Delhi District Court
62. The Judgments Reported As Ashok ... vs . Madhavlan on 19 September, 2018
CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI-01, NORTH-WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF:
CBI No. : 98/16 (Old No. 13/2008)
CNR No. : DLNW01-000080-2008
FIR No. : RC. 9(S)/2006/CBI/SCR-I/N.DELHI
U/s 120B/420/468/471 IPC & P. C. Act,
1988
STATE
THROUGH
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
NEW DELHI
VERSUS
1. Manohar Lal Balwani
S/o Late Sh. Govind Ram Balwani
R/o D-140, Ashok Vihar, Phase -I,
Delhi-110052 .........Accused No. 1
2. Brahm Prakash
S/o Sh. Fateh Singh
R/o Village Tatesar, PO Jaunti,
New Delhi -110081 ..... Accused no. 2
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 1 of 72
CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
3. Attar Singh Rana (Expired)
S/o Late Sh. Jot Ram
R/o KP-206, Maurya Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi -110088(present)
Village & PO Sohati, Tehsil Kharkhoda,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana (permanent)
....... Accused no. 3
4. Smt. Pooja Tomar (Discharged)
D/o Late Sh. Raj Singh Panwar
W/o Sh. Ravinder Tomar
R/o H. No. 104, Gali No. 2,
Ashok Mohalla, Nangloi, Delhi
..........Accused No. 4
5. Balwan Singh
S/o Late Sh. Naubat Ram
R/o H. No. B-57, Cosy Apartments,
Plot No. 20, Sector -9 Rohini,
New Delhi-110085(present address)
Village Rudrol, PS Badhara,
Tehsil Charkhi Dadri,
District Bhiwani, Haryana(permenent address)
..........Accused No. 5
6. Sunil Panwar
S/o Late Sh. Raj Singh Panwar
R/o 231, Bharat Apartments,
Sector -13,Rohini,
Delhi -110085
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 2 of 72
CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
..........Accused No. 6
7. P. Raghunathan Nair
S/o Late Sh. Parameshwaran Nair,
R/o H. No. E-2/112, Sector-16, Rohini,
New Delhi -110085 (present address)
Padmanbha Vilas, Village & PO
Nedumkunnam, Distt.
Kottayam(Kerela)-686542(permanent address)
..........Accused No. 7
8. Pradeep Solanki (Expired)
S/o Late Sh. Chaudhary Raj Singh
R/o H. No. 155, Dabri Village,
New Delhi-110045
..........Accused No. 8
9. Mahavir Prasad Sharma
S/o Sh. Kanwar Jeet Sharma
R/o 251, Bank Vihar, Plot No. 16,
Sector-22, Dwarka, Delhi -110075
..........Accused No. 9
Date of Institution : 02.12.2008
Date of judgement reserved on : 04.09.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgement : 19.09.2018
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 3 of 72
CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
J U D G E M E N T :-
1. This case relates to and concerns a co-operative group housing society namely New Rashtriya CGHS Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "The Society"). The said society was registered in the office of Registrar, Co-operative Societies, New Delhi (herein after referred to as 'RCS') on 31.01.1984 vide registration no. 1430(GH) with 66 promoter members. However, the society is stated to have acted in complete violation of the provisions of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972(herein after referred to as DCS Act) and the rules framed there under. No information was sent by the society to the RCS office about its affairs, activities, elections, audits etc. till 1990. Accused M. L. Balwani remained its Secretary till the year, 1989 and then its President from 1989 to 1997.
2. In the year, 1990, a letter was sent by the society to RCS Office about the elections held on 16.11.1989 and audit of the accounts till the year, 1989. Thereafter, the society failed to respond the various reminders from the RCS Office, New Delhi.
3. The case of the prosecution is that during the year, 1986-1998, when the DDA was considering the allotment of land to the societies bearing registration number between 1400 and 1600. Accused Manohar Lal Balwani(A1), Brahm Prakash(A2), Attar Singh(A3), Pooja Tomar(A4), Balwan Singh(A5), Sunil Panwar(A6), P. Raghunathan Nair(A7), Pradeep Solanki(A8) and Mahavir Pd. Sharma(A9) entered into a criminal conspiracy with the object to secure land for the society CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 4 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) from DDA on concessional rates by furnishing false information, bogus memberships and forged documents/resignation/cash receipts etc. to the RCS office, New Delhi for approval and onward transmission of approved list of members to the DDA.
4. With the afore mentioned object in mind, it is alleged that, the election of the society was held on 30.03.1997 and new Managing Committee constituting accused Brahm Prakash as President, accused Attar Singh as Secretary and accused Pooja Tomar as Treasurar took over ownership and control of the society. A meeting of the managing committee took place on 01.06.1997 and it was decided to forward the list of 126 members to the RCS office. The list was submitted on 09.06.1997 and accused Attar Singh Rana wrote to the RCS office on 16.06.1997 for early verification of the record and approval of list of members of the society. He enclosed an affidavit signed by accused Brahm Prakash giving false information about members of the society. Out of 6 persons who were shown as promotor members, four denied that they had taken membership of the society. Similarly, out of 66 new enrollments, three persons denied having taken the membership of the society.
5. Accused Mahavir Prasad Sharma, who was Dealing Assistant in the office of RCS had on 15.05.1997, recommended action under the clause (b) of sub section 2 of Section 63 of P. C. Act for winding up of the society. However same Mahavir Prasad Sharma, it is alleged, who had earlier recommended the action against the society for its winding up, recommended approval of the list of members submitted by the society which contained names of two already dead persons CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 5 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) namely Bhim Sen and Khem Chand Gupta as well as 7 bogus members.
6. As per directives dated 17.06.1996 of the RCS office, the list of members submitted by the society on or before 31.07.1986 is to be considered to be freeze strength of the society i.e no further increase in the strength of the membership can be done thereafter. This was irrespective of the fact as to whether or not the list of members of the society had been approved by the RCS before the said cut off date i.e 31.07.1986. Hence, in the instant case, since no such list of members had been submitted by the society to RCS office, the strength of its promoter members (which was 66) was supposed to be considered as its Freeze strength. Accused Mahavir Pd Sharma in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, recommended approval of the Freeze List of 126 members submitted by the society in contravention of the directives dated 17.06.1986.
7. Prosecution alleges that the accused Mahavir Pd. Sharma had secured membership for his friend Prashant Gupta in the society and also deposited a sum of Rs. 8.10 lacs on behalf of Prashant Gupta in the society account. Thereafter, accused Mahavir Prasad Sharma got membership of his father Kavaljit Singh in the society and Rs. 10 lacs, which was lying in the account of Prashant Gupta, who had resigned from the membership of the society after receipt of Rs. 1 Lakh, was transferred to the account of Kavaljit Singh in the account books of the society.
8. Fake and forged resignation letters of Late Bhim Sen and Ms. CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 6 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) Bharti Sharma are stated to have been approved in the meetings of the Management committee of the society I.e 15.01.1998 and 11.03.1998 respectively. Accused P Raghunathan Nair stated to have forged signatures on the resignation letter of Bhagwan Singh, Devi Chand, Late Khem Chand Gupta, Rajender Chabra, Smt. Raj Kumari as well as the cash receipts attributed to them. The resignation are stated to have been approved in various meetings of the Managing Committee of the society presided over by the accused Brahm Prakash who is stated to have put his initials and seal on these resignation letters. It is further alleged that the forgery of the resignation letters has also been confirmed during course of investigation. Accused P Raghunathan Nair is also alleged to have forged the signature of Ajay Dawar in the proceedings dated 10.08.1989 and is also alleged to have written proceedings dated 19.02.1997, 23.11.1997, 15.01.1998 and 18.02.1998 wherein forged resignations were accepted. Accused Balwan Singh is alleged to have attested notings of the proceedings register for the period 16.07.1989 to 10.06.1998 which included the proceedings wherein forged resignations were accepted.
9. It is alleged that after so called verification of the records of the society, the list of 126 members was forwarded by RCS office to DDA on 08.09.1997 for allotment of land to the society. The DDA offered land measuring 9000 sq. meters to the society vide its letter dated 03.06.1998. However, vide subsequent letter dated 05.04.2000, the DDA alloted 7000 square meters of land to the society at Plot No. 15, Sector 18, Dwarka, Delhi. The society made the payment towards land cost to DDA and took its possession. The number of the CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 7 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) members as per the Freeze List of the society was reduced from 126 to 110 in the year, 2001 which was duly approved by DDA in concurrence with RCS office.
10. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was prepared by CBI and was submitted to the concerned court wherein it has been stated that the above named accused have committed the offences punishable U/s 120B, readwith Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2), readwith Section 13(1)(d) of P. C Act, 1988 as well as the substantive offences thereof.
11. Vide order on charge passed on 31.03.2010, A4 Smt Pooja Tomar was discharged whereas charges were framed against remaining accused as under :
i.) Charges U/s 120B readwith 420/467/468/471 & 13(2) readwith Section 13(1)(d) of the P. C Act, 1988 were framed against accused A1 to A3 and A5 to A9.
ii.) Charges U/s 420 & 471 IPC were framed against A1 Manohar Lal Balwani, A2 Brahm Prakash, A3 Attar Singh, A5 Balwan Singh, A6 Sunil Panwar, A7 P. R. Raghunathan Nair & A8 Pradeep Solanki. Iii.) Charges U/s 467 IPC were framed against the accused A2 Brahm Prakash & A3 Attar Singh.
iv) Charges U/s 468 IPC were framed against A1 Manohar Lal Balwani, A2 Brahm Prakash, A6 Sunil Panwar & A7 P. Raghunathan Nair.
v) Charges U/s 13(2) readwith section 13(1)(d) of P. C Act were framed against accused A9 Mahavir Pd. Sharma.
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 8 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
12. All the accused denied the charges framed against them and accordingly, trial was commenced. It would be pertinent to note here that two accused namely Attar Singh (A3) and Pradeep Solanki (A8) expired during the course of the trial and accordingly, proceedings qua them were held to have abated (see orders dated 01.04.2013 and 12.03.2014).
13. Prosecution Witnesses The prosecution has examined 38 witnesses to substantiate the charges against the accused. These witnesses can be broadly classified as under :
I) Original/founder members of the society who are shown to have resigned from their membership :
PW1 Sh. Om Parkash (member ship no. 39) PW3 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singhal S/o Sh. K. C. Gupta (Membership no. 27) PW4 Sh. Satish Mittal PW5 Sh. Harvinder, S/o Sh. Bhimsen(Membership no. 4) PW6 Sh. Rakesh Kumar PW7 Sh. Kamal Kalra PW8 Ms. Bharti Sharma PW9 Sh. Bhagwan Singh II) Witnesses who had never become member of the society but have been shown as members of the society :
PW12 Sh. Rajender Chhabra PW18 Smt. Nirmal Mauji PW22 Sh. Sanjeev Dhingra CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 9 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) PW23 Smt. Veena Gupta PW24 Sh. Ajay Dabar PW25 Ms. Asha Dabar PW26 Smt. Prem Gulati III) Witnesses who have become members of the society and had resigned later on:
PW13 Sh. Devi Chand PW19 Smt. Komal Kataria PW21 Sh. Prashant Gupta IV) Witnesses who had become members of the society and had not resigned :
PW15 Smt. Raj Kumari PW16 Sh. Roshan Lal Arora PW17 Sh. Pardeep Kumar Matta PW27 Sh. Tilak Raj V) Witnesses from the office of RCS :
PW10 Sh. S. P. S. Bhatti PW14 Smt. Shakuntla Joshi PW20 Sh. Mahender Singh Sharma PW31 Sh. V. K. Bansal PW35 Sh. P. D. Sharma VI) Witnesses from DDA:
PW11 Sh. K. G. Kashyap VII) Witnesses from bank PW28 Sh. V. K. Virmani & PW29 Sh. K. Keshav Rao VIII) Witnesses who were also office bearers of the society:
PW30 Sh. Devender Singh Mann CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 10 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) IX) Signature/handwriting expert :
PW34 Sh. P. Venugopala Rao X) Witnesses from CBI:
PW32 Smt. Seema Pahuja PW33 Sh. Satyendra Pandey PW36 Sh. Jitender Walia PW37 Sh. H. S. Bhandari PW38 Sh. Rajesh Bhonsle
14. Statements of accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused in their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C on 05.12.2013 which they denied and claimed false implication.
15. Accused M. L. Balwani further admitted that he was in the Managment Committee of the society till March, 1997. He stated that Audit of the society was done only upto 1989 during his tenure and the audit for the years, 1989-97 was done after his resignation from the Managing Committee in March, 1997. He stated that no resignation or new enrollment of the members took place during his tenure in the managing committee of the society till March, 1997. He also stated that he had no role in sending list of members of the society to the RCS office for land allotment. He pointed out that till March, 1997 when he was in Managing Committee of the society, the total number of members was only 66 and the membership swelled to 126 after March, 1997 of which he has no knowledge.
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 11 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
16. Accused Braham Prakash denied having accepted any letter of resignation of any member during his tenure as the President of the society and stated his signature showing acceptance of the resignation of the members of the society have been forged by somebody else.
17. Accused Attar Singh denied having been elected as Secretary of the society at any point of time. He stated that he had never taken membership of the society and hence, there arose no question of him being elected as Secretary of the society. According to him, his signatures of Managing Committee proceedings dated 19.10.1997 are forged. He stated that his signatures have been forged on few other proceedings also of the managing committee of the society as well as on the proceedings of the General Body meeting of the members of the society.
18. Apart from denying all the evidence on record, accused Balwan Singh did not state anything further.
19. Accused Sunil Pawar admitted having been the Chairman of the meeting of the Managing Committee of the society held on 30.07.2000 but stated that the entire process had already been initiated by the previous Managing Committee and the steps taken by the previous committee were only persued by the newly elected Managing Committee.
20. Accused P. R. Nair denied having any concern at all with the CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 12 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) New Rashtriya CGHS Ltd. or maintenance of its membership records. He stated that he was neither a member of the said society nor in its Managing Committee at any point of time. He further stated that his friend Devender Singh Mann PW30 knew that he is running a Co- operative thrift and credit society and has knowledge as well as expertise in writing minutes of the proceedings of the meetings and accordingly requested him to help him in writing minutes of the meetings of New Rashtriya CGHS. He stated that he obliged his friend and did the writing work for which his friend (PW30) gave him the details of the transactions of the Managing Committee meetings and General Body Meetings of the society. He did it on friendly basis and on good faith. He denied having written any of the questioned document Q1 to Q149 and Q337.
21. Accused M. P. Sharma stated that he was posted in RCS office as Dealing Assistant upto 1998 and admitted having dealt with file related to New Rashtriya CGHS for the period 19.04.1996 to 08.09.1997. He further stated that the Dealing Assistant simply puts up enrolments etc on the file and approval of the same is the discretion of the higher authority. He stated that in this case, resignation and enrollments were approved by the Registrar. He also stated that the records of the society were produced before him in original and photocopies and both were compared by him to see where they are in order and the rest had to be decided by Senior Officers.
22. Accused M. L. Balwani has examined three witnesses i.e CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 13 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) D1W1, D1W2 and D1W3 in his defence. D1W2 is expert who is stated to have done comparison of the admitted as well as questioned signature/writing of A1 M. L. Balwani and has submitted his reports dated 17.07.2018 which are Ex. D1W2/A, D1W2/B and D1W2/C. A7 P. R. Nair has also examined a hand writing expert in his defence as D7W1 who is stated to have compared the admitted as well as questioned handwriting/signature of this accused and has submitted his report dated 15.02.2014 which is Ex. DW7/A. A9 Mahavir Prasad Sharma has examined three witnesses i.e D9W1, D9W2 and D9W3 in his defence. D9W1 was posted as Registrar in the office RCS, Delhi from July, 1998 to Mid September, 2000 whereas D9W3 was posted as area Inspector in the RCS office from 1997 to the year, 2002. D9W2 is the present Secretary of the society, New Rashtriya CGHS Ltd.
23. No other accused examined any witnesses in his defence.
24. I have heard Ld. PP for CBI as well as Ld. Defence counsels in detail on several dates. All of them have taken me through the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record. I have also perused minutely the written submissions filed on behalf of A1 M. L. Balwani, A2 Brahm Prakash, A5 Balwan Singh, A6 Sunil Pawar and A9 Mahavir Pd. Sharma.
Submissions of the parties, scrutiny of the evidence and court's observations:
25. Noting file related to the society New Rashtriya CGHS Ltd. maintained in the RCS office has been proved by PW20 as Ex. PW20/G. Whatever has transpired between the society and RCS CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 14 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) office is recorded in the notings in this file, few of which have been prepared by A9 M. P. Sharma. The contents of these notings are not disputed either by M. P. Sharma or by any other accused. Similarly the file related to the society maintained in DDA(D-29) has remained undisputed. Relevant documents contained in it have been proved by PW11.
26. Upon perusal of these two files and analysis of the rival arguments advanced on behalf of the parties as well as the evidence lead by them, following facts emerge undisputed :-
I) The society New Rashtriya CGHS Ltd. was founded with 66 promoter members and was registered with the office of Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Delhi on 31.01.1984 vide registration no. 1430(GH).
II) In the first meeting of the society held on 16.10.1983, A1 M. L. Balwani was elected its Secretary. He remained as Secretary of the society till the year, 1989 and then its President from 1989-97.
III) No information was sent by the society to RCS office about its affairs/activities/elections/audits as per the provisions of DCS Act, 1972 and rules framed there under.
IV) Notings in the noting file of RCS office Ex. PW20/G show that several opportunities were given to the society to produce its record for verification but in vain. Last noting in this regard is dated 04.06.1991.
V) In the noting dated 02.08.1991, it is mentioned that the accounts of the society have been audited upto the year, 31.03.1999 CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 15 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) as per Audit report and the last election of the society was held on 16.11.1989. The note further shows that the society has informed that it has already submitted the books of the society to Mr Brijesh for approval of final list of members. However, since the records of the society were not received in the office, it was recommended that final opportunity be given to it for the said purpose.
VI) It is mentioned in the noting dated 01.11.1991 that Sh. Dinesh Pandey was asked for comments regarding the records of the society and he has denied having received the records of the society. Accordingly, it was directed that the society be asked to appear/attend the office in person for comments in this regard.
VII) Further notings show that no response was received from the society to the letter dated 11.11.1991 of the RCS office sent in pursuance to the aforesaid noting dated 01.11.1991. Accordingly, it was recommended vide noting dated 19.04.1996(prepared by A9 Mahavir Prasad Sharma) that show cause notice U/s 63 of the DCS Act for winding up of the society may be issued. However, AR(North) proposed that one final letter be sent to the society for submission of the membership list and records for verification and also to produce substantial evidence to show that the records were taken by Dinesh Pandey. Dy. Registrar(North), vide endorsement dated 01.05.1996 recommended that area Inspector be deputed to pay visit to the society to ascertain true and correct information about the affairs of the society. His recommendation was approved by the Registrar and accordingly A9 M. P. Sharma was deputed for the said purpose.
VIII) A9 M. P. Sharma prepared note dated 27.05.1996 mentioning therein that he visited the Registered office of the society i.e 5376-B, New Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi -110006 on 25.05.1996 CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 16 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) but no office bearer was present there. It was a shop where one employee namely Parshu Ram was present who informed him that this is shop of J. K. Balwani, brother of Sh. M. L. Balwani (an office bearer of the society). He handed over a letter to Parshu Ram directing the President/Secretary of the society to produced records of the society in the office of RCS by 30.05.1996.
IX) Subsequent note dated 18.06.1996 prepared by A9 M. P. Sharma mentions that nobody turned up on 30.05.1996 or thereafter.
X) Vide subsequent notings, it was recommended that show cause notice U/s 32 or 63 of DCS Act may be issued to the society. These notings dated 10.10.1996, 26.12.1996 and 15.05.1997 are prepared by A9 M. P. Sharma. The last noting in this regard dated 15.05.1997 mentions that no reply has been received from the society and in view of the non-co-operative attitude of the society in production of its record for verification of list of members, election and audit etc, action U/s 63(2)(b) of DCS Act for winding of the society was recommended. However, it appears that such notice remained to be served upon the society.
XI) Subsequently, A9 M. P. Sharma prepares note dated 23.06.1997 mentioning therein that Secretary of the society Attar Singh Rana had appeared before Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society on 16.06.1997 with the request for verification of the records of the society for approval of final list of members for allotment of land. It is the detailed note mentioning the names of the promoter members who had resigned from the society as well as names of the members who have been enrolled by the society during these years. The note was put up before AR(North) who asked M. P. Sharma to check up whether the resignation/allotment are as per provisions of DCS CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 17 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) Act/Rules and in accordance with the directions of the department.
XII) In the subsequent detailed note dated 09.07.1997, prepared by M. P. Sharma, he mentions that the records of the society have been verified and the proposal of the society is in order and recommended the approval of list of 126 members of the society for forwarding it to DDA for necessary action.
XIII) Accordingly, the strength of the membership of the society was freezed at 126 members and the freeze list was sent to DDA for allotment of the land to the society.
XIV) Vide letter dated 03.06.1998(Ex. PW11/A), the DDA offered 9000 square meters of land for allotment to the society in Dwarka for 126 members.
XV) Vide letter dated 17.07.1998, (signed by A2 Brahm Prakash as President of the society), the society enclosed all the requisite documents in this regard(Ex. PW11/C and Ex. PW11/D to Ex. PW11/K).
XVI) The DDA sent a demand cum allotment letter dated 05.04.2000(Ex. PW11/L) to the society mentioning therein that plot measuring 7000 square meters bearing no. 15 in Sector 18, Dwarka has been allotted to the society through draw of lots held in February, 2000 @ 3.33 per square meter.
XVII) After the society made the payments to DDA, the possession of the said plot of land was handed over to its Secretary Balwan Singh on 10.10.2000 vide possession plan Ex. PW11/5 and possession memo Ex. PW11/D. XVIII) The society sent letter dated 08.11.2000 to DDA requesting reduction of Freeze strength of members from 126 to 108 in view of the small size of the plot allotted to it.
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 18 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) XIX) The request of the society was approved by DDA vide letter dated 23.01.2001(Ex. PW11/U) and it was later on approved by the office of RCS also.
27. It was submitted by the Ld. PP that the documents/evidence on record which are duly proved by the concerned witnesses and even are not disputed by any of the accused, clearly show that there has been no activity at all in the society till the year, 1997 and hence, there arose no question of the society maintaining any record like membership register, proceedings register, accounts etc during this period. He argued that if the society had maintained these records duly from the year of its registration till 1997, it would have responded to the letters/reminders sent to it by RCS office and would have produced the record in that office. He would submit that upon learning that land is being allotted to the societies having registration numbers between 1400 to 1600 on priority basis and cheaper rates by DDA, all the accused, in conspiracy with each other fabricated the records showing fake resignations, fake enrollements, fake managing committee meetings, fake accounts, fake audit, fake elections and submitted the same in RCS office alongwith freeze list of 126 members of the society which was readily and willingly accepted by A9 M. P. Sharma(Dealing Clerk) who prepared favourable notes despite having himself earlier recommended winding up of the society u/s 63 of DCS Act for non-compliance. He pointed out that in this way, the freeze list of 126 members of the society was got approved and forwarded to DDA on the strength of forged/fabricated documents pursuant to which the DDA allotted plot of land measuring 7000 square meters to the society.
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 19 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
28. In order to substantiate the charge of forgery of records u/s 467 and 468 IPC, the Ld PP relied mainly on the expert opinion of GEQD(PW34).
29. The Ld. Defence counsels have strongly refuted the submissions of Ld. PP saying that there is no legally admissible evidence on record to manifest forgery of the records of the society. However, the defence counsels have confined their arguments within the sphere of the case/defence set up by their respective clients and hence those will be discussed and dealt with separately hereinafter.
30. As already noted herein above, there were 67 promoter members of the society. However, the list of members of the society sent to the office of Registrar, Co-operative Societies in June, 1997 for approval consisted of 126 names. It is on the basis of the said list of 126 members sent by the society to RCS office that the noting dated 23.06.1997 Ex. PW14/DB was prepared by A9 M. P. Sharma. Perusal of this noting reveals that out of 67 promoter members, 6 members having membership numbers 8, 14, 65, 17, 45, 46 and 64 were stated to have resigned from their membership in the month of March, 1987. The noting further mentions that 66 new members have been enrolled by the society between the year, 1985 and 1997. The last member in the series had been admitted to the membership of the society on 01.06.1997. It is in this manner that the membership of the society was shown to have swollen from the initial 67 to 126. The names and membership numbers of all the 126 members are mentioned in the noting dated 09.07.1997 at pages 28/N an 29/M which also has been CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 20 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) prepared by A9 M. P. Sharma. It is this list of members of the society which had been freezed by RCS office and was forwarded to DDA for allotment of land to the society and later on the plot of land measuring 7000 square meters in Sector-18, Dwarka was allotted to the society vide demand cum allotment letter of DDA dated 05.04.2000 (Ex. PW11/L).
31. Here, I may again refer to the notings dated 10.10.1996, 26.12.1996, 22.01.1997 and 15.05.1997 in the noting file of RCS which are Ex. PW35/A, Ex. PW35/A4, Ex. PW35/A7, Ex. PW35/A8 respectively. PW35 who was posted as Deputy Registrar (Central, New Delhi and North) in the office of RCS during the period 1996 to 2000 has identified the signature of A9 M. P. Sharma on these notings. Even otherwise also, there is no denial on the part of accused M. P. Sharma to the fact that he has prepared these notings and that these bear his signature. PW35 has not been cross examined at all on this aspect. Further, it is not the defence of the accused M. P. Sharma that he had not dealt with file relating to the society in question or that he has not prepared these notings. His defence is that he was working within the sphere of his duty and has done what was required and expected of a Dealing Clerk in these circumstances. It is noteworthy that vide these notings accused M. P. Sharma has been repeatedly recommending action against the society U/s 63 Of DCS Act for its winding up as there had been no correspondence from the society for the last several years with regards to its constitution, management, working etc despite several letters/reminders sent to it by the RCS office.
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 21 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
32. It is thus evident that the society had been lying dormant i.e without any activities right since it was formed and got registered with the office of Registrar, Co-operative Society for the year, 1984. It did not respond to various letters/reminders from the RCS office asking it to produce its records. Accused M. P. Sharma himself had visited the Registered office of the society at Sadar Bazar, Delhi on 25.05.1996 and found that it was a shop owned by Sh. J. K. Balwani, brother of M. L. Balwani(office bearer of the society) and handed over a letter to the person named Parshu Ram who was found at the shop directing the President/Secretary of the society to produce all the records of the society in the RCS office by 30.05.1996. The fact that Parshu Ram was an employee of Sh. J. K. Balwani and used to remain at the aforesaid shop is admitted by Sh J. K. Balwani himself in his deposition as witness in defence(D1W1) on behalf of accused M. L. Balwani. He has testified that the society was having registered office at the aforesaid shop and his employee namely Parshu Ram used to be at the shop. However, he nowhere says that no such letter was handed over to Parshu Ram by A9 M. P. Sharma or that no correspondence addressed to the society by RCS office was received at the said shop.
33. In view of the above noted un-controverted notings in the RCS file and in the absence of any evidence in this regard on behalf of the accused and also taking into consideration the deposition of D1W1, it is manifest that several letters/reminders were sent by the RCS office to the society asking which to produce its records and A9 also had visited the registered office of the society on 25.05.1996 when he handed over a letter in this regard to Parshu Ram who was found CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 22 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) present there. Even then, neither did anyone on behalf of the society appear in the RCS office nor was the record of the society produced in the said office. This undoubtedly indicates that the society was totally inactive and, therefore, it is unbelievable that it had been maintaining its records relating to membership ( resignation as well as fresh enrollments), accounts etc. It also cannot be believed that society was holding its General Body Meetings during this period or was being controlled by any elected managing committee. In case there had been any managing committee of the society looking after its affairs during this period and managing the records of membership etc, the society would not have failed to respond to such large number of reminders from the RCS office.
34. As per the noting dated 15.05.1997 Ex. PW35/A8, the last letter in this regard was sent by RCS office to the society on 22.11.1996 to which also no reply was received from the society. It appears that A3 Attar Singh appears in the office of RCS all of a sudden on 16.06.1997 with the request for verification of the records of the society and with the approval of its final list of 126 members for allotment of land. He hands over a letter of even date in the office which is Ex. PW31/DA. Alongwith the letter, he also submitted an affidavit of accused Brahm Prakash in the capacity of President of the society mentioning therein the details of the resignation of the members and fresh enrollments accepted/made between the years 1985 and 1997( upto 04.06.1997). It has not been disputed by the accused that the said letter bears the signature of the accused Attar Singh as the Secretary of the society and the affidavit accompanying it Ex PW30/PX-30 bears the signature of accused Brahm Prakash in the capacity of President of the society.
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 23 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) PW31 has not been cross examined on this aspect at all. His cross examination conducted on behalf of accused Attar Singh reflects that only the personal appearance of Attar Singh in the office of RCS on that day is being disputed. Even if it is assumed that accused Attar Singh had not appeared in the RCS office with the said letter and affidavit on 16.06.1997, the fact remains that letter and affidavit have been submitted in the RCS office on 16.06.1997 on behalf of society alongwith the final list of 126 members of the society for approval. If the said letter with the affidavits and the membership list had not been submitted to the RCS office, action U/s 63 of DCS Act would have been initiated against the society. I find it relevant to reproduce here under the contents of the said letter.
"We had earlier submitted our list of members but could not follow it up due to business in our work. The list of members as on date is again submitted for according necessary approval. The requisite affidavit of Secretary/President is also attached. The society is audited upto 31/03/1997 and the last election was held on 30.03.1997.
Sir, as the DDA is going to offer land to societies from registration no. 1400 to 1600 very soon and the registration no. of our society is 1430 and the DDA has given up the time to deposit approved list of members by 30/6/97, as such you are humbly requested to verify and approve the same at the earliest as per rules of your deptt."
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 24 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
35. It is mentioned in the letter that the society had submitted the list of members earlier also but could not follow it up due to some business engagements. However, it does not appear that any such list has been submitted in the RCS office earlier as it is not reflected in any of the notings in the noting file Ex. PW20/G. Curiously, it is nowhere explained in the said letter as to why the society failed to respond to numerous letters/reminders sent to it by the RCS office calling upon it to produce its records for verification. Incidently, it is also not mentioned in the letter that the society had not received any such letter or reminder from the RCS office. From the contents of the letter itself, as reproduced herein above, the impression can be gathered that it is only upon getting the knowledge that the DDA is going to offer land to the societies having registration number between 1400-1600 very soon, some members of the society including accused Attar Singh and accused Brahm Prakash put their heads together and decided to grab this golden opportunity to get the land allotted to the society on priority and at concessional rates of DDA. This prospect alone became a catalyst by reason of which the activities of the society were commenced, the fabrication/forgery of the records right since 1986 was begun and thus became the start point of the entire conspiracy. One fails to see any other reason for the society and its members to arise from deep slumber abruptly in the month of June, 1997, when they had filed to respond to several letters/reminders from the RCS office during earlier period.
36. In this regard, what transpired in the RCS office after the note date 09.07.1997 was prepared and put up by accused M. P. Sharma. The note was seen and discussed by Asst. Registrar, Dy. Registrar CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 25 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) and Jt. Registrar(page 30/N of the noting file Ex. PW20/G). Jt. Registrar appears to have called a meeting where some points were discussed and the Dy. Registrar directed M. P. Sharma to verify all those points immediately. Accused M. P. Sharma again wrote on 01.08.1997 that everything is in order. However, the Jt. Registrar, vide his endorsement dated 01.08.1997, appears to have got susprised by the conduct of the society and called for a discussion as to how the society has submitted a list of 126 members now when it was not responding earlier. After the discussion, accused M. P. Sharma again noted on 18.08.1997 that the managing committee of the society had discussed this matter in meeting held on 29.06.1997 and it was observed that this happened due to inaction of previous Managing Committee.
37. I have perused the minutes of the Managing Committee meeting dated 29.06.1997 from the proceedings Register of the society Ex. PW34/9. It is true that the reason for non submission of records in RCS office for such a long time and non-intimation of resignation/enrolments was taken up for discussion and it was noted that the previous management committee was in fault for all these lapses. Curiously no member of previous committee had been called for the meeting. So, it is not discernible as to how it was concluded that previous committee was in default. No effort appears to have been made to contact the previous office bearers to ascertain the actual reason for the default in this regard. Nor did accused M. P. Sharma make proper enquiry to know the truth on this aspect. He simply believed what was put across to him and forwarded the hsame information to higher officers.
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 26 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
38. However, it becomes clear that all the letters/reminders sent by RCS office had been received by society and those were not responded to. Accused M. L. Balwani, who was the President of the society till 30.03.1997 and used to chair the meetings of the managing committee too has nowhere denied the receipt of these letters/reminders from the RCS office. No witness has been cross examined on this aspect nor has he expressed such denial in his statement U/s 313 Cr. P.C. What is intriguing as to why were not these letters/reminders from RCS taken up for discussion in any meeting of managing committee till 26.09.1997. The proceedings register Ex. PW34/9 contains record of the managing committee meetings from 16.07.1989 onwards. Minutes of each meeting recorded in this register from 16.07.1989 to 30.03.1997 has the discussion either about resignation of members or induction of new members. There is no mention of any such letter/reminder in the minutes of any of these meetings. This too is a certain indication of the fact that the said proceedings register in its entirety has been fabricated/manipulated in the year 1997 to formulate the fictitious membership list to be sent to RCS office to claim plot of land for the society from DDA.
39. It needs to note here that after the possession of the plot of land at Dwarka was handed over to the society on 10.10.2000 through its the then Secretary accused Balwan Singh, the society sent a letter dated 08.11.2000 to DDA requesting reduction of Freeze List of members from 126 to 110 in view of the small size of the plot allotted to it. The request of the society was approved by DDA vide letter dated 23.01.2001 Ex. PW11/U and it was later on approved by the CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 27 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) RCS office also in the month of June, 2001 vide noting dated 22.06.2001 Ex PW14/M in the noting file. However, this issue was taken up in the RCS office vide noting (which is undated) prepared pursuant to letter dated 23.01.2001 received from DDA. It is curious to note here that perusal of this noting Ex. PW14/F reveals that resignations of 112 members of the society are stated to have been accepted between 19.10.1997 and 20.05.2000 whereas 96 new members are stated to have been inducted in the society between 23.11.1997 and 29.10.2000. In this manner, the membership of the society was reduced from 126 to 110.
40. The forgery of the records of the society is also substantiated by the opinion of GEQD Ex. PW34/B and the deposition of various prosecution witnesses.
41. PW1 was the promoter member of the society and had become its member from 13.10.1983. He is shown to have resigned from the membership of the society in the year, 1998. However, he has denied his signature on the resignation letter Ex. PW1/C as well as cash receipt of Rs. 100 Ex. PW1/D. He has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused.
42. PW2 is also promoter member of the society. Apart from paying Rs. 100/- at the time of taking the membership of the society, she had paid further sum of Rs. 3.5 lacs to accused Sunil Tomar between the years, 1998 and 2001. She too is shown to have resigned from the society but has denied that she resigned from the membership of the society. She denied here signature on the resignation letter Ex.
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 28 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) PW2/C. In the cross examination, she admitted having received back the sum of Rs. 3.5 lacs but reiterated that she had not resigned from the membership of the society.
43. As per the testimony of PW3, his father Late Sh. Khem Chand Gupta was the member of the society i.e New Rashtriya CGHS Ltd. He deposed that his father expired on 05.01.1994 and proved a copy of death certificate as Ex. PW3/A. He identified the signature of his father on the membership register Ex. PW1/B against serial no. 27 where the particulars of his father are mentioned. He stated that the signatures appearing on the resignation letter and cash receipt in the sum of Rs. 100/- in the name of his father are not his father's signatures and have been forged. He has not been cross exmined on behalf of any of the accused.
44. PW4 had become member of the said society in the year, 1997 vide membership application Ex. PW4/A. He deposed that he has not resigned from the membership of the society and denied his signature on the resignation letter Ex. PW4/B and cash receipt of Rs. 100/- Ex PW4/C.
45. PW5 deposed that his father Late Sh. Bhim Singh Gogia, who expired on 11.12.1989, was the member of a Group Hosing Society but did not know the name of that society. He proved the death certificate of his father as Ex. PW5/A and also identified his father's signatures at various points i.e on the affidavit etc contained in the file relating to the society D-9. He also denied the signature of his father on the resignation letter Ex. PW5/C and copy of receipt of Rs. 100/-
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 29 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) Ex. PW5/D. He has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused.
46. PW7 was the promoter member of the society and his name appears at serial no. 25 in the initial member list of the society. He deposed that he has not resigned from the society's membership and denied his signatures on resignation application Mark PW7/X and copy of receipt of Rs. 100/- Mark PW7/Y. He has not cross examined on behalf of any of the accused.
47. According to PW8, she had become member of the society prior to the year, 2000 when her husband was alive. Her name appears at serial no. 5 of page no. 1 of the membership register. She deposed that she never resigned from the society. She also stated that accused M. L. Balwani (whom she correctly identified) informed her father that the society has become defunct. She denied her signature on the resignation application Mark PW8/X and cash receipt of Rs. 100/- Mark PW8/Y. She has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused.
48. PW9 also was a promoter member of the society. Apart from paying Rs. 1200/- at the time of becoming member of the society, he had paid further sum of Rs. 10,000/-. He deposed that the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- was returned to him by accused M. L. Balwani saying that it is the interest accrued on his initial payment. His name appears at serial number 6 of page no. 1 of the membership register. He deposed that he never resigned from the membership of the society and denied his signature on the resignation letter Ex. PW9/C. In the CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 30 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) cross examination conducted on behalf of accused M. L. Balwani, he stated that he knows this accused personally and had become member of the society through him. There is nothing in his cross examination to suggest that he has voluntarily resigned from the membership of the society.
49. The testimony of these witnesses make it manifest that their signatures on the resignation letters attributed to them and on the cash receipt bearing their name were forged as they had neither resigned from the membership of the society nor had received back initial payment made by them. To the same effect is the testimony of PWs 15, PW16, PW17 and PW27. Admittedly, they too had taken the membership of the society. However, they are shown to have resigned from the society membership but they denied having done so. They too denied their signatures on the resignation letters as well as cash receipts.
50. PW12 deposed that neither he nor his wife had become member of any Co-operative Group Housing society. He denied his signatures against serial no. 43 in the membership register of the society(Ex. PW12/B) where his name has been entered. He also denied his signature on the resignation application Ex. PW12/B which is in his name. There is nothing worth mentioning in his cross examination. Similarly, PW18 also deposed that he had never taken membership of New Rashtriya CGHS Ltd. and had neither deposited any money with the society for becoming its member nor had received any money from it. He denied his signatures against serial no. 35 in the membership register of the society Ex PW1/B where his name is CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 31 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) mentioned. He also denied his signature on the affidavit Ex. PW18/C, resignation application Ex. PW18/D and copy of receipt of Rs. 100/- Ex. PW18/F. He deposed that he has been shown as promoter member of the society in its bye-laws Ex. PW18/H but denied his signature on the back of the list of the promoter members Ex. PW18/J annexed with the bye-laws. There is nothing contrary in his cross examination.
51. PW22 also had deposed that he never became member of New Rashtriya CGHS Ltd. and had never filed any application form for becoming member of the said society. He is shown to have been inducted as the member of the society vide affidavit dated 13.10.2003 Ex. PW22/A. However, he stated that he was only 12-13 years of age in the year, 1983. He also denied his signature on the said affidavit as well as on the membership register Ex. PW1/B against serial no. 51 where his name is mentioned. He also denied his signature on the resignation letter Ex. PW22/C and cash receipt of Rs. 100/- Ex. PW22/D. He denied his signature on other documents/records also relating to his membership of the society. He has also not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused. Similar is the case with PW23. As per her testimony also, he had never taken membership of New Rashtriya CGHS Ltd. and had not deposited any money for becoming its member. She denied her signature on the membership register Ex. PW1/B against serial no. 67 where her name is mentioned. She also denied her signature on the resignation letter Ex. PW23/A, affidavit Ex. PW23/C and cash receipt Ex. PW23/D. Nothing contrary has been elicited in her cross examination.
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 32 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
52. PW24 also is shown to have become member of the society and his name is mentioned at serial no. 77 in the membership register Ex. PW1/B. However, he denied having become member of the said society. He also denied his signature against his name in the membership register. He denied his signatures on the resignation letter Ex. PW24/A, cash receipt Ex. PW24/C and proceedings register Ex. PW24/D. In the cross examination, he reiterated that he neither applied for membership of New Rashtriya CGHS nor had become its member at any point of time. Similarly, PW25 also deposed that she had never become member of the said society and somebody has given her personal particulars to show her falsely as a member of the society. She denied her signature on the membership register Ex. PW1/B against serial no. 78 where her name is mentioned. She also denied her signature on the resignation letter Ex. PW25/B and cash receipt Ex. PW25/C. There is nothing contrary in her cross examination.
53. As the testimony of PW26, he too had never taken membership of New Rashtriya CGHS. He denied his signature on the membership register Ex. PW1/B against serial no. 79 where her name is mentioned. She also denied her signature on the resignation letter Ex. PW26/A and cash receipt Ex. PW26/B.
54. It becomes evident from the testimony of these 7 prosecution witnesses that even though they had never applied for the membership of the society in question, their signatures have been forged on the membership register and other documents showing them as members of the society. Their signatures have also been CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 33 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) forged on the resignation letters/cash receipt vide which they have been shown to have resigned from the membership of the society. Thus the un-rebutted and un-controverted testimonies of these witness proves beyond any doubt that the records of the society submitted in the office of RCS in the month of June, 1997, on the basis of which A9 M. P. Sharma prepared notes favourable to the society without raising any hint of doubt in them, had been forged. The membership list submitted for approval was not genuine. Several members, who had not resigned from the society's membership, were shown to have resigned whereas many persons, who had never applied for society's membership, are shown have been inducted as members of the society.
55. Perusal of GEQD report Ex. PW34/B reveals that :-
I) Signature of Bhim Sen father of PW5 on his resignation letter Ex. PW5/E(at point Q 601) and cash receipt (at point Q 607) do not match with his admitted signatures.
Further these two documents are dated 04.01.1998 whereas PW5 says that his father died on 11.12.1989.
II) Signatures of Khem Chand Gupta(father of PW3 on his resignation letter (at point Q620) and application for resignation (at point Q32 & Q36) do not match with his admitted signatures.
Further these two documents are dated 17.09.1997 where PW3 says that his father died on 05.01.1994.
III) Signatures at point Q605 on resignation letter of Bhim Sen (Ex. PW5/E), at point Q 630 on resignation letter CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 34 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) of Komal Kataria(PW19) as well as writing at point Q619 of resignation letter of Khem Chand (Ex. PW34/11) are in the handwriting of accused M. L. Balwani.
IV) Proceedings of the Managing Committee of the society from 27.06.1998 to 15.01.2004 are in the handwriting of accused Brahm Prakash. His writing/signature also appear at point Q604 on the resignation letter of Bhim Sen, Q613 on resignation letter of Bhagwan Singh(PW9), Q622 on resignation letter of Khem Chand, Q629 resignation letter of Komal Kataria(PW19), Q634 on resignation letter of Satpal, Q 645 on resignation letter of Ajay Dabur(PW24) and Q650 on the resignation letter of Prem Gulati(PW26). His signature/handwriting appear on various other resignation letter/cash receipts.
V) Signature/handwriting of accused Sunil Pawar appears on various pages in the proceedings of Managing Committee from 27.06.1998 to 15.05.2004 as well as at points Q 602 and 608 on resignation letter of Bhim Sen. He also wrote certain portion of minutes of meeting dated 30.03.1997(at point Q338), meeting dated 16.04.198(at points Q487, 492, 494 and 496), GBM minutes dated 31.05.1998( at points 501, 508, 510 & 512), Managing Committee meeting minutes dated 31.05.1998(at points 518 & 521), meetings dated 10.06.1998(at points 527, 529, 532 &536).
VI) Accused P. R. Nair has not only written proceedings of the meetings from 27.06.1998 to 15.01.2004 but also certain portions on resignation letter of Bhagwan CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 35 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) Singh(PW9) at points Q611, Q612, Q615 & Q616), at point 620 on resignation letter of Khem Chand Gupta, at point Q628/1 on resignation letter of Komal Kataria(PW19), at points Q633, Q635 & Q637 on resignation letter of Satpal, at points 643, Q 643/1, 647, Q 647/1 on resignation of Ajay Dabur (PW24) at point Q 658/1 on resignation letter of Prem Gulati (PW26) and also on minutes of AGM of the society dated 10.08.1989(at point Q 166), minutes of managing committee meeting dated 10.02.1995 (at points Q 261 & Q 265), minutes dated 16.07.1995(at points Q 269, 273 & Q 275), minutes dated 06.07.1996(at points 279 & Q
283), minutes dated 03.05.1996(at points Q 287 & 291, minutes dated 08.08.1996 (at points 295 & 299), minutes dated 08.11.1996(at points Q 303 & 306), minutes dated 10.12.1996 (at points 309 & 313), minutes dated 12.01.1997 (at points Q 317, 321 & 323), minutes dated 18.03.1997 (at points 327, 331, Q 337, 340, 342 & 344), Minutes dated 05.04.1997 (at points 347, 354 & 356), minutes dated 01.05.1997 (at points 363 & 368), minutes dated 01.06.1997 (at points Q 374 & 379), minutes dated 29.06.1997 (at points Q 384, 388 & 390), minutes dated 20.07.1997 (at points 394 & 399), minutes dated 24.08.1997 (at points 404 & 409), minutes dated 14.09.1997 (at points 414 & 419), minutes dated 19.10.1997 (at points 424 & 429), minutes dated 23.11.1997 (at points 434 & 438), minutes dated 14.02.1997 (at points Q 441, 446 & 448), minutes dated 15.01.1998 (at points 453, 458 & 460), minutes dated 18.02.1998 (at points 465, 470 & 472) and minutes dated 28.03.1998 (at points CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 36 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) 477 & 482).
56. Thus, GEQD opinion also established that the signatures/writing of Bhim Sen, Khem Chand Gupta, Bhagwan Singh, Satpal, Ajay Dabur, Prem Gulati and Komal Kataria on the resignation letters as well as cash receipts attributed to them as well as the contents of these two documents have been forged by accused Brahm Prakash, accused Sunil Pawar and accused P. R. Nair. The report shows that a portion of the minutes of AGM of the society dated 10.08.1989 and the entire minutes of the Managing Committee meetings of the society (except signatures of the persons present in those meetings) from 10.02.1996 onwards till 28.03.1998 are in the handwriting of the accused P. R. Nair.
57. The aforesaid opinion of GEQD Ex. PW34/B was vociferously attacked by all the Ld. Defence counsels on four grounds. Firstly, that the evidence lead by CBI does not show that the accused did not give their specimen handwriting/signatures voluntarily but were forced to do so by the IO and that too in the absence of any independent witness. It is argued that for this reason, no independent witness in whose presence specimen of the accused had been obtained by the IO, has been examined by the prosecution. Secondly, the said opinion Ex. PW34/B has no evidentiary value for the reason that it was not accompanied by any detailed reasons of the expert on the basis of which he had reached particular opinion as mentioned therein. It is pointed out that the reasons for opinion Ex. PW34/C, have been forwarded by the GEQD to the CBI on 30.07.2008 vide forwarding letter Ex. PW34/C1 i.e more than one year after the opinion had been CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 37 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) submitted by the expert. It is argued that the "reasons for opinion"
which have been prepared after more than one year of the actual examination of the documents referred to the expert by CBI did not carry any weight and have to be rejected outrightly for the reason that it is not humanly possible for the expert who is doing the work of examination of the documents on daily basis, as to which document he had examined one year ago and what were the reasons on the basis of which he formulated his opinion. Thirdly, it is argued that the opinion of the expert can also not be considered for the reason that only photocopies of some of the questioned handwritings/signatures had been sent to GEQD by CBI and, therefore, the opinion based upon the examination of photocopies does not carry any weight. Fourthly, since the signatures/handwriting of the accused were not obtained after seeking permission of the concerned court, opinion of the expert based on those signatures/handwriting does not have any evidentiary value.
58. The aforesaid submissions made by Ld. Defence counsels are found to be without any force. It has nowhere been put to the IO(PW38) that he obtained the signatures of the accused by force or duress. Infact, there has been no cross examination of the IO on this aspect at all. Also, none of the accused except accused Brahm Prakash has stated in his examination U/s 313 Cr. P.C that he did not give specimen signature/handwriting voluntarily and was forced to do so. It is only accused Brahm Prakash who stated that he was forced to copy the questioned documents as they were and was not permitted to write in his natural way of writing. The said contention of the accused Brahm Prakash manifestly appears to be baseless and after CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 38 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) thought. As already noted herein above, there is no cross examination of IO(PW38) on this aspect on behalf of this accused also. It was for this accused Brahm Prakash to grill the IO during cross examination and to elicit the truth, which according to him, was that he was forced to copy the questioned documents as they were. Further, mere one line statement in examination U/s 313 Cr. P.C is not enough to hold that he did not give his specimen handwriting/signature voluntarily. He has nowhere explained as to who exerted force upon him in this regard and in what manner. He could have proved his involuntariness in giving the specimen signature/handwriting either by eliciting something in this regard in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses including IO or leading his evidence in defence. He has not done either.
59. Hence, I do not find anything on record to suggest that the accused had not given their specimen samples handwriting/signatures voluntarily. Therefore, the non examination of the independent witness, before whom the specimens of the accused are stated to have obtained by the IO, does not create any doubt in the prosecution case.
60. It is true that "reasons for opinion" (Ex. PW34/C) had been sent by GEQD to CBI more than one year after the opinion Ex. PW34/B had been furnished to CBI. With regards to this delay, PW34 has explained in his cross examination that he was engaged in the examination of the documents in several cases relating to Co- operative Group Housing Societies and there were directions from the Head of the office that the opinion should be dispatched immediately CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 39 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) after the completion of the examination. He further stated that so far as reasons for opinion are concerned, it involved typing and stenography work and the stenographers were involved in the work of other examiners, for which reason could not be prepared, typed and sent to CBI alongwith the opinion. He has also deposed that he had prepared his notes manually before giving his opinion in this case also. I do not find anything unbelievable in the aforesaid deposition of PW34. As this court is dealing with a large number of cases relating to irregularities/illegalities in Co-operative Group Housing societies, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that a large number of cases had been registered in the year, 2006 by CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court in writ petition no. 10066 of 2004 and in all those cases, the documents were sent to GEQD for expert opinion. It is thus evident that GEQD would have been flooded with the requests of the CBI for expert examination of questioned documents and on account of such huge work load, it was not possible for the GEQD to get prepared and typed the final "reasons for opinion" in each case to be forwarded alongwith the opinion. It also cannot be ignored that there was directions from the Head of office to PW34 to dispatch the opinion immediately after completion of examination of the documents, by reason of which also, he could not have found any time to prepare and type "reasons for opinion" to be forwarded alongwith the opinion. Hence, the delay in preparation and forwarding of "reasons for opinion" was beyond the control of PW34 or CBI and no motives can be imputed to either PW34 or CBI for the same.
61. So far as the contention that the opinion of PW34 does not carry CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 40 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) any weight as it is based upon the examination of photocopies and not the originals, is concerned, it may be noted here that PW34 has not been cross examined on this aspect at all. It was only PW34, who could have explained as to whether or not these photocopies provided good material for examination and for reaching a specific conclusion. The entire opinion of PW34 cannot be discarded merely for the reason that certain questioned documents forwarded to him were only photocopies unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the photocopies were not in such a good and legible condition as to be compared with the specimen/admitted signatures/handwriting. In the absence of any material on record, brought forth by the accused either in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses or in their defence, it would be difficult for this court to say that PW34 has not reached the correct opinion on the basis of examination of the photocopies of the documents.
62. The judgments reported as Ashok Dulichand Vs. Madhavlan Dube & Anr. (1975) 4 SCC 664 and H. Siddiqui Vs. A Ramalingam (2011) 4 SCC 240 cited by Ld. Defence counsels in support of their submissions in this regard are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In Dulichand's case, the apex court was dealing with an Election petition in which challenge was to the election of a candidate to Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly(respondent no. 1 in the appeal before Supreme Court) on the ground that he got circulated a leaflet during elections contents of which were aimed to prejudice the election prospects of another candidate (respondent no. 2 before the Supreme Court). Only a photocopy of the leaflet was produced in the court alongwith the petition. Respondent no. 1 denied CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 41 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) having drafted or circulated the said leaflet. It is in these circumstances that the Supreme Court held that the appellant was obliged to file the original leaflet or was required to bring his case within the purview of clause (a) of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act before leading secondary evidence. In H Siddiqui's case, the question which had arisen before the Supreme Court was as to whether the respondent had executed Power of Attorney in favour of defendant no. 2 in the suit(who was not a party in the appeal before the Supreme Court). Only a photocopy of the power of attorney was produced in the court. The respondent admitted his signatures on the said copy. The trial court held that admission of the signatures on the copy of Power of Attorney by the respondent indicates that he had executed it and accordingly decreed the suit, which decree was later on set aside by the High Court in appeal. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that the Trial Court could not proceed in such a unwarranted manner for the reason that the respondent had merely admitted his signature on the photocopy of the Power of Attorney and did not admit the contents thereof. It also held that the court should have borne in mind that admissibility of the document or contents thereof may not necessarily lead to drawing an inference unless the contents thereof have some probatory value. Accordingly, the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh decision.
63. Evidently, therefore, the above referred two judgments were delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in totally different facts and circumstances which were altogether distinct from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It has nowhere been held that the CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 42 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) signature/handwriting expert cannot give an opinion on the basis of examination and comparison of photocopies of the documents.
64. Lastly, it was argued that the opinion Ex. PW34/B of GEQD is otherwise also devoid of any legal value for the reason that admittedly the specimen handwritings/signatures of the accused were taken without the orders/permission of the concerned court. The argument had been noted only to be rejected. The Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Singh @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India AIR (2011) SCC 1436 has held that the Investigating Officer has powers to taken specimen signatures during investigation even without the permission of the court and the report of handwriting expert based on such specimen signatures can be considered in evidence. Even otherwise also, it has been held by the Supreme Court in another case reported as Umesh Kumar Vs. State (2013) IX AD(SC 581) that in case a document is obtained in improper and illegal manner, such document is admissible in evidence provided the same is relevant and its genuineness is also not in dispute. In view of these two judgments of the Apex Court, no merit is found in the contention of the Ld. Counsels that the opinion of the handwriting expert should not be acted upon without corroboration and that specimen signatures of the accused had been obtained in violation of the principles of law.
65. Hence, I do not find any merit in the challenge to the expert opinion of GEQD Ex. PW34/B.
66. The oral as well as documentary evidence lead by the prosecution as discussed herein above, proves beyond doubt that CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 43 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) there has been forgery in the records of the society and the forged documents had been sent to RCS office in June, 1997 with a view to get the society revived and to ensure that a plot of land is allotted to it by DDA. The question which now arises for discussion and decision would be as to whether the forgery was done by any of the accused herein and whether any of the accused had been a part of the overall conspiracy in this regard.
67. It would be proper and convenient in order to understand and discuss the role of other accused in this case, to have a discussion about the role played by accused P. R. Nair in this case.
As regards accused P. R. Nair(A7)
68. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for this accused P. R. Nair that he was neither a member of the society nor in its managing committee at any point of time and, therefore, there was no reason or occasion for him to fabricate the records of the society. He pointed out that the only witness produced by the prosecution against this accused is PW30 but he has turned hostile and did not depose anything against this accused. Further, ld. Counsel has argued that the opinion of GEQD Ex. PW34/B is not legally admissible in evidence and hence, cannot be considered. It may be noted here that the grounds of attack to the said opinion of the expert i.e GEQD have already been discussed and rejected herein above(see paragraph nos. 57 to 65). Ld. Counsel also referred to the opinion Ex. PW7/A of the expert DW7 who was engaged by this accused and who has opined that the questioned/disputed signature attributed to this accused do not match CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 44 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) with his specimen/admitted signatures. Hence, it is argued by Ld. Counsel, there is no evidence on record to show that any forgery has been committed by this accused or that he was a part of the conspiracy to forge/fabricate records of the society. Hence, he is liable to be acquitted.
69. It is true that PW30 has turned hostile on certain points and has not supported the case of the prosecution. However, he has deposed that he knew accused P. R. Nair who used to come to their society for writing the records. Moreover, accused P. R. Nair himself in his examination U/s 313 Cr. P.C also has stated that he has written some of the proceedings of minutes of the meetings of the society at the request of PW30 who was his friend and he did so only to oblige his friend. Here, I may note that as per the deposition of PW30, he became the member of the society New Rashtriya CGHS Ltd. in the year, 1998 and remained in its Managing Committee between the year, 2000 to 2003. It is thus evident that PW30 had no concern with the society prior to the year, 1998. Nothing in this regard has been stated by him in his entire testimony. On the other hand, report of GEQD Ex. PW34/B indicates that a portion of minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the society dated 10.08.1989 and the entire minutes of the Managing Committee meetings of the society(except the signatures of the persons present in those meetings) from 10.02.1995 onwards till 28.03.1998 are in the handwritings of accused P. R. Nair. Thus, there are various proceedings which are stated to have taken place prior to year, 1998, which are in the handwriting of accused P. R. Nair. If the explanation given by accused P. R. Nair that he did the writing work regarding the proceedings of the society only CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 45 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) on the request of his friend PW30 to oblige him, is true, in that case the proceedings which have taken place after the year, 1998 alone should have been in his handwriting. To the contrary, there are proceedings stated to have taken place in the year, 1989 as well as in the years, 1995, 1996 and 1997 which are in the handwriting of this accused. Further, certain portion of the resignation letters of Bhagwan Singh(PW9), Khem Chand Gupta, Komal Kataria(PW19), Satpal, Ajay Dabur(PW24) and Prem Gulati(PW26) two are in the handwriting of the accused P. R. Nair. Nothing has come on record from his side as to how these proceedings/documents which are of the years prior to 1998, bears his handwriting. The fact that several proceedings of the society as well as the documents pertaining to the year prior to 1998 also are in the handwriting of accused P. R. Nair is a certain indicator of the fact that the proceedings/documents have been fabricated/forged in or after the year, 1998 by accused P. R. Nair at the request of his friend PW30 who was a member as well as in the Managing Committee of the society.
70. It does not lie in the mouth of accused P. R. Nair to say that he did not have any concern with the society at all. He has been suitably rewarded by inducting his wife Mariyana Raghu as member of the society in the year, 1998. The name of Smt. Mariyana Raghu, w/o P. R Nair exists at serial no. 175 in the membership register Ex. PW1/B. Therefore, clearly this accused was a beneficiary of the criminal acts which he had done for and on behalf of the society.
71. So far as the report of DW7, which seek to exculpate accused P. R. Nair, are concerned, same is found to be totally untrustworthy and CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 46 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) not inspiring any confidence at all. DW7, though claims to be forensic expert working in this field for the last more than 9 years, has deposed in his cross examination that he has not obtained any specific degree/diploma in the examination of the handwritings/signatures. He also deposed that he has not obtained any specific training in the field of such examination. He claims to have done B. Sc, Forensic Science course but has not proved any document to substantiate this contention. He has also admitted in the cross examination that he has not obtained any authorisation from any Government department/authority for examination of questioned as well as disputed signatures/handwritings and that his laboratory is not authorized by NABL. In view of these incapacities, it would be a total miscarriage of justice to place any reliance upon the opinion of this expert.
72. In the opinion of this court, there is cogent and reliable oral as well as documentary evidence on record which proves beyond doubt that the accused P. R. Nair was one of the key persons who has fabricated as well as forged the records of the society, which were later on used by submitting those in the office of RCS to achieve the object of the conspiracy involved in this case.
As regards accused M. L. Balwani (A1)
73. Apart from arguing that the opinion Ex. PW34/B of GEQD is neither admissible in evidence nor a reliable opinion (which arguments have already been noted and rejected herein above)(see paragraph nos 57 to 65), it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for this accused that signatures appearing at point Q-605 on the resignation application of CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 47 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) Bhim Sen Ex. PW5/E and point Q-63 on resignation application of Komal Kataria Ex. PW19/B were never appended by him and someone has, with ulterior reasons, forged the signature on these two documents by imitating signature of M. L. Balwani. It is submitted that the reports Ex. D1W2/A, Ex. D1W2/B and Ex. D1W2/C of the expert D1W2 clearly show that the signatures appearing on the aforesaid two points are not that of accused M. L Balwani. It is submitted that even otherwise also, all the records of the society were handed over by Sh. Gyan Chand, the then Secretary of the outgoing Managing Committee (of which accused M. L. Balwani was President) to the new Managing Committee on 05.04.1997 as mentioned in the minutes dated 05.04.1997 and hence, there was no occasion or reason for the accused M. L Balwani to accept these forged resignation in the year, 1998. It was argued that since there is no other cogent evidence on record, which inculpates accused M. L. Balwani, he cannot be convicted merely on the basis of GEQD opinion Ex. PW34/B. In this regard, reliance was placed upon judgments reported as Shashi Kumar Vs. Subodh Kumar AIR (1964) SC 529 & Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab AIR (1997) SC 1091.
74. With regards to the above noted submission that there cannot be conviction in a criminal case merely on the basis of GEQD opinion, I am reminded of a latest judgment of the Supreme Court on this issue reported as Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC
704. The observations of the Apex Court containing para 6 of the judgment can be profitably reproduced here under :
"6. Expert testimony is made relevant by CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 48 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person 'specially skilled' in questions as to identity of handwriting is expressly made a relevant fact. There is nothing in the Evidence Act, as for example like illustration (b) of Section 114 which entitles the court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars, which justifies the court in assuming that a handwriting expert's opinion in unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The Evidence Act itself (Section 3) tells us that 'a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists'. It is necessary to occasionally remind ourselves of this interpretation clause in the Evidence Act lest we set an artificial standard of proof not warranted by the provisions of the Act. Further, under section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 49 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. It is also to be noticed that Section 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are insisted with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant. So, corroboration may not invariably be inconsisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it."
75. Thus, there is no rule of law to the effect that opinion of handwriting expert must never be acted upon unless substantially corroborated. The Ld. Counsel has failed to point out anything in the cross examination of PW34 to suggest that he was not a qualified CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 50 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) expert or did not examine the documents referred to him properly or that he has given a false opinion. Further, in the instant case, there is enough oral/documentary evidence on record to show that almost all the documents related to the society had been forged in order to make a case for approval of the membership list of the society New Rashtriya CGHS Ltd. It has already been held herein above that the society had not maintained any record at all till the year, 1997. It is the contention of this accused M. L. Balwani himself that he was the Secretary of the society till the year, 1989 and then its President from 1989 to 1997. The records of the society are stated to have been handed over to the New Managing Committee (which is stated to have been elected in the meeting held on 30.03.1997) during the subsequent meeting held on 05.04.1997. I have perused the minutes of the meeting dated 05.04.1997 from the proceedings register which is on record. It does not mention the details of the documents handed over by previous Managing Committee to the newly appointed managing committee. The details of the documents stated to have been so handed over to the new Managing Committee by the previous one headed by accused M. L. Balwani as its President have not been brought on record either in the cross examination any prosecution witness or in the deposition of any defence witness examined by this accused. It is noteworthy here that accused M . L. Balwani has examined three witnesses in his defence.
76. There is nothing in the entire evidence on record to suggest that the records related to the society were being prepared and maintained from time to time in proper and regular manner. The accused M. L. Balwani was aware during the trial that he has been charged with CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 51 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) having been part of conspiracy for the fabrication/forgery of the records relating to the society. Hence, in view of the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, he was required to produce evidence to show that he was maintaining/getting maintained the records of the society regularly. He was also required to explain as to why the records were not produced in the RCS office despite various letters/reminders from the said office to the society, in case the records had been maintained regularly. Nothing has been attempted to be done in this regard either by this accused or any other accused. On the other hand, apart from the opinion Ex. PW34/B of GEQD, there is other evidence also on record in the form of deposition of various witnesses i.e PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW12, PW15, PW16, PW17, PW18, PW22, PW23, PW24, PW25, PW26 and PW27 which proves that the records relating to the society have been forged/fabricated.
77. The contention raised on behalf of accused M. L. Balwani that his signatures appearing on the resignation application of Bhim Sen Ex. PW5/E(at point Q605) and on the resignation application of M. L. Kataria Ex. PW19/B(at point 363) are not his signatures and have been forged by somebody else, is not believable. It is very difficult to discern any reason as to why would anybody else imitate the signatures of M. L. Balwani on these two documents. Much reliance was placed in this regard by the Ld. Counsel for this accused on the reports Ex. D1W2/A, Ex. D1W2/B and Ex. D1W2/C of the expert D1W2 engaged by this accused who has opined that the signatures appearing at the aforesaid points on these two documents do not match with the admitted signatures of this accused. However, these CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 52 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) reports of D1W2 do not appear to be trustworthy and do not inspire any confidence for various reasons. Firstly, he has deposed in his cross examination that he has not obtained any specific training in the field of handwriting examination from any Government recognized Institute. Secondly, he has also admitted that his Laboratory is not authorized by NABL or any other Government authority. He has not obtained any authorisation from any Government department or authority for conducting any such examination. Thirdly, he could not produce any certificate to show that his camera, by which he had taken photographs of the signatures/writings from the court file, had been serviced regularly and was working perfectly. Hence, placing any reliance upon his reports would be fraught with risks. Moreover, a closer look by a naked eye also on the enlarged photographs of the disputed as well as admitted signatures of accused M. L. Balwani, which have been annexed by D1W2 alongwith his reports, also shows that the questioned/disputed signatures on various documents on record match with his admitted signatures except minor variations, which leads to the conclusion that these have been appended by him only.
78. The role of accused M. L. Balwani in the entire conspiracy for forgery of the records relating to the society is evident from another fact also. Sh. Bhim Sen(who was the father of PW5) was a founder member of the society alongwith accused M. L. Balwani. His membership number is 5 as per the membership register Ex. PW1/B. Therefore, he must have been known to this accused M. L. Balwani right since the inception of the society. His presence has been shown in the General Body meeting dated 30.03.1997 even though, as per CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 53 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) the deposition of PW5, he had expired on 11.12.1989. This meeting had been chaired by accused M. L. Balwani. The fact that a dead person, who was well known to accused M. L. Balwani being the founder member of the society, is shown to have attended the said meeting indicates that the minutes of the meeting have been manipulated and in fact no such meetings had taken place. This has happened under the eyes of accused M.L. Balwani and therefore, refutes the arguments of innocence raised on his behalf.
As regards accused Brahm Prakash(A2)
79. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused Brahm Prakash that he was elected as the President of the society in the General Body Committee meeting held on 30.03.1997 and that records of the society were handed over to the New Managing Committee headed by this accused in the subsequent Managing Committee Meeting held on 05.04.1997. It is argued that the accused M. L. Balwani was handling and controlling the society till 05.04.1997 and the illegalities as well as irregularities, if any, have taken place during his tenure. It is argued that there is no evidence to suggest that accused Brahm Prakash has committed forgery of any records or has used said forged record and the CBI has completely failed to prove any meeting of mind between this accused and the other co-accused. He too has assailed the GEQD opinion Ex. PW34/B on the grounds which have been noted and rejected already herein above(see paragraphs nos 57 to 65).
80. It has already been held in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment that no record of the society had been maintained till the year, 1997 and the entire records were manipulated/forged in the year, CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 54 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) 1997 when it was learnt that the DDA is going to allot land to the societies whose registration number is between 1400 & 1600. As per the contention raised on behalf of accused Brahm Prakash, the Managing Committee held by him which was elected on 30.03.1987 has received the records of the society from the previous managing committee. However, the details of the records so received by the newly elected Managing Committee headed by him have not been brought on record either in cross examination of any prosecution witness or in the deposition of any defence witness. The accused was aware about the charge which he has to meet out during the trial and, therefore, it was required of him to bring on record the details of the records of the society which had been maintained till 30.03.1997 and which were received by the Managing Committee headed by him on 05.04.1997. In the absence of any material on record in this regard and in view of the discussion herein above, it is established beyond doubt that the records have been fabricated in the year, 1997 only during the President ship of accused Brahm Prakash which were later on submitted in the RCS office by accused Attar Singh which is manifest from the letter dated 16.06.1997 Ex. PW31/DA. This letter mentions that the requisite affidavits of the President of the Society is attached with the same. Perusal of the affidavit which is annexed with this letter reveals that the same has been signed by accused Brahm Prakash. It is rue that when this affidavit was put to PW30, he has not identified signature of Braham Prakash on the same. However, it has nowhere been put to PW31 in his cross examination that this affidavit was not annexed to the letter Ex. PW31/DA or that the same was not sworn by the accused Brahm Prakash.
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 55 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
81. It also needs note that the handwriting/signature of this accused Brahm Prakash has also been found on the resignation letters of Bhim Sen, Bhagwan Singh, Khem Chand Gupta, Komal Kataria, Ajay Dabur and Prem Gulati. Further, it has also come in evidence that the resignation of two members namely Bhim Sen(father of PW5) and Khem Chand Gupta(father of PW3) have been approved in the Management Committee meetings dated 15.01.1998 and 19.10.1997 respectively, both of which were chaired by accused Brahm Prakash being the President of the society. However, it has been deposed by PW5 and PW3 that their fathers i.e Bhim Sen and Khem Chand Gupta died on 11.12.1989 & 05.01.1994 respectively. It is thus evident that the resignation of these two founder members of the society have been forged in the year, 1997 and 1998 which were shown to have been approved in the aforesaid meetings under the President ship of accused Brahm Prakash.
82. Thus, the evidence on record is sufficient to conclude that the accused Brahm Prakash was also part of the entire conspiracy and was involved in the forgery of the records of the society.
As regards accused Balwan Singh (A5)
83. Accused Balwan Singh was the Secretary of the society in the year, 2000-2001. He is alleged to have attested photocopies of the records of the society including the copies of forged resignations as well as forged cash receipts and the copies of forged proceeding register for the period 16.07.1989 to 10.06.1998 to be submitted in the office of RCS.
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 56 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
84. It is argued by his Ld. Counsel that he had bonafidely attested photocopies of the aforesaid documents including list of members of the basis of the originals without having any knowledge that those were forged/fabricated documents. It is submitted that since it was normal practice that the photocopies to be forwarded to the office of RCS were to be attested by the Secretary, accused Balwan Singh attested these photocopies in fulfilment of such requirement without any evil motive. It is further pointed out that this accused was elected Secretary of the society in the AGM held on 30.07.2000 and, therefore, was not involved in the affairs of the society at all in the year, 1997-98 when the records of the society are alleged to have been forged. It is argued that the allegations/charge against this accused are totally misconceived and he is liable to be acquitted.
85. It may be noted here that the final object of the conspiracy alleged in this case was to ensure that the society is allotted a plot of land by the DDA. It is not in dispute that the possession of the plot of land at Dwarka was handed over to the society on 10.10.2000. Accused Balwan Singh has become Secretary of the society prior to this date and infact it is he who had received possession of the plot of land on behalf of the society. He was elected as the Secretary of the society in the meeting dated 30.07.2000 and in the same meeting, accused Sunil Pawar was elected President of the society. Accused Brahm Prakash was also present in the said meeting and was elected as member of the Managing Committee. The manner in which meetings of the society were convened and the office bearers were elected indicate that there was close connection between all these CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 57 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) office bearers. Accused Brahm Prakash would not have allowed any honest person unconnected with the conspiracy to be elected as Secretary of the society. Infact the minutes of the meeting dated 30.07.2000 reveal that the name of the accused Balwan Singh for the post of Honorary Secretary was proposed by Devender Mann and was seconded by accused Brahm Prakash. The fact that accused Balwan Singh did not suspect any foul play in the records o the society placed before him and proceeded to attest their photocopies without any verification at all indicates that he too was a part of the entire conspiracy. His acts cannot be undermined for the reason that if he had not attested photocopies of the forged documents, land would not have been allotted to the society by DDA.
86. To make out the offence against accused Balwan Singh, following illustration would be apt. For construction of a house, every brick is important and in case the construction of house is illegal, for whatever reason, every person who fixes a brick in it at whatever place and at whatever stage of construction would be liable for it. Similarly, for obtaining the object of the conspiracy, every act performed by any of the accused towards this end is important. Accused Balwan Singh cannot escape his guilt merely by saying that he was not having any knowledge of the conspiracy. His act too, even though last in the series of acts, was very important and not an insignificant one. There is nothing on record to suggest that he had conducted any enquiry with regards to the genuineness or otherwise of the society before becoming its Secretary or that he was a total stranger to the other accused. So, it can't be believed that he had no knowledge about the conspiracy. Since he has fixed the last brick in CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 58 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) the house, which was illegal right from its foundation, he can't escape the liability for the illegality.
As regards accused Sunil Pawar(A6)
87. As per the prosecution case, the proceedings of the minutes of various the meetings of the society from 16.04.1998 to 04.12.1998 are in the handwriting of accused Sunil Pawar. It is during this period that 7 forged resignations of the members namely Tilak Raj, Om Prakash, Kamal Kalra, Veena Gupta, Satpal Sehgal, Rajender Chabra and Bhagwan Singh have been accepted by the society.
88. It was vehemently argued by Ld. Counsel for accused Sunil Pawar that admittedly, he was not holding any post in the Managing Committee of the society during the aforesaid period i.e 16.04.1998 to 04.12.1998 and, therefore, there was no reason or occasion for him to write the minutes of the meetings of the society. Ld. Counsel pointed out that the accused Sunil Pawar came in picture when he was elected President of the society in the General Body Meeting held on 30.07.2000. He submitted that the accused was not having any concern with the Managing Committee of the society in the year, 1997-98 when the accounts of the society are stated to have been forged. He would also argue that no prosecution witnesses deposed that Sunil Pawar has written the proceedings of the society during the aforesaid period.
89. The Ld. Counsel argued that the only evidence against accused Sunil Pwar is the opinion of GEQD Ex. PW34/B which is not legally admissible for various reasons(which have already been noted and CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 59 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) rejected herein above)(see paragraph nos 57 to 65). He also submitted that the opinion of GEQD should not been made sole basis of conviction of an accused. This argument has also been discussed herein above and rejected(see paragraph nos. 74 & 75).
90. It cannot be disputed that accused Sunil Panwar was not an office bearer of the society between the period 16.04.1998 to 04.12.1998. However, admittedly he became member of the society on 10.07.1998. Therefore, it cannot be said that he had no concern with the society at all in the year 1998.
91. The opinion of GEQD Ex.PW34/B clearly shows that the handwriting in which the proceedings of the society have been recorded between the period 16.04.1998 to 04.12.1998 (points Q487 to Q536) match with the specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Sunil Panwar. Nothing has been brought on record from the side of this accused which may convince this Court to disbelieve the opinion of this expert. It has been mentioned in the written submission filed on behalf of accused Sunil Pawar that in his statement U/s 313 Cr. P.C, he has denied having given any specimen handwriting to IO. I do not see any such denial of this accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr. P.C. When it was put to him that the IO has proved his specimen signatures/handwriting and also that of the co-accused(see question
254), he simply answered "It is incorrect". Even no such suggestion have been given to the IO(PW37) in his cross examination. Ld. Counsel has also failed to point out anything in the cross examination of the GEQD(PW34) to show that he has not arrived at a correct opinion. Therefore, the opinion of this expert cannot be discarded or CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 60 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) disbelieved merely because the accused wants this court to do so. It was for the accused to bring on record either in the cross examination of PW34 or any other prosecution witness or by leading his evidence in defence, facts which may create doubt in the correctness of the opinion of the expert.
92. Hence, no merit is found in the arguments raised on behalf of this accused. It is evident that he had put his head together with other co-accused and was in agreement with them and also acted to ensure that the object of the conspiracy is achieved. Not only was he involved in the conspiracy, but has also forged the minutes of various meetings of the society, as noted herein above.
As regards accused M. P. Sharma(A9)
93. He was Dealing Assistant in RCS office at the relevant time. It is not disputed on behalf of this accused that he has prepared notes dated 15.05.1997, 23.06.1997, 09.07.1997, 01.08.1997 and 18.08.1997 in the noting file Ex. PW20/G maintained in the RCS office relating to the society, in which he mentioned that he had verified the records of the society which have been found to be in order and thereby recommended approval of its Freeze List of 126 members to be sent to DDA for allotment of land in the society. It is argued on his behalf that he had no reason to disbelieve the documents furnished on behalf of the society and he prepared the aforesaid notes after comparing the copies of the documents received by him with the originals produced on behalf of the society. His Ld. Counsel argued that no particular manner of verification has been given in the Delhi CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 61 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) Co-operative Societies Act or rules framed thereunder and the accused M. P. Sharma, who was Dealing Assistant in the office of the RCS, conducted normal verification of the documents of the society and forwarded it to higher officers. It is argued that it was for the higher officers to approve or reject the notings made by this accused. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the accused was acting in a motivated manner or that he has received any benefit from the society or any other co-accused.
94. Here I may note that various notings prior to the noting dated 23.06.1997 in the noting file Ex. PW29/G i.e the notings dated 10.10.1996, 26.12.1996, 22.01.1997 and 15.05.1997(Ex. PW35/A, Ex. PW35/A4, Ex. PW35/A7 and Ex. PW35/A8 respectively) have also been prepared by this accused M. P. Sharma wherein he has been repeatedly recommending action against the society U/s 63 of DCS Act for its winding up as there had been no correspondence from the society for the last several years with regards to its constitution, management, working etc. despite several letters/reminders sent to it by RCS office. Thus, it was within the knowledge of accused M. P. Sharma that the society had been lying dormant i.e without any activity for which reason it did not respond to the communications from RCS office asking it to produce its records. Further, as per the noting dated 27.05.1996 and noting dated 10.10.1996(Ex. PW35/A) in the said noting file, this accused M. P. Sharma had himself visited the registered office of the society at Sadar Bazar, Delhi on 25.05.1996 and found that it was a shop owned by Sh. J. K. Balwani, brother of accused M. L. Balwani and handed over a letter to the person named Parshu Ram who was found at the shop directing the CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 62 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) President/Secretary of the society to produce all the records of the society in the RCS office by 30.05.1996 but no record was produced on behalf of the society on this date also.
95. Despite recording these adverse remarks against the society and recommending its winding up U/s 63 of DCS Act vide his aforesaid notings, the last of which is dated 15.05.1997, the accused M. P. Sharma all of a sudden puts up a favourable note for the society on 23.06.1997(Ex. PW14/DB) wherein he mentions that the Secretary of the society has produced the records of the society and has requested for their verification and for approval of final list of members for allotment of land. In the subsequent detailed note dated 09.07.1997, he mentions that all the records of the society have been verified and the proposal of the society is found to be in order.
96. The sudden change in the attitude of accused M. P. Sharma towards the society within just one month after the noting dated 15.05.1997 is not discernible. He knew that the society was not responding to the letters of RCS office for the last several years. He should have been alarmed when the records of the society were produced before him suddenly by the Secretary of the society pursuant to which he prepares notings dated 23.05.1997. What was expected of him was to report the past conduct of the society to his superior officers and not to write detailed notings favourable to the society. From the subsequent notings in the file also, it appears that accused M. P. Sharma left no stone unturned in motivating his superiors also to approve the list of members of the society. After the note dated 09.07.1997 was prepared and put up by accused M. P. CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 63 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) Sharma, the note was seen and discussed by Asst. Registrar, Dy. Registrar and Jt. Registrar(page 30/N of the noting file Ex. PW20/G). Jt. Registrar appears to have called a meeting where some points were discussed and the Dy. Registrar directed M. P. Sharma to verify all those points immediately. Accused M. P. Sharma again wrote on 01.08.1997 that everything is in order. However, the Jt. Registrar, vide his endorsement dated 01.08.1997, appears to have got surprised by the conduct of the society and called for a discussion as to how the society has submitted a list of 126 members now when it was not responding earlier. After the discussion, accused M. P. Sharma again noted on 18.08.1997 that the managing committee of the society had discussed this matter in meeting held on 29.06.1997 and it was observed that this happened due to inaction of previous Managing Committee.
97. The aforesaid conduct of accused M. P. Sharma clearly shows that he was acting in connivance with the office bearers of the society and, therefore, was espousing the cause of the society without raising even an iota of doubt in the records furnished by the society knowing fully well that no such record had been produced by the society for several years in the past despite numerous communications sent to it by RCS office. By no stretch of imagination can be the notings dated 23.06.1997 as well as the subsequent notings of this accused M. P. Sharma said to be bonafide or within the normal course of his duties. It cannot be said that he had no reason to disbelieve the genuineness of the documents furnished by the society. Infact he had every reason to believe that the documents may have been manipulated or forged. He had mislead his senior officers as well as the RCS office pursuant CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 64 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) to which the list of 126 members of the society containing fictitious names and based upon forged record of the society was forwarded to DDA and DDA allotted the plot of land to the society. The society would not have been allotted the plot of land in case accused M. P. Sharma had acted bonafidely and vigilantly. He has acted contrary to the public interest and has misused his office to ensure that benefit is achieved by the society.
98. It is thus evident that the accused M. P. Sharma was involved in the entire conspiracy and has also committed offence U/s 13(1)(d)(iii) of P. C. Act.
As regards the offence of cheating U/s 420 IPC
99. The definition of cheating is provided in section 415 of Indian Penal Code. One of the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating is that the alleged act must have been committed either dishonestly or fraudulently. Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code defines dishonestly as under :
"Dishonestly : Whoever does anything with the intention of causing a wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly.
100. Section 25 of the Indian Penal Code defines Fraudulently as under :
"Fraudulently - A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise."
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 65 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
101. It was contended on behalf of the accused that there was no cheating at all as no wrongful loss has been caused to anyone and there was no corresponding wrongful gain to anybody on account of any alleged acts of the accused and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 415 IPC are not fulfilled. According to him, there is nothing on record to suggest that any loss was caused either to DDA or to the office of RCS. The submission is that since a crucial ingredient of the offence of cheating is missing, the accused cannot be convicted for the said offence or for the offence of conspiracy to cheat. However, no force is found in these contentions. The fact that the accused have forged all the documents relating to the dormant society when they came to know that the DDA is going to allot land to the societies having registration no. between 1400 and 1600, clearly indicates that they did so for some financial gain. It cannot be said that this forgery and fabrication of the records was being done merely out of fancy. It is a matter of knowledge that a newly created society either would not have got the land from DDA or would have to wait for a long time for the same as there was a long queue of societies seeking allotment of land from DDA. The land was to be allotted by DDA on the basis of seniority which was fixed on the basis of date of registration of the societies.
102. Therefore, false and forged documents were created relating to the society New Rashtriya CGHS Ltd. with an ulterior view to ensure that DDA allots plot of land to it also. It is true that no pecuniary loss has been suffered either by DDA or by RCS office but it cannot be said that no loss was suffered by any person at all. The real aggrieved CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 66 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) persons were the members who have been falsely shown to have resigned from the membership of the society as also the next elligible society to which the land would have been allotted in case the land was not allotted to New Rashtriya CGHS Ltd. on the basis of forged documents. No doubt can be entertained regarding the fact that accused must have obtained huge financial gain wrongfully by inducting fictitious numbers in the society on the basis of forged documents in place of the genuine members and later on by selling flats to them constructed on the plot of land allotted to the society.
103. It is evident that the accused were having dishonest intention right since the beginning and they used the forged documents knowingly for the purpose of cheating.
As regards the charge of conspiracy
104. So far as the charge of conspiracy framed against all the accused is concerned, reference to Sections 120 A and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act is necessary. The definition of the offence of criminal conspiracy is found in section 120 A which provides that when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done an act which is an illegal act, such an agreement amounts to criminal conspiracy. Section 120-B provides punishment for the offence of criminal conspiracy. The very nature of the offence of conspiracy i.e. an agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act, indicate that it would never be entered into at a public place or on a high pedestal. Such agreements are always formed in privacy and away from the gaze of any other person. Therefore, it has always been found difficult to gather direct evidence to prove a CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 67 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) conspiracy. Considering the said about the proof of conspiracy, Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act has been enacted which reads as under :
"10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design - Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
105. The implications and ramifications of the Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act have been discussed in detail by the Supreme Court in Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs State (Delhi Administration) 1988 (3) SCC 609. It has been held that the section can be analyzed as follows :
(i) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a court to believe that two or more persons are members of the conspiracy ;
(ii) If the said condition is fulfilled, anything said to be done or written by any one of them with regards to CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 68 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) their common intention will be evidence against the other ;
(iii) Anything said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them ;
(iv) It would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it ;
(v) It can only be used against co-conspiractor and not in his favour.
106. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in Nazir Khan Vs. State of Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 461 that the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. It has been further held that the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Reiterating that it is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of formation of criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of the conspiracy, about the object, which the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out, the Supreme Court observed that all CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 69 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) this is necessarily a matter of inference. The Hon'ble Judges also referred to the observations of British Judge Coleridge J. in R.V. Murphy (1837) 173 ER 502 which I find pertinent to reproduce herein :
"........ I am bound to tell you, that although the common design is the root of the charge, it is not necessary to prove that these two parties came together and actually agreed in terms to have this common design and to pursue it by common means, and so to carry it into execution. This is not necessary, because in many cases of the most clearly established conspiracies there are no means of proving any such thing, and neither law nor common sense requires that it should be proved. If you find that these two persons pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part of an act, and the other another part of the same act, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the object which they were pursuing, you will be at liberty to draw the conclusion that they have been engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object. The question you have to ask yourselves is, 'had they this common design, and did they pursue it by these common means - the design being unlawful."
107. In the instant case also, though there is no direct evidence on record to show that there had been any agreement between the accused herein with regards to the forgery/fabrication of the records of CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 70 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS) the society to seek approval of its freeze list of members, yet the evidence on record clearly shows that the accused had been acting in collusion and in league with each other. It is difficult to believe that the criminal acts performed by these accused, which have been discussed hereinabove, were not the result of an agreement between them. Therefore, the evidence provides a prima facie reasonable ground to believe that they conspired with each other and the object of conspiracy was to ensure that the land is allotted to the society on the basis of fake/forged documents. Therefore, whatever has been done by one accused in this case is evidence against the other accused. The prosecution has been successful in establishing the charge of conspiracy against the accused also.
Conclusion :-
108. In view of the aforesaid discussion, accused persons are hereby convicted as under:
(i) Accused Manohar Lal Balwani(A1), Brahm Prakash(A2), Balwan Singh(A5), Sunil Pawar(A6), P. R. Nair(A7) and M. P. Sharma(A9) are hereby convicted for the offence of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) readwith Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of P. C. Act, 1988
(ii) Accused Manohar Lal Balwani(A1)is also convicted for offences U/s 420/468/471 IPC.
CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 71 of 72 CBI v. Manohar Lal Balwani etc. (New Rashtriya CGHS)
(iii) Accused Brahm Prakah(A2) is also convicted for offences U/s 420/467/468/471 IPC.
(iv). Accused Balwan Singh(A5) is also convicted for offences U/s 420/471 IPC.
(v) Accused Sunil Pawar (A6) is also convicted for offences U/s 420/468/471 IPC.
(vi) Accused P. R. Nair(A7) is also convicted for offences U/s 420/468/471 IPC.
(vii) Accused M. P. Sharma(A9) is also convicted for offences U/s 13(2) readwith section 13(1)(d)(iii)of PC Act.
Digitally signed Announced in the open Court VIRENDER by VIRENDER BHAT on 19.09.2018 BHAT Date: 2018.09.24 13:15:19 +0530 (Virender Bhat) Special Judge, CBI-01, North West Rohini Courts, Delhi CBI No. 98/2016 (Old No. 13/2008) Page No. 72 of 72