Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Sri Chand Etc. on 28 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH.R.P.PANDEY : SPECIAL
JUDGE-01(CBI)ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CBI NO.69/08
CBI VS. SRI CHAND ETC.
Date of filing charge sheet - 30.04.07
Reserved for order - 15.02.11
Date of order - 28.02.11
ORDER-
1.The prosecution case is that instant FIR was registered on 30.09.05 in EOW-I branch of CBI pursuant to the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 02.08.05 directing CBI to investigate the matter relating to 135 Cooperative Group Housing Societies (CGHS). In compliance to the order, CBI registered case in respect of six societies including Navyug Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (for short Navyug CGHS) and as a result of enquiries a prima facie case was made out , therefore, the FIR No.13(E)/2005-EOW-I/DLI CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.1 of 43 was registered against the accused persons consisting of some private persons and officials of Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS).
2. In 1970-80 or thereafter a large number of Cooperative Group Housing Societies were registered out of which some had become defunct and wound up for various reasons like non-operation, non conducting of audit and elections or non submission of the membership lists and other documents to the RCS for the purpose of verification which was mandatory as per the Provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (for short DCS Act). Navyug CGHS was registered with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in 1971 bearing registration No.64(H).
3. As per the case of CBI, in 2003 when DDA developed plots of land in five areas of Delhi for allotment to approximately 80 CGHS. Certain builders and private persons namely Sri Chand and Anna CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.2 of 43 Wankhede hatched a conspiracy in collusion with the accused Mr.Narayan Diwakar, the then Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS), J.S.Sharma, Assistant Registrar (AR), Niranjan Singh, Inspector and other officials of the RCS to get the society activated by the RCS on the basis of false/forged documents. As part of the conspiracy, one Roop Rao(A.9) President of the Society had submitted an application dated 10.01.03 to the RCS requesting for approval of the final list of 120 members of Navyug CGHS for allotment of land by the DDA. As part of the conspiracy, the main/original file of Navyug CGHS was allegedly caused to disappear from the office of RCS by the above named officials and he formality to trace the file was completed by issuing a circular to all the branches/zones as proposed by the then Dealing Assistant, Assistant Registrar and approved by the RCS, to which no reply was received and further the file was again reconstructed by taking records from the so called office bearers of the society as proposed by the RCS officials and approved by the then RCS, accused Narayan Diwakar. CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.3 of 43 In furtherance to the conspiracy these officials did not conduct any enquiry or lodge a police complaint regarding the missing of the file from the office of the RCS.
4. It is alleged that one Grade-II Inspector accused Niranjan Singh (A.3) had submitted an inspection report in which he claimed to have visited the office of society and examined the record of the society in the presence of its office bearers which he found in order whereas the said inspection was a farce as no such society had ever functioned from this place.
5. The investigation disclosed that a society in the name of Navyug CGHS Ltd. was formed by a group of employees of M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd., a unit of Birla Group of Companies with its office at Lal Dwara Building, Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi which was registered with RCS Delhi bearing registration No.64(H) dated 15.07.1971 with 20 founder members. The membership of the CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.4 of 43 society was subsequently increased to 51 in December, 1976 and during the same time the said society was allotted land at Paschimpuri but society could not take possession of the land due to financial problems and therefore, order for liquidation was passed in 1979. The functionaries of the society had tried to get relief from the office of RCS as well as DDA but they failed to do so and since some of the units of M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. were shifted to Kolkatta and many persons were also transferred , therefore, the members of the society had lost interest in its function and the society became inactive since after 1982.
6. The investigation further revealed that after a gap of about 21 years , Roop Rao (A.9) a self styled President of the Navyug CGHS submitted an application on 10.01.03 to the Assistant Registrar (South) requesting him for approval of the list of members of the society and forwarding the same to DDA for allotment of land, which was marked by J.S.Sharma(A.4) , the then Assistant Registrar CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.5 of 43 (South) to accused Gopal Singh Bisht(A.6) , the then Dealing Assistant of South Zone. Accused Gopal Singh Bisht, the then Dealing Assistant, without verifying the records and without tracing the main file of the society put up a note dated 17.01.03 suggesting to obtain Status Report from EDP, Audit and Policy branches and as per the approval of accused J.S.Sharma , the then AR (South) various branches were asked to furnish the information. Only Audit branch confirmed that Navyug CGHS Ltd. had existed with registration No.60(H) and audit of the said society was completed from 01.07.1971 to 30.06.19073. Accused Gopal Singh Bisht, vide his note dated 22.01.03 had suggested to issue a letter to DDA to ascertain the status of the society particularly, in regard to offer given to the society for allotment of land . This was finally approved by accused Narayan Diwakar (A.5), the then RCS on the same day.
7. On 23.01.03 a letter was sent under the signature of accused J.S.Sharma, AR (South) to DDA regarding the status of the CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.6 of 43 society and in reply to the same vide letter dated 24.02.03 DDA informed RCS office that since the records below the registration No.582 had not been supplied to them, it was not possible to say whether land was allotted to Navyug CGHS Ltd. or not and requested for further information. Based on the reply , accused Gopal Singh Bisht had suggested for inspection of the society u/s 54 of DCS Act, 1972 to bring out the factual position of the society. He also suggested to issue a circular to all the branches/Zonal Incharges to trace out the main file of the society within 10 days. Accused Niranjan Singh (A.3), Grade-II Inspector was appointed as Inspecting Officer vide order dated 27.02.03 of accused J.S.Sharma, AR (South) and a circular was issued by J.S.Sharma, AR (South) to all zones/branches for tracing out the file.
8. It is alleged that accused Niranjan Singh-Grade-II Inspector had submitted a bogus inspection report dated 03.03.03 reporting that he had visited the office of the society at 128, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.7 of 43 Nagar, New Delhi on 02.02.03 where Mr.Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A.7), Secretary of the society produced the relevant records and certified that records were complete. He also specifically stated that office address of the society was shown to have shifted from Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi to Vinoba Puri , Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi for which resolution was passed on 05.05.91 duly approved by the General Body Meeting held on 20.12.91. However, investigation had disclosed that society never existed at the said address in Vinoba Puri and there was no record to show the shifting of the office of the society nor any information to RCS office regarding shifting was available on record.
9. It was disclosed in the investigation that accused Roop Rao (A.9) had submitted an application dated 04.03.03 to the Assistant Registrar (Audit) requesting for Audit of the society. Accused J.S.Sharma (A.4) AR (Audit) appointed accused P.K.Thirwani (A.8), the then Auditor to conduct Audit of the society who conducted Audit CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.8 of 43 nearly 20 years i.e. for the period from 01.07.1973 to 31.03.2002 at a stretch in violation of Rule 84(1) of DCS Rules, 1973 which specifies that Audit cannot be conducted for more than three years and submitted a false audit report. The investigation disclosed that accused P.K.Thirwani had not visited the office of the society for audit purpose and had submitted bogus Audit report to show the functioning of the society which was lying inactive since 1982.
10. During investigation it revealed that Dealing Assistant accused Gopal Singh Bisht vide note dated 06.03.03 recorded that the main file of the society was not traceable and no file could be traced inspite of circular dated 27.02.03 issued to all the branches/zonal officers/officials and since no records were available with DDA, Policy , EDP and Audit Branches of RCS, the status of the society should be treated as defunct and list not yet approved and he recommended that the society be directed to submit attested copies of registration certificate, bye-laws and other records of the society. CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.9 of 43 This note was approved by accused J.S.Sharma(A.4), the then AR (South) on 07.03.03, Rakesh Bhatnagar, the then Joint Registrar on 11.03.03 and accused Narayan Diwakar (A.5), the then RCS on 17.03.03 after discussing it with accused J.S.Sharma (A.4) but the details of the discussion had not been mentioned in the file. On 17.03.03 accused J.S.Sharma, the then AR (South) wrote a letter to President/Secretary of the society to produce original documents on 25.03.03. On 24.03.03 Dealing Assistant Gopal Singh Bisht (A.6) put up an exhaustive note mentioning that Roop Rao, President of the Society had submitted vide letter dated 18.03.03 , various documents including the attested copies of Registration Certificate, Bye-laws of the society, correspondences made from time to time and documents pertaining to latest election/AGM and Audit Report. A list of 120 members alongwith documents was also submitted for approval and onward transmission to DDA for allotment of land. In the note he recorded that no records of the society was available in the office of RCS or DDA and further recommended that on the basis of the bogus CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.10 of 43 inspection report submitted by accused Niranjan Singh (A.3), freeze list of 120 members should be approved. Accused J.S.Sharma (A.4) has further recorded that copies of all documents including the affidavits have been checked and verified and thus requested for forwarding the list of 120 members to DDA for allotment of land. On 24.03.03 accused Narayan Diwakar approved the proposal of Assistant Registrar and without losing any time , the list of members was forwarded by accused J.S.Sharma to Assistant Registrar (Policy) vide letter dated 24.03.03 for onward transmission to DDA which was further transmitted to DDA by Yogi Raj, AR (Policy) vide letter dated 27.03.03.
11. Investigation has further disclosed that out of 120 members, 39 members were from the original list of 51 promoter members of the society, 12 members who were the office bearers of the society during the 1970s were shown to have resigned in January, 2003, other 58 members of the society were the members of another society CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.11 of 43 known as Samrat Ashok Enclave CGHS Ltd. and remaining 23 members were from the existing persons including accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A.7), the present Secretary, Roop Rao (A.9), former President , Arun Sardar, former Treasurer, Satbir Kaur, present Treasure and Rachna Ganguly, present President etc.
12. The investigation disclosed that out of 12 founder members who were shown to have resigned in January, 2003, one Sh.P.G.Shar(membership No.1) had already expired in 1990. Sh.T.C.Choradia and Sh.B.K.Goel who were the office bearers of the society during 1970s denied to have resigned on 02.01.03 and stated that the signatures on the purported resignation letters are forged. Sh.O.P.Kedia another member of the society also denied his signature on the resignation during 2003. Sh.M.S.Sekhawat, another member also confirmed that the receipts and resignations in his name furnished during 2003 are forged.
CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.12 of 43
13. Investigation revealed that the affidavits dated 09.01.03 submitted to the RCS office by the society were forged as some of the founder members/promoter members in whose names affidavits were submitted , when examined, have denied to have signed any such affidavit. One Mr.T.N.Ojha, a founder member had expired in 1993 but his affidavit is signed in 2003. Further some of the persons shown as members of Navyug CGHS Ltd. were the members of Samrat Ashoka Enclave CGHS Ltd., who have also denied their signatures on the affidavits. All the stamp papers in respect of 120 affidavits were purchased from stamp vendor whose Assistant has confirmed that all the affidavits were purchased by accused Anna Wankhede (A.2) and a Typist confirmed that details mentioned in all the affidavits were furnished by Anna Wankhede (A.2) and was typed by him.
14. Investigation has disclosed that the list of 120 members submitted to RCS office by the society were falsified as one Arun Kumar Sardar was shown enrolled as a member of the society on CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.13 of 43 25.05.86 with his address at 23/274, Mandir Marg, New Delhi whereas in fact he is a Government employee and had been allotted a flat with the said address in the year 1992 only and he occupied the said flat on 27.02.92. Some persons out of 58 members of Samrat Ashoka Enclave CGHS Ltd. shown as admitted in the meeting held on 30.08.84, have denied to have become the member of the Navyug CGHS Ltd. They have also denied to have attended any meeting of the society. Receipts were also revealed to be the bogus/false as some of the founder members have produced the original receipts issued by the society which are entirely different.
15. The investigation revealed that accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal(A.7) who was a Chartered Accountant by profession had been handling the work of the said Navyug CGHS Ltd. from March, 2003 onwards and had been working for some of the societies, being controlled by accused Sri Chand (A.1). He took over the control of the society from Sri Chand and inducted as a member of the society CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.14 of 43 on 10.02.03 and immediately co-opted as a Secretary of the society in meeting held on 15.02.03 in violation of Rule 59(K) of DSC Rules, 1973. He also signed the bogus inspection report prepared by accused Niranjan Singh.
16. The investigation has further disclosed that present Assistant Registrar issued notices to original 120 members as per the approved list but there was no response showing that list approved and forwarded to DDA in the year 2003 was bogus. Some of the members who were enrolled in the society in 2003-05 were asked to produce the documents to show their membership but none of them produced documents but later on all of them produced share certificates issued by the society on 02.12.05 which bears the signature of accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal, who was present Secretary & Ms.Satbir Kaur who was present Treasure. Investigation further disclosed that accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal was in control of the society as account No.49025 with Punjab National Bank, Shalimar CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.15 of 43 Bagh Branch , Delhi was existing in the name of Navyug CGHS Ltd., which was being operated by him as Secretary. There are deposits of cheques from members who were shown enrolled during 2003-2005. Ms.Satbir Kaur-Treasurer informed that she was made Treasure of the society by accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal without any election which clearly established that accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal was very much aware that list of 120 members was bogus and had enrolled more than the approved list of members with an intention to have members under his control when DDA allots land.
17. It is revealed during investigation that accused Sri Chand was the mastermind in getting the list of members of the society approved from the RCS and getting it forwarded to the DDA for allotment of land. He was President/Vice President of Samrat Ashoka Enclave CGHS Ltd. during 1996-2004 and was instrumental in addition of the list of 58 members of Samrat Ashoka Enclave CGHS Ltd. into the list of Navyug CGHS Ltd. for number sake. CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.16 of 43 Investigation further revealed that he had written some of the false/fabricated minutes of the meetings in the Proceeding Register which has been confirmed by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD).
18. Investigation further disclosed that accused Anna Wankhede was the man behind the preparation of bogus affidavits dated 09.01.03 of 120 members and other related documents and accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal, present Secretary of the society was in control of the society since March, 2003 and he was aware of the fact that many members of the list of 120 members which had been approved by RCS were dummy members and had enlisted more than 150 members in violation of Section 24(2) of DCS Rules, 1973. He also singed in the false inspection report of Niranjan Singh. Investigation disclosed that accused Roop Rao was President of the society in 2003 and had submitted the first application dated 10.01.03 for approval of the list of members and forwarding to DDA and also CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.17 of 43 submitted the false/forged documents to the office of RCS and his signature on various documents have been confirmed by GEQD.
19. Thus, as per prosecution case then RCS officials had in conspiracy with the private persons facilitated the approval and forwarding of the list of bogus members to the DDA for allotment of land. Accused Niranjan Singh , the then Grade II Inspector has submitted a false/bogus report dated 03.03.03 without conducting any inspection in which he falsely reported the address of the society as 128, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi whereas it has been disclosed that the society never existed at the said address. Accused J.S.Sharma , the then AR (South) had not conducted the verification properly and he was instrumental in re-construction of the main file on the basis of bogus/fake/forged documents of the society. He in conspiracy with other co-accused persons made recommendations to get the list approved and treat the society as "List not yet approved category". He had endorsed the false noting of CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.18 of 43 accused Gopal Singh Bisht , the false inspection report of accused Niranjan Singh and false Audit report for the period from 1973-2002 submitted by accused P.K.Thirwani and he knowing fully well that Audit cannot be conducted for more than 3 years at a time, had ordered accused P.K.Thirwani to conduct Audit for a period of nearly 20 years and on the basis of his recommendations, a list of 120 members was finally approved by accused Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS which was forwarded by accused J.S.Sharma to the Assistant Registrar (Policy) on the same day for onward transmission to DDA. Accused Narayan Diwakar had allowed re-construction of the main file on the basis of bogus/fake records submitted on behalf of the society and he being the head of the office neither got any complaint lodged with the police nor initiated any inquiry regarding disappearance of original records. Investigation revealed that there was record in DDA to show that the society was liquidated in 1979. The list of 120 members was approved by accused Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS without following any procedure for the revival of the CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.19 of 43 society in connivance with other RCS officials and private persons which was totally irregular and illegal. It is alleged that accused Gopal Singh Bisht, the then Dealing Assistant of the RCS put up various false notes claiming verification of records, inspection etc. and the role of the RCS officials in the conspiracy is further strengthened by the fact that the address of the society at Jhandewaln Extension falls within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar (Central Zone) and there is no record to show that the society had submitted change of address from Central Zone to South Zone and a strange fact was also revealed that the society records were submitted to AR (South) while actually the society was under the jurisdiction of AR (Central Zone) and the Dealing Assistant Gopal Singh Bisht could have pointed out this fact at the beginning itself.
20. It is thus alleged that the above stated facts constitute offences u/s 120-B r/w Section 420,471 and 511 IPC and Section 15 r/w section 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988 against accused Sri Chand, CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.20 of 43 Anna Wankhede,(Private Persons), Niranjan Singh, J.S.Sharma (Public Servants), Narayan Diwakar (Retired Public Servant) , Gopal Singh Bisht (Public Servant, Anil Kumar Aggarwal (Private Person), P.K.Thirwani (Public Servant) and Roop Rao (Private Person) and substantive offences thereof.
21. Sanction for prosecution was obtained against accused J.S.Sharma, the then Assistant Registrar, Niranjan Singh, the then Grade II Inspector, Gopal Singh Bisht, the then Dealing Assistant and P.K.Thirwani, the then Auditor in the office of RCS, from the competent authorities.
22. The accused persons are agitating the charge sheet and opposing the framing of charge submitting that there is no prima facie case against them.
23. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld.Senior Public CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.21 of 43 Prosecutor for CBI and accused persons/their Ld. Counsels and also perused the written arguments filed on behalf of accused persons and carefully perused the record.
24. Accused Narayan Diwakar (A.5) has also filed an application seeking parity with employees of National Agricultural Co- op. Marketing Federation (NAFED) which is a co-operative organization and in respect of its employees the provisions of P.C.Act are not attracted as the circular has been issued by CBI Clarifying that employees of NAFED are not government employees. Accused Narayan Diwakar was Registrar of Co-operative Societies and not a member of any co-operative society, hence he cannot claim parity with employees of a cooperative organization like NAFED to argue that he or other officials of RCS are not government employees. Therefore, his application claiming parity with employees of NAFED is misconceived and not tenable, hence dismissed. CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.22 of 43
25. Accused Narayan Diwakar (A.5) has also filed written submissions and relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.Subair Vs. State of Kerala, 2009 Cri.LJ 3450 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a presumption u/s 20 P.C.Act cannot be drawn where complainant was not examined to prove the demand of bribe by the appellant who was a clerk at Regional Transport Office and allegedly demanded bribe for delivery of the driving license. It was held that mere recovery of the currency notes was not sufficient proof of demand and acceptance and hence conviction of the appellant was improper. He has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 wherein it was held that in the absence of proof of demand or request from public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) cannot be held to be established.
26. In this respect Ld. Public prosecutor has rightly submitted that the case before Hon'ble Apex Court was the trap case u/s 7 of CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.23 of 43 P.C.Act and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of P.C.Act, where allegations of specific demand and acceptance of bribe was a necessary element of the offence. The facts of the case in hand are different from the facts of the case of A.Subair (supra). Accordingly, I am of the view that the accused Narayan Diwakar cannot take shelter of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.Subair(supra) for claiming discharge in the present case.
27. Accused Narayan Diwakar (A.5) has further submitted that he was Registrar of Cooperative Societies at the relevant time when the alleged offence had taken place and the process of the functioning of RCS is that the note is initiated and put up by Dealing Assistant who submits his note to AR and then AR submits note to DR and ultimately it reaches to the RCS. He has submitted that if anything has been done at the lower level, he cannot be held responsible for the same. The case of the prosecution herein is that accused Narayan Diwakar , the then RCS alongwith his other officials CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.24 of 43 had entered into a conspiracy to commit the crime as alleged in this case. Hence the statement of accused Narayan Diwakar that he was only acting on the basis of note given by his subordinate officials, is his defence plea which cannot be considered at this stage. It is also settled position of law that the charge can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion also.
28. He also raised objection that his prosecution is illegal and unfair but there is nothing on record to show that prosecution of accused in this case is unfair and illegal. He has submitted that various offences under DCS Act, 1972 are not notified under Section 3 of DSPE Act, 1946 and hence he cannot be tried for the same. In fact in this case the accused persons have not been charge sheeted with any offence under DCS Act, 1972 and therefore, it cannot be said that he is being tried for an offence which is not notified u/s 3 of DSPE Act. He has also submitted that consent of State has not been obtained before prosecuting him as per provisions of Section 6 of CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.25 of 43 DSPE Act. In this respect it suffice to say that whenever a direction has been passed by Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court for investigation of the case by CBI, there is no requirement that the consent of the Government should be obtained or that there should be some specific complaint or a complainant in the case before enabling the CBI to proceed with the investigation of the matter. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights specifically laid down -
"When the Special Police Act itself provides that subject to consent by the State, the CBI can take up investigation in relation to the crime which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State Police, the court can also exercise its constitutional power of judicial review and direct the CBI to take up the investigation within the jurisdiction of the State. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory provision acting as a CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.26 of 43 restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the Constitutional Courts. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount to infringement of the either the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure".
29. He has also submitted that no land was allotted by DDA pursuant to the revival order passed by him and hence no offence is committed by him or other accused persons even u/s 511 of Cr.PC. In this case all the steps were taken by accused persons for getting allotment of land from DDA in the name of society which had ultimately not fructified. Thus, though there may not be elements to constitute a complete offence u/s 420 IPC and section 13(1)(d) r/w section 13 (2) of P.C.Act but the facts alleged are sufficient to constitute offences of conspiracy and attempt to commit offences u/s 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) P.C.Act , besides offence under section 471 IPC r/w section 468 IPC. Accused CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.27 of 43 Narayan Diwakar has also pointed out that there is lack of evidence in the present case and that he was not having a knowledge about the commission of offence which is a necessary element for offence of conspiracy. In this respect the evidence arrayed by the prosecution in this case is prima facie showing that there is sufficient material to impute the knowledge on the accused officials of RCS including accused No.5 Narayan Diwakar to make out a prima facie case u/s 120-B of Cr.PC against all of them.
30. Other accused persons have similarly argued the matter . Accused No.1 Sri Chand has specifically argued that the charge sheet is vague and without any reasoning and there is no sufficient evidence to show his involvement in the conspiracy. The specific role of accused Sri Chand has been assigned in the charge sheet and in fact it has been alleged that accused Sri Chand was the main accused who had hatched the conspiracy for getting the final list of 120 members approved from RCS for allotment of land by DDA. CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.28 of 43
31. Accused No.2 Anna Wankhede being represented by counsel Sh.Priyadarshi Manish has submitted that GEQD does not show that he had forged any document and that the specimen of signature of accused Anna Wankhede were not there on the record. There does not appear sufficient material to frame charge against accused Sri Chand and Anna Wankhede for substantive offence under section 420/511 IPC or Section 468/471 IPC but the prima facie evidence,which is being discussed hereunder, is there to show that they were main conspirators in commission of offence.
32. Accused No.4 Jitender Singh Sharma, accused No.7 Anil Kumar Aggarwal and accused No.9 Roop Rao have also made written arguments. They have stated that they are innocent persons.
33. Ld.Public Prosecutor has taken me through the statements of witnesses recorded by IO u/s 161 of Cr.PC and the documents CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.29 of 43 through which the prosecution seeks to prove the case against accused persons.
34. Through statement of PW.1 Arun Sardar , the prosecution seeks to establish that it was accused Sri Chand (A.1) who was in control of Navyug CGHS and that he never signed the documents as Treasurer of the society, no society meeting was conducted and that he became a member of the society in 1999-2000 and not in 1985 as shown in the list of 120 members of the society approved by RCS office.
35. PW.2 M.P.Sharma has to be examined for proving the role played by each of the official of RCS in forwarding the list of 120 members to the DDA and about the bogus documents available in the file.
36. PW.3 Shiv Shanker Gupta will prove that Navyug CGHS CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.30 of 43 was formed by the employees of M/s Jai Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. In 1971 and he became member of said society in 1976 and the society was allotted land in Paschim Puri in 1976-77 but due to paucity of funds the possession of land could not be taken and later on RCS had issued liquidation order of the society. He will also prove that the affidavit in his name dated 09.01.03 submitted to the RCS office in 2003 is forged.
37. Similarly PW.5 to PW.22 is to prove that the original affidavit in their names submitted to RCS office are forged.
38. PW.4 Tara Chand is to prove that he was founder member of Navyug CGHS Ltd. and he was also President/Secretary of the society during 1970s and about the facts that land was allotted by DDA to the said society in 1976-77 and society went into liquidation and is defunct since 1982. He will also prove that his resignation letter in 2003 alongwith proceeding register and membership CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.31 of 43 application are forged.
39. PW.6 Om Prakash Kedia & PW.7 B.K.Goel are to prove that they were the founder members and that their resignation in the year 2003 are forged. They will also prove that the minutes of the meeting in proceeding register are forged.
40. PW.8 Samar Ranjan Dev is to prove that the original affidavit in his name dated 09.01.03 submitted to RCS office in 2003 is forged and he will also prove that the membership application of 1976 was also forged.
41. PW.9 to PW.22 are to prove that they were the founder members of Navyug CGHS and affidavit in their names dated 09.01.03 submitted to RCS office by the society in the year 2003 are forged and that the membership applications available in the records are not their and the signature of them are also forged. CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.32 of 43
42. Similar are the statements of PW.24 to 26 & 33.
43. PW.31 Parveen Kumar Gupta is to prove that he was the President of Samrat Ashoka Enclave CGHS and that the membership No.52 to 109 of Navyug CGHS Ltd. are all members of Samrat Ashoka Enclave CGHS who were enrolled in his society during 1983. He will also prove that accused Sri Chand was the President and Vice President of Samrat Ashoka Enclave CGHS during 1996 to 2004 and Sri Chand had access to the records of the society.
44. PW.32 Prem Prakash is to prove that he is the present Secretary of Samrat Ashoka Enclave CGHS and other facts which are to be proved by PW.31.
45. PW.33 Ram Narain Yadav is to prove that he was the Auditor of RCS office during 2003 and accused P.K.Thirwani had CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.33 of 43 conducted audit of Navyug CGHS Ltd. from 1973 to 2002. He will also identify the signature of accused J.S.Sharma, AR(South), P.K.Thirwani, Auditor, Yogi Raj AR (Policy), Rakesh Bhatnagar, JR and Narayan Diwakar, RCS in the files of Navyug CGHS Ltd. taken over from RCS office. He will further prove that file was to be transferred from one zone to another on change of address but the file had not been transferred to the South Zone based on change of address from Vinobha Puri to Shalimar Bagh and that there was no record on the file to show that the society had changed its address and the reason for change of zone.
46. PW.34 A.K.Ojha is to prove that his father T.N.Ojha died in 1993 and therefore, it was not possible for him to sign an affidavit in the year 2000.
47. PW.35 Ved Prakash Khanna will prove that no society in the name of Navyug CGHS Ltd. had functioned at his address and he CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.34 of 43 had not given any permission or consent for use of his address as office address of Navyug CGHS Ltd. to accused Anna Wankhede or any body else. He will also prove that no society meeting was held at his premises and that no person in the name of accused Niranjan Singh as Inspecting Officer of RCS had visited to his residence during 2003 as shown in the inspection report. He will also prove that he did not know any person in the name of Anil Kumar Aggarwal, Secretary of Navyug CGHS Ltd.
48. PW.36 Vijay Mehra is to prove that he was not a member of Navyug CGHS and actually a member of Samrat Ashoka Enclave CGHS and will prove that the membership application and affidavit in his name are forged.
49. Similar are the statements of PW.37 to PW.49.
50. PW.50 Mr. Amit Sharma is to prove that he became CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.35 of 43 member of Navyug CGHS in 2003 through Anil Kumar Aggarwal of DDA Flats, Gulabi Bagh and that he had never given any receipt for membership fee paid to him and he did not know where the society office existed and that he had not attended any society meeting.
51. Similar are the statements of PW.51 to PW.61 and PW.65 to PW.69.
52. PW.62 Rajiv Goel is to prove that he became member of Navyug CGHS in 2003 through Ajay Bansal and he will also prove that the office of the society was the residence of accused Anil Aggarwal in DDA Flats, Gulabi Bagh and he had not attended meeting of any society.
53. Similar is the statement of PW.63 Ajay Bansal who will prove that the office of the society was residence of accused Anil Aggarwal in DDA Flats, Gulabi Bagh and he did not attend any CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.36 of 43 society meeting and that he had also enrolled some members in the society.
54. PW.64 Miss Satbir Kaur is to prove that she became member of the society in February, 2003 and she had enrolled few members staying near to her residence and visiting Gurudwara and that she was made Treasurer of the society in 2004-05 by accused Anil Aggarwal who was Secretary and one Mrs.Rachana was the President. She is also prove the opening of account in the name of society with PNB Shalimar Bagh and will also prove that complete affairs of the society was looked after by accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal and that the share certificates to the persons enrolled during 2003-05 were issued by him only on 02.12.05 after enquiries by CBI.
55. PW.70 Jaswinder Pal Singh will prove that he became member of Navyug CGHS through Ms. Satbir Kaur and similar is the CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.37 of 43 testimony of PW.71 to PW.79.
56. PW.80 Ravi Robinson will prove that the affidavits had been prepared in his typewriter as requested by accused Anna Wankhede.
57. PW.81 Avanish Kumar will prove that the stamp papers on which affidavits of members of Navyug CGHS was notarized, were purchased from him by accused Anna Wankhede in buld.
58. PW.29 K.G.Kashyap & PW.30 M.C.Singhal will prove the DDA files.
59. I have also gone through the documents sought to be proved by prosecution to establish the allegations made against the accused persons. The statement of witnesses and the documents reveal that sufficient evidence has been arrayed by prosecution CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.38 of 43 against the accused persons to substantiate the allegations of charge sheet.
60. So far as specific role of the accused persons are concerned the evidence collected by CBI shows that accused Sri Chand (A.1) was controlling the society and he had written the bogus proceedings on the register during the year 2003 showing the resignation and enrollment of members on which GEQD has given a positive opinion.
61. As regards Anna Wankhede (A.2) there is oral evidence available on record that he had purchased the stamp papers from the Stamp Vendor and had provided the material for the typing of 120 affidavits, which goes to show that he was the man behind the preparation of bogus affidavits of 120 members.
62. As regards the role played by accused Niranjan Singh CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.39 of 43 (A.3), he submitted a false/bogus inspection report dated 03.03.03 without conducting any inspection in which he falsely reported the address of society as 128, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, whereas sufficient evidence has been collected to show that the society never existed at the said address.
63. As regards the involvement of J.S.Sharma (A.4) , the then AR (South), he was instrumental in the approval of the inspection of society u/s 54 of the DCS Act, 1972 and he had recommended for the re-construction of file on the basis of the bogus inspection report submitted by Niranjan Singh (A.3), after discussions with Narayan Diwakar (A.5), the then RCS. On the basis of his recommendations, a list of 120 members was approved by Narayan Diwakar (A.5), which was forwarded by him to the A.R.(Policy) on the same day for onward transmission to DDA.
64. Coming to the role played by accused Narayan Diwakar CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.40 of 43 (A.5), the then RCS, he approved the inspection of the society u/s 54 of the DCS Act, 1972. Further, on 17.03.2003, he discussed the false/bogus inspection report submitted by Niranjan Singh (A.3) with J.S.Sharma (A.4), the then AR (South), but it is not known as to what transpired during the said discussion. He had finally approved the freeze list of 120 bogus members on the basis of false/forged documents, which was recommended to DDA for allotment of land.
65. Gopal Singh Bisht (A.6) was instrumental in sending a circular to different Zones/branches for tracing out the file and also to re-construct the same if the same was not available. The note recorded by him contained false/bogus facts and figures about resignations/enrollments etc. in addition to a false certificate about the verification of the records of the society.
66. As regards Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A.7) there is oral evidence that he was instrumental in enrollment of new members CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.41 of 43 from 2003-05 and had also been operating the bank account of the society.
67. P.K.Thirwani (A.8) had conducted the audit of the society for 20 years at a stretch in violation of DCS Rules, 1973. Further, the audit reports prepared by him contained the forged signatures of President, Secretary & Treasurer, which goes to show that he facilitated the crime.
68. Roop Rao (A.9) had submitted attested copies of false/forged documents to the office of RCS vide his letter dated 18.03.03. GEGD has given positive opinion on his writing and signatures.
69. I am thus of the view that sufficient material is available on record to frame charge against all accused persons u/s 120-B IPC r/w Section 420 and section 470 r/w section 468 IPC and section 13 (2) CBI Case No.69/08 CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.42 of 43 r/w section 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act . The charge for substantive offence is made out against accused Anil Aggarwal (A.7) and Roop Rao (A.9) u/s 420 r/w section 511 and section 471 r/w section 468 IPC. Further prima facie case is also made against accused Niranjan Singh(3), Jitender Singh (A.4), Narayan Diwakar (A.5), Gopal Singh Bisht (A.6) and accused P.K.Thirwani (A.8) u/s 15 r/w sections 13 (2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act. The charge be framed against accused persons, accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (R.P.PANDEY)
COURT ON 28.02.11 SPECIAL JUDGE (01)CBI
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
CBI Case No.69/08
CBI Vs. Sri Chand Page No.43 of 43