accused persons whereby, they become definitely CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 21 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement or by any effectual means, and
(d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act.
59. The offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of the two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means. The essential ingredients of this offence are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved by direct evident or by circumstantial evidence or by both.
60. Like most crimes, conspiracy also requires an act (actus reus) and an accompanying mental stage (mens rea). The agreement constitutes the acts, and the intention to achieve the unlawful object of that agreement constitutes the required mental state. To convict a person for the offence of conspiracy, the prosecution must show that he agreed with others that together they would accomplish the unlawful object of the conspiracy. A major problem arises in connection with the requirement of an agreement in determining the scope of a conspiracy - who are the parties and what are their objectives. This determination is critical, since it defines the potential liability of each accused.
61. Where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from the circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the circumstances CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 22 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. give arise to a conclusive and irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate the meeting of minds between the conspirator for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched.
[See State Vs. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253, Yakub Razak Menon Vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1, Isher Singh Vs. State of A.P. (2004) 11 SCC 585, State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600, State of Karnataka Vs. J. Jayalalitha (2017) 6 SCC 263, Firozuddin Basheeruddin Vs. State of Kerala (2001) 7 SCC 596]
62. In the instant case, since the person who committed the forgery of documents could not be found during the course of investigation, prosecution has been unable to produced any evidence to show that there was any sort of agreement or understanding in this regard between that person and the accused herein. There is also no evidence on record to show that the person who has actually forged the documents, did so under the instructions or directions of the accused. On account of inability to identify the real culprit who has committed forgery, the prosecution appears to have become handicapped and thus, could not collect or produce any evidence to CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 23 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. show any connection whatsoever between that person and the accused.
63. The letter along with which the list of resignee members of the society and the list of fresh enrolments in the society along with other requisite documents i.e. resignation letters etc. were sent on behalf of the society to the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies is dated 25.01.1999. The same is Ex.PW79/Z33 and it has been signed by Gulshan Kumar Soni as Vice-President of the Society. The two lists have been signed by accused Prem Bansal and accused Gulshan Kumar Soni. Vide letter dated 01.04.1999, Sh. M.K. Kaler (PW-22) the then Assistant Registrar (North-West) has informed the society that the competent authority has approved the 53 resignation as well as 53 enrolments as per the lists forwarded vide letter dated 25.01.1999. Though PW22 has not referred to this letter in his deposition before this Court yet he has identified his signatures at point Y1 below the note dated 01.04.1999 in the noting file Ex.PW4/D in pursuance to which the said letter dated 01.04.1999 was addressed to the society. This detailed note dated 01.04.1999 is Ex.PW49/A.
64. It needs note here that S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand were the members of the Managing Committee of the Society till 13.06.1999 and in the election held on 13.06.1999, they were elected as Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the society. There is nothing one record to suggest that these two persons namely S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand were not actively in the affairs of the society in the year 1998-99. It may be stated here at the cost of repetition that Kailash Chand, though cited as a witness in the charge- sheet, could not be examined as he had expired before he could be CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 24 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. summoned to depose in this case whereas S.B. Sharma was neither cited as a witness in the charge-sheet nor was sought to be summoned after it came to be known that Kailash Chand had expired. There is reference to these two persons in the testimonies of various witnesses which indicates that it is they (i.e. S.B. Shama and Kailash Chand) who were contacting the original promoter members in the year 1997-98 to seek their signatures on the resignation letters, proceedings register etc.
65. PW14 has deposed that Kailash Chand occasionally visited her house for the purpose of getting her signatures on some papers of the society and she signed in good-faith on his asking. She has identified her signatures at various places in the proceedings register Ex.PW13/DA stating that the said register used to be brought to her by Kailash Chand for her signatures. In the cross-examination, she deposed that she did not know what was written on those papers/registers which used to be got signed from her by Kailash Chand. PW16 is the brother of Rajiv Aggarwal who had initially founded the society. He deposed that after the death of his brother on 28.05.1989, all the relevant papers of the society were taken by S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand who used to look after the affairs of the society thereafter. He stated that the office in Namdhari Chamber, Karol Bagh was taken on rent by the society
66. PW18 is the elder brother of Kailash Chand. He has deposed that his signatures on his affidavit dated 28.04.1997 were obtained by his brother Kailash Chand. He also deposed in his cross-examination that Kailash Chand used to obtain his signatures on various documents related to his membership in the society. PW23 has CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 25 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. deposed that he never resigned from the membership of the society and added in the cross-examination that the membership fee of Rs. 100/- had been refunded to him by S.B. Sharma. PW24 has deposed that he had submitted an affidavit to the society in the year 1997-98 and he might have given the same to his friend S.B. Sharma. Similarly, PW45 also has deposed that he had given the affidavit dated 28.04.197 Ex.PW45/A in good-faith on the asking of S.B. Sharma, who was his colleague in Indian Overseas Bank.
67. None of the original promoter members of the society examined by the prosecution in this case as witnesses have deposed that they were approached or contacted in any manner by any of the three accused herein for taking their signatures on any documents whatsoever or for persuading them to tender their resignation from the membership of the society. On the other hand, accused Gulshan Kumar Soni appearing as DW2 has categorically deposed that S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand were involved in the day to day affairs of the society and they used to bring the resignations letters from various members of the society.
68. It is, thus, manifest that at any given time till the year 1999, Kailash Chand and S.B. Sharma were actively involved in the affairs of the society. The evidence on record, noted hereinabove, shows that they were contacting the promoter members of the society for obtaining their signatures on various documents related to the society including the affidavits prepared in the year 1997. Their conduct gives rise to the possibility that they had either obtained the signatures of the promoter members of the society on the resignation letters/cash vouchers in their name or they forged the signatures of those CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 26 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. members on the resignation letters/cash vouchers and thereafter handed over the same to accused Prem Bansal and Gulshan Kumar Soni. The accused might have received those signed resignation letters, cash vouchers, affidavits etc. in good-faith without any knowledge that these bear forged signatures of the members and are not genuine. Since, all the promoter members of the society were either colleagues or relatives or personal acquaintances of Kailash Chand and S.B. Sharma, as such there was no reason for the accused to doubt the genuineness of the documents handed over to them by Kailash Chand and S.B. Sharma. There was also no reason for the accused doubt the intention or the acts of Kailash Chand and S.B. Sharma as they were associated with the society since the beginning and were men of repute, holding good position in a public sector bank. Even though, some of those documents have been filled up by the accused herein yet there is no evidence on record to show whether the accused had filled up these before the forged signatures were appended upon them or the forged signatures were already there on these documents when the accused filled up particulars therein. In the absence of any specific evidence on this aspect of the matter, the accused can not be imputed with knowledge that the signatures of the executant upon these documents were or would be forged.
69. Much reliance was placed by the Ld. PP on the testimonies of PW48 and PW79 to canvas that the three accused herein were involved in making of false documents related to the society and thus are guilty of offence of forgery. He also argued that making these false documents clearly indicates that they were involved in the overall conspiracy and were acting in furtherance to the object of the CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 27 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. conspiracy. Hence it is necessary to discuss the deposition of these two witnesses in detail.
70. PW48 was partly examined on 10.12.2013 and her examination was further recorded on 03.07.2019. She had worked in the office of accused V.K. Bansal for about 4 1/2 years i.e. from the year 1997 till the year 2001 when she left the job. Her duty was to assist V.K. Bansal and his associate Gulshan Soni in their work and also to look after the work at reception. She deposed that she can identify the handwriting and signatures of accused V.K. Bansal and accused Gulshan Soni as she had seen them writing and signing. She identified the handwriting of accused Vinod Kumar Bansal on the resignation letters as well as cash vouchers in the name of Bishan Dayal (Ex.PW48/A1 and Ex.PW48/A2), Kalicharan (Ex.PW48/A3), Kalyan Chand (Ex.PW23/H), Santram (Ex.PW48/A4), Bodan Singh (Ex.PW48/A5 and Ex.PW48/A6), Ashok Polkondmar (Ex.PW48/A7), Rajender Kumar (Ex.PW48/A8), Karan Singh (Ex.PW48/A9), Ajay Kumar (Ex.PW48/A10), P.L. Engappan (Ex.PW48/A11), Vijay Theepathon (Ex.PW48/A12), Surender Kumar Verma (Ex.PW25/C) and Dhan Kumar (Ex.PW48/A13). She has also identified the handwriting of accused Vinod Bansal on the counterfoils of payment receipts Ex.PW79/Z28, Ex.PW79/Z29 and on the cash receipts in the name of Prem Bansal, Vinod Gaur, Deepak Kumar and Rajesh Goyal Ex.PW48/A35, Ex.PW48/A36, Ex.PW48/A37 and Ex.PW48/A38 respectively. She further deposed that the writing on the resignation letters/cash receipts/share certificates in the names of Priynajali Vashisht, Priyanka and Niropama (Ex.PW48/A14 to Ex.PW48/A20) is in the handwriting of accused Gulshan Kumar Soni. She stated that the receipts bearing Serial Numbers 1 to 4, 10 to 13 and 20 to 22 in CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 28 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. the book containing counterfoils of payment receipts Ex.PW79/Z25 (colly.) have been filled up in the handwriting of Vinod Bansal and the remaining counterfoils have been filled up in the handwriting of accused Gulshan Kumar Soni. She also deposed that the cash receipts in the names of Shiv Narayan Bansal, Lalit Bansal, Prem Bansal, Deepak Goyal, Meenkashi Goyal and Suresh Goyal (Ex.PW48/A25 to Ex.PW48/A31) and the share certificates in the name of Shiv Narayan Bansal, Lalit Bansal and Prem Bansal (Ex.PW48/A32 to Ex.PW48/A34) have been filled up in the handwriting of accused Gulshan Kumar Soni.
71. In the cross-examination, she admitted that none of the above noted documents which were shown to her during her deposition on both the occasions, were prepared/executed in her presence. She admitted that these pertain to the period after the year 2001. So, as per her testimony, all these documents had been written/prepared by the accused after the year 2001 whereas the conspiracy is stated to have been hatched in this case in 1997. Documents are also stated to have been forged in the year 1997. Hence, even if the accused are taken to have forged the above documents, the forgery took place after the year 2001 and thus that was certainly not in pursuance to the conspiracy alleged to have been hatched in this case. According to prosecution case, the forged documents related to the society had already been submitted in the RCS office in the year 1997-98.
72. Even otherwise also, the deposition of this witness PW48 appears to be doubtful and not inspiring any confidence. It is not understandable as to how could PW48 identify the handwriting of accused V.K. Bansal and Gulshan Kumar Soni on these documents CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 29 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. and that too after a gap of 12 years (when she was examined for the first time on 10.12.2013) and after a gap of 18 years (when she was again examined on 03.07.2019). She has nowhere deposed that she remained in touch with these two accused even after leaving the job in the year 2001 and had the occasion to receive and go through the documents bearing their handwriting. She has also not pointed out any specific or peculiar characteristics of the handwriting of these two accused which she has noted in the writing upon the above noted documents and on the basis of which she has identified the said writing to be that of these two accused. Further, none of those members whose names appear on the above noted documents has been examined by the prosecution as witnesses before this court to show that they had never written/signed these documents and that the signatures/writings on these documents have been forged by somebody else. It is also to be kept in mind that since this witness had not seen the accused filling up these documents, she could not have stated as to whether these documents bore the signatures of the persons named thereon at the time when these were filled up by the accused or the signatures of the executants were forged thereon after they had been filled up by the accused. In the former case, as already noted herein above, in the absence of specific evidence in this regard, the accused cannot be imputed with the knowledge that the signatures of the executants on these documents were not genuine and have been forged. In the latter eventuality it can be said, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the accused did only clerical work without any criminal intent or knowledge. In view of the same and also considering the long gap after which this witness PW48 has been called upon to identify the writing of accused Vinod Kumar Bansal and CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 30 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. Gulshan Kumar Soni, it would not be safe to rely upon her testimony.
73. PW79 had been working in the office of accused Vinod Kumar Bansal from the year 1992-93 upto the year 2016. He deposed that he can identify the signature of accused V.K. Bansal and Gulshan Kumar Soni. He stated that the names and membership number appearing at point X on the resignation letter in the name of Ajay Kumar, P.L. Engappan, Vinay Theepathan, Surender Kumar Verma and Dhan Kumar (Ex.PW48/A10 to Ex.PW48/A13) are in the handwriting of V.K. Bansal. He further deposed that the specimen signature cards and the membership application forms in the name of Poonam Kumari (Ex.PW79/D and Ex.PW79/E), Urmila Dadu (Ex.PW79/F and Ex.PW79/G), Sarla Arora (Ex.PW79/H and Ex.PW79/I), Rohini Arora (Ex.PW79/J and Ex.PW79/K), Kapila Arora (Ex.PW79/L and Ex.PW79/M), Rekha Kumari (Ex.PW79/N and Ex.PW79/O), Rakesh Arora (Ex.PW79/P and Ex.PW79/Q), Jyoti Goyal (Ex.PW79/R and Ex.PW79/X), G. Kumar (Ex.PW79/T and Ex.PW79/U), Rajesh Goyal (Ex.PW79/V and Ex.PW79/W), Anil Goyal (Ex.PW79/X and Ex.PW79/Y), Prem Bansal (Ex.PW79/Z and Ex.PW79/Z1), Meenakshi Goyal (Ex.PW79/Z2 and Ex.PW79/Z3), Kavita (Ex.PW79/Z4 and Ex.PW79/Z5) and Suresh Goyal (Ex.PW79/Z6 and Ex.PW79/Z7) are filled up in the handwriting of accused Gulshan Kumar Soni and Vinod Kumar Bansal. He also identified the handwriting of accused Gulshan Kumar Soni on the payment receipts in the name of Krishan Gupta, Lalit Bansal, Preeti Bansal, Rajesh Goyal, Suresh Goyal, Anil Goyal, Meenakashi Goyal and Prem Bansal (Ex.PW79/Z8 to Ex.PW79/Z12 and Ex.PW79/Z15 to Ex.PW79/Z19). He identified the handwriting of accused Vinod Bansal on the payment receipts in the name of Subash Sharma and Meenakashi Goyal (Ex.PW79/Z13 and Ex.PW79/Z14).
CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 31 of 36CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. He deposed that the counterfoils of the receipts Ex.PW79/Z25 (colly.) and Ex.PW79/Z28 (colly.) are filled up in the handwriting of accused V.K. Bansal. He deposed that the counterfoils of the receipts Ex.PW79/Z26 (colly.), Ex.PW79/Z27 (colly) and Ex.PW79/Z29 (colly.) are filled up in the handwriting of accused Gulshan Kumar Soni. He also identified the signatures of Gulshan Kumar Soni on letters Ex.PW79/Z31, Ex.PW79/Z32 and Ex.PW79/Z33 and the lists Ex,PW79/Z34, Ex.PW79/Z35 and Ex.PW79/Z36. He also identified the handwriting of accused Gulshan Kumar Soni on various minutes of the meetings of the society in its proceedings registers.
74. It may be noted here that none of the persons to whom the above noted documents relate, were the original promoter members of the society. All of them were inducted as members of the society in or after the year 1997. It is not the case of prosecution that the signatures of these members on the documents in their name are not their genuine signatures and have been forged. Only the writing, apart from the signature of the members, on these documents is in the hand of either V.K. Bansal or Gulshan Kumar Soni. All these documents are admittedly genuine documents. No evidence has been led to show that these too are forged and do not bear the genuine signature of the person whose name appears thereon. So far as the letters and the meeting minutes are concerned, those have been admittedly signed by Gulshan Kumar Soni in the capacity of office bearer of the society. Hence the testimony of this witness has no relevance to the charges framed against the accused in this case and thus, does not advance the case of prosecution in any manner.
75. It was argued by the Ld. PP that accused Vinod Kumar Bansal CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 32 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. was neither a member of the society nor its office bearer and despite the same several documents related to the society have been found to be in his handwriting which certainly indicates that he was a conspirator. In this regard, the deposition of accused Vinod Kumar Bansal as DW1assumes significance. He has deposed that he had no relation or concern with the society Blue Sky CGHS Ltd except that he had let out his basement space bearing No. B-7 in the building Namdhari Chambers, DG Gupta, Karol Bagh to the said society in the year 2003 at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/-. He has deposed that his brother Prem Bansal and Prem Bansal's partner Gulshan Soni were office bearers of the said society and since they used not to be available in the office during day time, he used to assist the staff of the society in doing some paper work. He deposed that S.B. Sharma and Kailash Chand who were managing the society, were also not available in the office during day time as they were bank employees and used to reach the office after 6 pm. He further stated that during day time, if any member used to deposit some money in the office of the society, the staff of the society used to approach him to examine the receipts or to issue the receipt to that member and accordingly he used to issue the receipts on behalf of the society to those members. He also used to issue share certificates to the members of the society on behalf of the society and sometimes used to record the minutes of the meeting of the society in the proceedings registers. He deposed that he never dealt with the bank account of the society and nothing incriminating related to the society was recovered during the search conducted by CBI at his residence and office. Nothing contrary thereto has come in his cross-examination.
76. It is thus manifest that accused Vinod Kumar Bansal was not CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 33 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. involved at all in the making or preparation of forged resignation letters/cash vouchers/affidavits in the names of original promoter members of the society. His handwriting appears on the documents related to the fresh inducted members after the year 1997 and in the circumstances explained by him in his testimony
77. Since the prosecution ignored the above noted vital aspects of the case during investigations and never thought of investigating the possible role of Kailash Chand & S.B. Sharma in the offence involved herein, it did not examine the possibility of a conspiracy hatched between these two persons on one side and the accused on other side. For this reason there is no evidence on record to show any link or connection between the three accused, Kailash Chand and S.B. Sharma in forging the documents. For this very reason, the actual imposter could not be found during the entire investigation. The specimen signatures of Kailash Chand and S.B. Sharma were not sent to GEQD for comparison with the forged signatures which would have cleared much air. There is nothing on record to show or suggest that either accused Gulshan Kumar Soni or accused Prem Bansal or accused Vinod Kumar Bansal had knowledge that the documents i.e. resignation letters/cash vouchers/affidavits etc. in the name of 53 original promoter members of the society which came into their hands and were submitted to the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies by accused Gulshan Kumar Soni, were not genuine and had been forged. It does not appear that they even had any reason to believe that these documents were forged.
78. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove any circumstance which gives rise to a conclusive and irresistible inference that the CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 34 of 36 CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc. accused herein were involved in any kind of criminal conspiracy. No prosecution witness has deposed against them. Even the investigating officer (PW90) has nowhere explained in his deposition as to what was the conspiracy (illegal agreement), who were parties to it and why did not he examine the possible involvement of Kailash Chand & S.B. Sharma. Manifestly, the investigation in this case has not been proper, efficient and impartial which has resulted in vague, incomplete and inconclusive evidence being brought on record and also in loss of vital & material evidence which could have nailed the actual culprits and also could have brought to light all the aspect of conspiracy.
79. Ld. PP vehemently relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Ranjit Singh decided on 19.02.1999 wherein the accused was convicted for the offence of forgery as he, being posted as Personal Assistant to a Judge of the High Court, had prepared a fictitious bail order even though he had not himself put the forged signature of the Judge upon the same. He argued that likewise, the accused herein are liable to be convicted for the offence of conspiracy to forge the documents even though they had not themselves forged the signatures of the executants on those documents. It is to be noted that the facts of the above noted case before the Supreme Court were totally different. In that case, it was found that the accused Personal Assistant had himself prepared the fictitious bail order even thought he had not signed it himself. Thus he knew that the bail order is not a genuine order but is a forged/fictitious one. In the instant case, there is no cogent or trustworthy evidence to show that the accused herein knew or had reason to believe that the documents which they submitted in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies were forged.
CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 35 of 36CBI vs. Prem Bansal etc.
80. In the instant case, the prosecution is relying upon only a few bits here and a few bits there which are not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime of criminal conspiracy. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, which has been discussed hereinabove, does not indicate beyond any reasonable doubt, the meeting of minds between the actual imposter and the accused herein or that the accused knew that the documents which they are using on behalf of the society are forged documents. The accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.
81. Hence the charges framed against the accused must fail.
82. Resultantly, all the three accused are hereby acquitted of all the charges, giving them benefit of doubt. Their bail bonds are cancelled and their sureties are discharged.
Announced through Video Conferencing
on CISCO Webex Meetings App. Digitally signed
by VIRENDER
VIRENDER BHAT
BHAT Date:
2020.08.28
11:42:22 +0530
(VIRENDER BHAT)
SPL. JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-15,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI/27.08.2020
CBI Case No. 208/2019 Page No. 36 of 36