Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Ramesh Chandra Etc. Judgment Dt. ... on 16 September, 2016
1
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI02 (PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT), DISTT. NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CC No. 12/08
Unique Case I.D. No. DLNW010000642006
RC No. 21 E/2005/EOWII.N.Delhi
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
CBI Vs. 1. Ramesh Chandra
S/o Shri Agya Ram
R/o CD52F, DDA Flats,
LIG, Hari Nagar,
Delhi110064
2. Narayan Dutt Kaushik
S/o Shri Braham Dutt Kaushik
R/o H.No. 2A, Civil Lines Enclave
Gurgoan (Haryana)
3. Prem Narain Sharma
S/o Late Shri Ram Singh Sharma
R/o Flat No. 231, PocketV,
Mayur Vihar PhaseI, Delhi.
4. Narayan Diwakar
S/o Late Shri Chatti Lal
R/o G30, Maszid Moth
Greater KailashII
New Delhi110048.
P1/59
2
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
5. Arjun Singh
S/o Shri Ram Swaroop
R/o H.No. 12, Block9,
Spring Field Colony,
Sector31, Faridabad
(Haryana)
6. Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj
S/o Late Shri Vidya Bhushan Bhardwaj
R/o 256, Sector7, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi110022
7. Jasvir Singh Sindhu
S/o Shri Bharat Singh
R/o A315, Meera Bagh,
Paschim Vihar,
Delhi110081.
Date of Institution : 08.12.2006
Date of conclusion
of arguments : 11.08.2016
Date of Judgment : 16.09.2016
Judgment
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that vide order dt.
02.08.2005, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 10066/2004 has
directed the CBI to conduct the investigation with respect to illegal and unlawful
revival of defunct 135 Cooperative Group Housing Societies (CGHS). As per
P2/59
3
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
the the out come of the preliminary enquiry, instant case was registered by the
CBI against Janki Kunj CGHS (hereinafter be referred as ' said society').
The said society, earlier known as Delhi College of Engineering
Teachers CGHS Ltd. has been registered under registration No. 22 (GH) on
13.4.1971 by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi. The Delhi College of
Engineering Teachers CGHS Ltd. with 28 promoter members was having
registered address at Kashmere Gate, Delhi. As per the byelaws of the
society, the membership of the society had been restricted to teachers of Delhi
College of Engineering. The original file of the said society had either been
destroyed or removed by the unscrupulous persons in connivance with RCS
officials. From the copies of the some of the documents of the society, it is
revealed that the said society had been wound up/liquidated on 4.8.1979 as it
failed to muster the strength of 50 members which was the basic requirement of
the allotment of land to the said society.
After about 24 years of the liquidation of the said society, the
accused Arjun Singh (A5) impersonated as P.K. Jain, President of the society
submitted an application dt. 21.4.2003 to the Registrar Cooperative Society
(RCS) in which it was mentioned that the society had been registered on
13.4.1971 with 15 promoter members and the strength of the said society has
since been enhanced to 140. In the said letter, it has also been mentioned that
in an extraordinary general body meeting convened by the Management
P3/59
4
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
Committee on 18.2.2003, the committee had formally withdrawn the earlier
AGM Resolution dt. 2.3.1979 which was resolved to wind up the society and
had authorized to make an appeal to RCS to allow the society for onward
transmission to DDA for allotment of land. It has also been mentioned that in
the Special Annual General Meeting held on 15.3.2003, the byelaws had been
amended and the name of the society had been changed to Janki Kunj CGHS
Ltd. with its address at 3/109, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
It is further the case of the prosecution that the said society was
earlier registered with North Zone. The accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj (A6),
Dealing Assistant recorded a note on 19.6.2003 to the effect that the file of the
said society was not traceable in the East Zone and so an approval to
reconstruct the same with the help of the records be made available by the
society. The accused Ramesh Chandra (A1) the then Assistant Registrar
(East) ordered for the tracing of the file and marked it to A6. A6 submitted
another note dt. 26.6.2003 that the file could not be traced in the North Zone
and suggested to circulate to other Zones to locate the file which was approved
by A1. Accordingly, a circular dt. 1.7.2003 was issued by A1 to Assistant
Registrars of all the Zones in which the file number of East Zone was
fraudulently mentioned by him though it had never been in the East Zone. A6
recorded a note on 22.7.2003 proposing for the reconstruction of the file as the
main file of the said society could not be located in all the Zones. A1 endorsed
P4/59
5
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
the said noting and submitted the file to Rakesh Bhatnagar, the then Joint
Registrar (East) who remarked on 25.7.2003 as to whether circular had been
issued to all the Zones to trace out the said file. A1 and A6 reported on the
same day that the circular had been sent to all the branches, but no reply had
been received and that the file had been entered in the computer software old
list at serial number 22 prepared by EDP. Rakesh Bhatnagar submitted the file
to the accused Narayan Diwakar (A4), the then Registrar Cooperative Society
on 30.7.2003. Accordingly, a letter dt. 13.8.2003 which was prepared by A6
and signed by A1 was sent to the said society at the address 3/109, Lalita
Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi with the directions to submit the records for the
reconstruction of the file of the society. The said society was never in existence
at this address. On 26.8.2003, A5 impersonated himself as Pradeep Kumar
Jain, President of the society submitted the documents of the society to A1.
The accused Prem Narayan Sharma (A3) and A5 fraudulently obtained the
original records of the society from the RCS, got it xeroxed, altered and
manipulated and attested the same as purported office bearers of the society.
A3 impersonated as Sushil Kumar, Secretary of the society had submitted a
representation dt. 10.10.2003 to the effect that the society was never put under
liquidation and requested for the deletion of the society from the list of liquidated
societies from the RCS website on the computer. The said representation was
marked by A1 to A6 with the directions to put up the same immediately. But,
P5/59
6
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
this representation was never put up in the file by A6.
It is further the case of the prosecution that A6 vide his note dt.
15.9.2003 suggested the appointment of Shri M.P. Bajaj as an Inspector for
inspection of the said society U/s 54 of DCS Act. The file was submitted by A1
through the accused J.S. Sandhu (A7) the then Joint Registrar and A4
approved the same on 24.9.2003. Shri M.P. Bajaj had expressed his inability to
conduct the inspection and therefore, the accused Narayan Dutt Kaushik (A2),
the then Inspecting Officer was deputed for inspection vide order dt. 06.01.2004
with the approval of A4. A2 has submitted the false/bogus report on
16.01.2004.
It is the further case of the prosecution that A6 vide his note dt.
20.01.2004 submitted the inspection report of A2 and proposed for sending a
letter to the said society to submit the documents for verification of the list of
members for onward transmission to DDA. Then, A1 sent a letter dt.
21.01.2004 to the President/Secretary of the society and in response to the said
letter false/fabricated documents were submitted to the RCS and the same
were put up in the file by A6 vide his note dt. 8.3.2004. There is no forwarding
letter about the records of the society, but there is an affidavit dt. 4.3.2004
jointly signed by A3 as Sushil Kumar, Secretary, and by A5 as P.K. Jain,
President respectively. A note dt. 8.3.2004 was put up by A6 which was
endorsed by A1 on 10.3.2004 in which it was stated that the records of the
P6/59
7
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
society had been verified from the original file and found to be in order and that
the file may be submitted to the RCS for his approval.
A7 vide his note dt. 11.3.2004 dishonestly and fraudulently
recommended for the approval of change of name of the society from Delhi
College of Engineering Teachers CGHS Ltd. to Janki Kunj CGHS Ltd. and list
of 140 bogus members of a wound up and liquidated society, instead of revival
of the society and submitted the file to A4 who has approved the same on
12.03.2004 after ignoring the true and correct facts relating to the said society.
A1 forwarded the list of 140 members vide his letter dt. 18.3.2004 to the
Assistant Registrar (Policy) for onward transmission to DDA for allotment of
land. Assistant Registrar (Policy) forwarded a consolidated list of 35 societies
including the said society vide his letter dt. 25.03.2004 to the DDA for allotment
of land.
It is further the case of the prosecution that as per the minutes of
the General Body Meeting held on 16.9.2003 submitted to the RCS, P.K. Jain
has been shown to have been elected as President, Sushil Kumar as Secretary,
R.K. Gautam as Vice President, Smt. Sushma Kaur, Smt. Kalawati and
Mohinder Singh Executive members and M.C. Arya as Treasurer and these all
are fictitious and nonexistent entities. The members enrolled by the fake
Management Committee of the said society have been found to be fake and
non existent at the given address. The signatures on applications and
P7/59
8
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
affidavits of all these fake members had been forged by A3 and A5. Further,
the original members namely V.K. Gupta and J.C. Bhatia who had been shown
as resigned on 17.4.1978 and 14.4.1078 were also shown as member of new
list without their knowledge and their signatures had also been forged on the
applications and affidavits.
It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused persons
had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the DDA for getting the land
from DDA at cheaper rate and in pursuance of that conspiracy, the documents
of the said society were forged and the bogus/fake list members of the said
society was approved and was sent to the DDA for allotment of the land to the
said society.
After completing the investigation, the chargesheet has been filed
against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/s 120B IPC r/w
sections 419, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) P.C. Act and
for substantive offences against A3 and A5 U/s 419, 420/511, 468, 471 of IPC
and for substantive offences against A1, A2, A4, A6 and A7 U/s 15 read with
section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C Act.
2. A1 to A7 were charged for the offence punishable U/s 120B
IPC, and U/s 120B IPC read with section 420/511, 419, 468, 471 IPC and
Section 15 read with section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C Act.
A3 and A5 were also charged for the offences punishable U/s
P8/59
9
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
420/511, 419, 468, 471 of IPC.
A1, A2, A4, A6 and A7 were also charged for the offences
punishable U/s 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) r/w section 15 of Prevention of
Corruption Act.
All the accused persons had pleaded not guilty to the charges and
claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution (CBI) has examined
118 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons have been recorded U/s 313
Cr.P.C. in which they have denied the case of the prosecution. Two witnesses
have been examined in defence by A6.
PW1 to PW78, PW80, PW81, PW107, PW112 are postmen
working in different areas of Delhi. These PWs have deposed that either the
alleged members of the Janki Kunj CGHS were not residing at the given
address or the addresses were found fake as no such address existed in their
respective areas.
PW79 Sh. Saroj Chandra Pradhan had deposed that he was
working as System Analyst in the office of RCS from April 2003 till April 2008.
Vide letter dated 27.09.06 which is Ex.PW79/A, he had provided the printouts of
the list of liquidated group housing societies which were there in the computer
records to the CBI which are Ex.PW79/B. There was no distinction in the
software between under liquidation and liquidated societies.
P9/59
10
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
In crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, PW79
had deposed that the entries shown in Ex.PW79/B were not made by him. He
do not have any knowledge as to who had made such entries and on which
dates. No hard disk of any computer from the department was seized by the
CBI. He do not have any knowledge whether the names of the societies
mentioned in the list Ex.PW79/B were actually liquidated or not. No certificate
was issued at the time of providing this list by him.
PW82 Ms. Kanwal Arora had deposed that she has been residing
along with her family at B250, PhaseIV, MIG Flats, Ashok Vihar, Delhi since
1988. Neither she nor her husband had ever rented the said house to any
person including Smt. Kalawati Devi W/o Sh. Pramod Kumar. She do not know
who is Smt. Kalawati Devi.
PW83 Sh. Dal Chand had deposed that he had been residing
along with her family at A244, Bunkar Colony, Ashok Vihar, PhaseIV, Delhi for
the last 1112 years. Neither he nor his family had ever rented the said house to
any person. No housing society including Janki Kunj CGHS was functioning
from his address.
PW84 Anil Kumar Tayal had deposed that he became the
member of Delhi College of Engineering in 1972. He had resigned from the said
society on 11.04.1978 and his resignation letter is mark PW84/C. He had
received Rs. 100/ as his share money. He had never attended the meeting of
P10/59
11
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
executive committee of the society on 30.01.79 [Page No. 445 of file no.
F.47/22/GH/E/RCS/(D7), Vol. II] which is mark PW84/E as he has already
resigned in the year 1978.
PW85 Shubaranjan Bhatacharya had deposed that he has been
residing at H. No. 15, PocketK, C.R. Park, New Delhi since 1997. He had never
applied for becoming a member in any housing society including Delhi College
of Engineering Teachers CGHS/Janki Kunj CGHS or any other society. He had
never filed any documents in any society nor he attended any meeting of any
such society. The application Ex.PW85/A is not in his handwriting and is not
signed by him and the particulars mentioned in this application are also incorrect
(Page 187/C, file D7, Vol. II). He has never filed any affidavit which is
Ex.PW85/B (Page 326/C, file D7, Vol. II) and it also does not bear his
signatures.
PW86 Sushil Pathak had deposed that he had been residing at
3/109, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi92 since 2000. From this address, no
society including Delhi College of Engineering Teachers CGHS/Janki Kunj
CGHS or any other society was working. He had never received any
letter/communication either on behalf of the society or from the RCS or from the
DDA. No official from the RCS has ever visited his premises for any purpose
whatsoever. He had never received the letter dated 21.01.04 which is mark
PW86/X (Page 127, file D2, Vol. I). No person by the name of N.D. Kaushik
P11/59
12
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
from RCS office ever visited his house.
In crossexamination on behalf of accused N.D. Kaushik, PW86
had deposed that the premises no. 3/109, Lalita Park is four storeyed and all are
occupied by their family. He had one office at 4/193, Lalita Park but it was
closed in the year 2012. He had denied the suggestion that N.D. Kaushik came
to his office for society purpose in the year 2004.
PW87 Sat Narayan Sharma had deposed that he had purchased
the H. No. 3/109, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi in the year 1995 from one Shri
Sardul Singh. He had sold the half portion of this house to one Sh. Sushil
Pathak in the year 2000 and remaining half portion is still with him. From this
address, no society including Delhi College of Engineering Teachers
CGHS/Janki Kunj CGHS or any other society was working. He had never
received any letter/communication either on behalf of the aforesaid society or
from RCS or from DDA. No official from RCS ever visited his residence for any
purpose whatsoever. No meeting/inspection was held in his premises on behalf
of the aforesaid society.
PW88 V.K. Bansal had deposed that he remained posted at the
office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi w.e.f. 31.01.2004 to
31.05.2008 as Assistant Registrar at Parliament Street, New Delhi. He had
deposed as to practice in the RCS office as to reconstruction of the file,
provisions in the D.C.S. Act and Rules regarding registration of Cooperative
P12/59
13
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
Societies, as to the procedure of the resignations of the members from the
societies, as to the audit and elections of the society and as to the winding up of
the Cooperative Group Housing Societies. He has also deposed that after the
year 1985, the registration of the CGHS societies was not done as DDA was not
having sufficient land.
In the crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, PW88
had deposed that a liquidator is first required to be appointed by the RCS and
liquidation can be said to be completed only when the liquidator completes its
liquidation proceedings and submit its report to the RCS and thereafter RCS
passes a formal order declaring the society to be liquidated. Freeze list means
the list which comes from the society and approved by the Registrar. The
members of the society keeps on changing as per the rules. The members are
added in the society by the management as per the rules. He had not personally
dealt with the file of Delhi College of Engineering Teachers CGHS/Janki Kunj
CGHS at any point of time.
PW89 Prem Prakash Chandel had deposed that there was no
quarter bearing no. 1320 in TypeI, Jal Vihar Colony, New Delhi.
PW90 Satish Kumar Arora had deposed that he has been residing
at Flat No. 250, SFS, PhaseIV, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi since 2002. He has
purchased the said flat from one Ms. Shanti Batra. He do not know any person
by the name of Smt. Kalawati Devi W/o Sh. Pramod Kumar. She had never
P13/59
14
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
stayed in his flat. He never rented out this premises to any person.
PW91 O.P. Aggarwal had deposed that H. No. F63, Chitra Vihar
does not exist in their area as there is no such block.
PW92 Krishan Lal had deposed that there is no house bearing no.
194 in EBlock, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi.
PW93 Rohit Sharma had deposed that he had been residing at
250, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, PhaseIV, New Delhi since his birth. He do not
know any person by the name of Smt. Kalawati Devi W/o Sh. Pramod Kumar.
She is neither his relative nor family member.
PW94 Anjum Masood had deposed that presently he is posted as
Sr. Superintendent, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Prior to
this, he was posted as Assistant Registrar (East) and also on other various
posts in the same office from the year 2003 to 2006. He had handed over the
documents/files of this case to the CBI vide document Ex.PW94/A (D19). He
had handed over the file Vol. I (D2) of Janki Kunj CGHS to the CBI which is
Ex.PW94/A1. He had also handed over the file Vol. II (D7) of Janki Kunj CGHS
to the CBI which is Ex.PW94/A2.
As per the resolution mark PW94/B (Page 65/C, Vol. I), the said
society was meant only for teaching staff of Delhi College of Engineering.
Registration certificate of the said society is Ex.PW94/B1 (Page 8/C, Vol. I).
The byelaws of the society are Ex.PW94/B2 (Page 9/C to 16/C, Vol. I). He has
P14/59
15
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
proved the letter received in the RCS office from the President of the society as
Ex.PW94/B3 (Page 1C, 2C of Vol. I). As per the registration certificate of the
society, the address of the society is mentioned as Post Office Kashmere Gate,
Tehsil and Distt. Delhi. The said area falls under North Zone of RCS. There is
no letter/record regarding intimation of the society for change of the name or
shifting of the address to 3/109, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. There is no
order/noting regarding dealing the said file in East Zone. He has proved the
notesheet pages 1/N to 4/N of Ex.PW94/A1 as Ex.PW94/B4 (colly.). Letter
dated 13.08.03 which is Ex.PW94/B5 regarding reconstruction of the file of the
society was written to the Secretary/President of the society. This letter has
been signed by the accused Sh. Ramesh Chandra. In response to this letter,
one letter was filed on behalf of the society by the President Sh. P.K. Jain which
is Ex.PW94/B6. He has also proved the notesheet pages 5/N to 9/N of
Ex.PW94/A1 as Ex.PW94/B11. He has proved the letter dated 14.10.03,
12.12.03, 22.12.03 (Page 117/C, 120/C and 122/C, Vol. I) as Ex.PW94/B12 to
Ex.PW94/B14 respectively. Vide order dated 06.01.04 which is Ex.PW94/B15,
Sh. N.D. Kaushik was appointed as Inspecting Officer and inspection report
dated 06.01.04 is Ex.PW94/B16 (Page 126/C to 124/C, Vol. I). He has also
proved notesheet pages 11/N to 18/N dated 08.03.2004 of Ex.PW94/A1 as
Ex.PW94/B17. Vide order dated 18.03.04 (Page 458, File D7) which is
Ex.PW94/C, freeze list of 140 members of Janki Kunj CGHS was sent for
P15/59
16
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
allotment of land.
In crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, PW94
had deposed that N.D. Kaushik had not signed the inspection report in his
presence. N.D. Kaushik had not worked with him during his entire tenure. While
performing his duties as Assistant Registrar in the office of RCS, certain files
comes to his knowledge for different reason where he got the opportunity to see
the writing and signatures of N.D. Kaushik. He do not remember now any
specific file, in which he had come across the writing and signatures of Sh. N.D.
Kaushik. Ex.PW106/D143 (page 125/C of file Ex.PW94/A1) is an inspection
report. It is correct that signatures of Inspecting Officer is not appearing on the
said report vol. this is an inspection report of the society and the AR marked the
letter to N.D. Kaushik to inspect the society, so on the basis of that they can
presume that inspection report was submitted by him, however, he do not know
why he had not signed. It is the full inspection report signed by the office bearer
and the Inspecting Officer has not signed the same. This report is not
handwritten and it is typed one. Ex.PW106/D144 is an unaudited account for
the year 31.04.1978 to 31.03.2003 and it is not signed by N.D. Kaushik. He had
joined East Zone around the month of August/September 2004 and J.S. Sandhu
was not posted at the time he has joined the office of RCS. Some files were
seized by the CBI in the office and some files were taken to the office of the CBI.
The seizure memo (D19) regarding the files has been prepared by the CBI. He
P16/59
17
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
had not been shown VolumeIII in the court. He had denied the suggestion that
he had replaced the original noting after page 18/N and replaced it with a fake
noting at page 19/N. He was not returned VolumeIII by the CBI at any point of
time after he handed over the same to them. During his tenure two Joint
Registrars were posted. It is correct that the work of Joint Registrar was to assist
the Registrar. It is correct that the Joint Registrar supervises the work of various
branches falling under his jurisdiction. It is correct that the Incharge of each
branch is Assistant Registrar. It is correct that the movement of file goes from
the dealing assistant in the particular branch then to Assistant Registrar who
puts the file to Joint Registrar and then the files are marked to Registrar of Co
operative Societies. It is correct that the last note dated 11.08.05 on the note
sheet page 19/N of file (D2) was written by him in the capacity of being
Assistant Registrar (East).
PW95 Prof. S.K. Majumdar had deposed that he was Professor in
Delhi College of Engineering. He became the member of the society of
Teaching Staff of Delhi College of Engineering and the byelaws of the society
are Ex.PW94/B2. The society was registered in the year 1971 and he became
the member of the said society after 1975. The registration certificate of the
society is Ex.PW94/B1. The society was liquidated and he had taken his
deposits back from the society. The name of the society was never changed
from Delhi College of Engineering Teachers CGHS to Janki Kunj CGHS. He had
P17/59
18
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
attended the proceedings dated 18.07.80 of the society which is Ex.PW95/A
[Page 114/C and 113/C of Vol. I (D2)]. The names of the persons appearing in
the list of members of Janki Kunj CGHS [Ex.PW95/B (D3)] except J.C. Bhatia
were never the members in their society. After receiving share money, he had
never attended any meeting. His signatures appearing in the list of members
Ex.PW95/E [page 44/C to 387/C, file (D7)] are forged. They had to surrender
the land/society as they were running shortage of minimum members.
PW96 Ved Prakash Mishra had deposed that he was Professor in
Delhi College of Engineering and became the member of the said society and
he has proved the documents of the Delhi College of Engineering Teachers
CGHS.
PW97 Y.V.S.R. Shastry was also the member of the Delhi College
of Engineering Teachers CGHS and he had deposed on the same lines as
PW95. He has also deposed that in the proceedings Ex.PW97/A (page 112), his
name is appearing at serial number 2 and the initials against his name are not
his signatures and somebody has tried to make the same. He has proved the
proceedings. The proceedings were usually written in the register and they were
not pasted in the manner which are appearing in the proceedings shown to him
i.e. Ex. PW94/B9 (at Page 110/C and 111/C). Ex.PW96/C (at Page 107/C and
106/C, Ex. PW96/G1 (at Page 95/C), Ex.PW97/B (at Page 94), Ex.PW97/C (at
Page 90/C), Ex.PW96/F1 (at Page 88/C), Ex.PW96/D (at Page 86/C),
P18/59
19
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
Ex.PW97/D (at Page 83/C), Ex.PW97/E (at Page 82/C), Ex.PW97/F (at Page 80
and 79/C), Ex.PW96/F (at Page 64/C) and Ex.PW97/G (at Page 62/C). He do
not remember whether he participated in the proceedings after the refund of
money.
PW98 Dhanpat Rai Gupta was also the Professor in Delhi College
of Engineering and was also the member of Delhi College of Engineering
Teacher CGHS. He had deposed that the said society was wound up
somewhere in the year 1978. He resigned from the society and got back his
share money and other deposits. Thereafter, he was not associated with this
society. During the period i.e. 197778, there was no provision of photocopy,
however, they used to cut stencils for cyclostyling the papers.
PW99 J.C. Bhatia had deposed that he was Professor in Delhi
College of Engineering and became the member of Delhi College of Engineering
Teachers CGHS. The society was dissolved in the year 1978 or 1979. He had
never attended any meeting on 18.07.1980 which is Ex.PW95/A and in the
proceedings of the said meeting his name is mentioned at serial number 1 in the
list of members who had attended the meeting. The proceedings are false. The
name of the persons appearing in the list of members of Janki Kunj CGHS
[which is Ex.PW95/B (D3)] were not teachers in the Delhi College of
Engineering. His name in the said list is mentioned at serial number 2, however,
the rest of the particulars are wrong. After the society was dissolved, no meeting
P19/59
20
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
was held for the revival of the society and no further meeting was held for
introducing new members. He had never attended any meetings of the society
in which the proceedings Ex.PW99/B and Ex.PW99/C has taken place. At serial
number 57 in the list of members of Janki Kunj CGHS which is Ex.PW95/E, his
name is mentioned, however rest of the particulars are wrongly mentioned. He
has never filed any affidavit Ex.PW106/D98 and he has never filed any
application Ex.PW99/D [Page 243/C, (D7)].
PW100 Mohinder Pal Bajaj had deposed that he was posted in the
office of RCS (SouthWest Zone) from November 2000 to November 2004. He
was appointed as Inspecting Officer in Janki Kunj CGHS vide order dated
14.10.03 which is Ex.PW94/B12. He has not conducted the inspection in the
Janki Kunj CGHS and has requested the concerned Assistant Registrar (East)
Sh. Ramesh Chandra to appoint some other official to conduct this inspection
and request letter is Ex.PW94/B13. Accordingly, Sh. N.D. Kaushik, GradeIII
was appointed as Inspecting Officer vide letter dated 06.01.2004 which is
Ex.PW94/B15 under the signatures of Sh. Ramesh Chandra.
PW101 Mahinder Singh Verma had deposed that he was posted
in the office of RCS from the year 2002 to 2005. At that time, N.D. Kaushik was
Dealing Assistant. He had worked with him for the period of one and half year.
He cannot identify signatures of N.D. Kaushik, Dealing Assistant or of AR (East)
Sh. Ramesh Chandra.
P20/59
21
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
In crossexamination by Ld. PP for CBI, PW101 has denied the
suggestion that he has identified the signatures of N.D. Kaushik in his inspection
report dated 16.01.04 and he has also denied the suggestion that he has
identified the handwriting and signatures of Ramesh Chandra on note sheet and
on the letters.
PW102 Vinay Kumar Behl had deposed that he remained posted
in the East Zone for the period on one month as UDC. Vide order dated
21.05.96 which is Ex.PW102/A (Page 173 of D12), he was appointed as a
liquidator on the society mentioned therein and at serial number 1, Delhi College
of Engineering CGHS Ltd. is mentioned.
In crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, PW102
had deposed that he had not taken any action on this letter as he was
transferred within a month from the department. He do not know whether society
was liquidated or not as he had handed over the charge.
PW103 Suresh Chander Singh Bisht had deposed that he was
given the charge of liquidation society from previous liquidator Smt. S.L.
Gambhir and the said charge report is Ex.PW103/B (page 133 to 130, D12). In
the list, the name of Delhi College of Engineering is mentioned at serial number
18. Vide order dated 21.05.96 which is Ex.PW102/A, he was transferred and
one Mr. V.K. Behl was appointed as liquidator of the society.
In crossexamination by the accused persons, PW103 had
P21/59
22
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
deposed that the liquidation proceedings of the society has not been completed
by him. He had not taken any action in respect of the said society pertaining to
liquidation process as he handed over the charge along with the record to his
successor.
PW104 Poonam Suri had deposed that she had joined the office
of RCS in the year 200304 and at that time J.S. Sandhu was the Joint
Registrar. She had identified the signatures/initials of J.S. Sandhu on the note
sheet portion at page 5/N, 8/N, 9/N, 18/N in the file Ex.PW94/A1.
PW105 Raj Pal Kapoor had deposed that he became the member
of the society of Delhi College of Engineering and proved the byelaws of the
society as Ex.PW94/B2 and the registration certificate of the society as
Ex.PW94/B1. In the said society, he remained as General Secretary for
sometime. He has proved his letters dated 10.04.78 and 04.09.78 which are
Ex.PW105/A and Ex.PW94/B1 in file Ex.PW94/A1. These letters were written
by him to the Registrar for amending byelaws of the society as members were
less than 50. However, the byelaws of the society were never amended and the
society was closed as it was not functioning.
PW106 Dr. Ravinder Sharma, Assistant Director and Scientific
CFSL, Shimla had deposed that he was working as Forensic Expert for the last
23 years. He has examined this case in the laboratory of GEQD Chandigarh in
the year 2006. He has proved his report as Ex.PW106/B. He has proved the
P22/59
23
CC No. 12/08
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016
(Janki Kunj CGHS)
questioned documents (D7, Vol. II, Page 366/C to 245/C) which were sent for
analysis as Ex.PW106/D, Ex.PW106/D1 to D156. He has proved the specimen
writing received in the laboratory purported to be of Prem Narayan Sharma as
Ex.PW109/A (colly.) (S1 to S296, S106A to S106D and S526 to S797). He
has proved the specimen writing received in the laboratory purported to be of
Arjun Singh as Ex.PW109/D (colly.) (S297 to S525).
In his report, PW106 has opined as follows :
1.The writings in the enclosed portions stamped and marked Q1, Q2, Q4, Q5, Q7, Q8, Q10 to Q15, Q18 to Q21, Q26 to Q39, Q42 to Q47, Q52 to Q69, Q72, Q72A, Q73 to Q87, Q90 to Q95, Q98, Q99, Q102 to Q105, Q108 to Q115, Q118, Q119, Q122 to Q143, Q146, Q147, Q210, Q211, Q220, Q221, Q234 to Q241, Q248 to Q251, Q254, Q255, Q262, Q263, Q269, Q282 to Q288, Q290, Q292 to Q295, Q417, Q419, Q423, S1 to S296, s106A, S106B, S106C, S106D and S526 to S797 were all written by one and the same person.
2. The writings in the enclosed portions stamped and marked Q3, Q6, Q9, Q19B, Q51A, Q150, Q151, Q154, Q155, Q158, Q159, Q166 to Q171, Q178 to Q181, Q184 to Q187, Q198, Q199, Q230 to Q233, Q258, Q259, Q266, Q267, Q272 to Q275, Q278 to Q281, Q289, Q291, Q300, Q415, Q416, Q418, Q420, Q422 and S297 to S525 were all written by one and the same person.
P23/59 24 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS)
3. It has not been possible to express any opinion on rest of the items on the basis of material supplied.
PW108 Vijay Kumar Gupta had deposed that he became the member of the society of Teaching Staff of Delhi College of Engineering. The society was liquidated. He had taken the deposits back from the society. He has proved his resignation letter as Ex.PW108/A. The society was wound up somewhere in the year 197879. He has not attended any proceedings (Ex.PW94/B9) where the decision was taken to continue the society. He had never filed any affidavit (Ex.PW106/D97, Page 386/C, D7) or any document in the year 200304 after he received back his money. He has also not filed any application which is Ex.PW108/B (Page 244/C, file D7).
PW109 Vishwa Mitter Bhagi had deposed that he was working as Administrative Officer in the office of RCS in the year 2006. He had witnessed the taking of specimen handwriting and signatures in this case of P.N. Sharma and of Arjun Singh. The specimen signatures sheets from S1 to S797 pertaining to accused P.N. Sharma are Ex.PW109/A (colly.) The specimen signatures sheets pertaining to Arjun Singh from S297 to S525 are Ex.PW109/B (colly.) In crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, PW109 had deposed that he had been made a witness by the CBI in the specimen handwriting and signatures in about 2530 cases. He is not personally P24/59 25 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) acquainted with the handwriting and the signatures of P.N. Sharma and Arjun Singh. He had denied the suggestion that he had signed the pages at the instance of the IO and he had not witnessed the taking of specimen handwriting/signatures.
PW110 Surender Kumar Abrol from Cooperative Bank has proved the statement of account of Delhi College of Engineering Teachers CGHS as Ex.PW110/B. The status of the said account was inoperative.
PW111 Neeraj Kumar Retired IPS has proved his sanction for prosecution against the accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj as Ex.PW111/A. He had deposed that he has received the case file along with statement of witnesses and relevant documents from the CBI. After going through the same and applying his mind, he accorded the sanction for prosecution against the accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj.
PW114 B.N. Mishra had deposed that he was Professor in Delhi College of Engineering and he became the member of the society of Delhi College of Engineering Teachers CGHS. He has also deposed that the proceedings dated 18.07.80 are the false proceedings as he has never attended any such meeting on 18.07.1980. In the society, he was Secretary for a short period of time and he had written some of the proceedings which were held at that point of time. He has never filed any affidavit Ex.PW97/X. The proceedings Ex.PW97/F, Ex.PW97/E, Ex.PW96/D (D2, Vol. I) are tempered proceedings.
P25/59 26 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) PW115 Insp. Rajendiran had deposed that he has handed over the files Ex.PW94/A1 and Ex.PW94/A2 to Insp. L. Hanshing vide memo D20.
PW116 Rajneesh Tingal had deposed that in the present case, sanction order for prosecution was granted against the accused J.S. Sandhu, who at the time of grant of sanction was Jr. Administrative Officer, GradeII, Delhi. He had authenticated the sanction order on behalf of the President of India. He has proved the said sanction order as Ex.PW116/A. At the time when he signed the said sanction order, he had also gone through the file concerning this. Sanction order was granted on the basis of the documents and statements provided by the CBI.
PW117 L. Hangshing is the Investigating Officer of the case. He had deposed that the FIR in this case was registered on 29.11.05. Since then, investigation was handed over to him. The FIR is Ex.PW117/A. Vide memo dated 27.03.06 which is Ex.PW117/B, approved list of 140 members of Janki Kunj CGHS (Ex.PW95/B) was seized. Vide letter dated 12.08.05 which is Ex.PW94/A (D19), the file of Janki Kunj CGHS Ex.PW94/A1 and Ex.PW94/A2 were seized. He has proved the copy of the letter dated 03.08.05 of the Hon'ble High Court as Ex.PW117/F (D16). He has proved the letters dated 05.08.05 (D
17) and dated 30.08.06 (D15) as Ex.PW117/G and Ex.PW110/A respectively. He has proved the undelivered speed post letters/notices (D18) which were sent to the members of the society of Janki Kunj CGHS by him as Ex.PW117/H P26/59 27 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) 1 to H56. The specimen signatures of the accused P.N. Sharma and Arjun Singh were taken in his presence. The sanction orders against the accused J.S. Sandhu, V.K. Bhardwaj and N.D. Kaushik were obtained during the investigation. After investigation, he has filed the chargesheet in the court.
In crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, PW117 had deposed that there is no order of the Hon'ble High Court for the registration of the FIR in this case. It is not a case of revival of the society. A list of non existent members was sent to the DDA by the RCS office for allotment of land. No land was allotted to the society. He had verified regarding the address i.e. 3/109, Lalita Park, Delhi and it was found that from the address the society Janki Kunj was not functioning. He had denied the suggestion that the inspection report was not prepared and signed by the accused Narayan Dutt Kaushik. Accused P.N. Sharma and accused Arjun Singh were Government servants. Accused P.N. Sharma was posted as an officer in Ministry of Housing and Urban and Poverty Alleviation. Accused Arjun Singh was posted as Assistant Private Secretary to the Minster of Small Scale Industry, Government of India. The name of accused Arjun Singh and P.N. Sharma are not mentioned in FIR. He had not cited VolumeIII in the list of documents. He do not know whether VolumeIII is at present. It might have been deposited in Malkhana of CBI. He do not remember whether he had taken the admitted writing of accused Arjun Singh and P.N. Sharma. He do not remember whether he had obtained any P27/59 28 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) permission from the concerned Magistrate or Special Judge for obtaining specimen writings of the accused P.N. Sharma and Arjun Singh. He had made investigation regarding original file but it could not be traced out.
PW118 Satya Gopal had deposed that in 2006, he was posted as Registrar in the Cooperative Society, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. He has granted sanction U/s 19(1)(C) of P.C. Act for the prosecution of N.D. Kaushik. He has proved the sanction order dated 20.11.06 as Ex.PW118/A. He had also deposed that in the present case, the CBI had sent the SP Report, the relevant documents and statements of witnesses recorded U/s 161 Cr. P.C. etc. The case was examined in the Vigilance Branch and thereafter submitted to him. After examining the said case and after applying his mind, he accorded the said sanction.
DW1 Gopal Bisht has deposed that he was posted in the RCS office Delhi from April 2000 to February 2004 in the capacity of LDC. As and when any file of society was not available in the RCS office, a circular is used to be issued to all the zones and branches to trace out the file. The Assistant Registrar used to write the letter to the society to produce the original record for the purpose of verification. It is the Assistant Registrar who used to verify the records with the originals produced by the society. There are no powers delegated to the dealing assistant in the matter pertaining to societies under the DCS Act and Rules. Dealing assistant used to work on the instructions of his P28/59 29 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) superior i.e. Assistant Registrar. When any report is submitted under section 54 of the DCS Act, such report is put up by the dealing assistant with his noting on the file of the society. The list of members after verification done by the Assistant Registrar and putting his signatures on such list is sent to the policy division.
DW2 Shri Shishir Choudhary has deposed that the work of administration in the RCS Office is being looked after by Asstt. Registrar Administration. He has proved a letter dt. 21.9.01 regarding posting of Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, UDC in the RCS office as Ex. DW2/DX. Thereafter, Shri V.K. Bhardwaj was transferred internally in the RCS Office in East Zone vide letter dt. 15.4.02 which is Ex. DW2/DX1.
4. I have heard Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI and Ld. Counsels for the accused persons. A1 has himself advanced the arguments. I have perused the file and the judgments filed on behalf of the parties.
Ld. Senior PP for the CBI has argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. All the accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the DDA for getting the land from DDA at cheaper rate and in pursuance of that conspiracy the documents of the said society were forged, bogus list of members of the said society was approved and the same was sent to the DDA for allotment of land to the said society.
P29/59 30 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) A1 has argued that he has not played any role in the forgery of the alleged documents. He has done his duties as per DCS Act and Rules. He has dealt the file of the said society in the normal routine manner. There is no evidence on record to show that he has played any role in the alleged conspiracy. There is no sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C. against him and so his prosecution is bad in law.
Ld. Counsel for A2 has argued that the inspection report does not bear the signatures of A2 and there is also no letter on record showing the appointment of A2 as Inspecting Officer of the said society. There is no evidence on record to show his link with the alleged offences and also that he has filed the false inspection report. A2 is known as Narayan Dutt Kaushik. The signatures appearing on the inspection report is that of N.D. Kaushik and so it does not pertain to A2. The alleged sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C. against A2 is not a valid sanction as it has not been obtained from the competent authority. The sanction has been granted mechanically and without application of mind.
Ld. Counsel for A3 and A5 has argued that A3 and A5 has been falsely implicated in the case by the CBI by manipulating their specimen signatures/handwritings. The alleged specimen writing/signatures does not pertain to them. Both the accused persons have no role in the management of the said society as they are neither the member nor are in the management of the society. The FSL report against them is not reliable as there is no evidence P30/59 31 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) on record to corroborate the findings of the expert's report and the report is also a manipulated document. The FSL/GEQD report is inadmissible in evidence as the CBI as no permission of the court has been taken in taking the specimen handwriting/signatures. The prosecution of both the accused persons is also bad as no sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C. and U/s 19 of the P.C. Act has been obtained against them. There is no evidence on record to prove that the accused persons had forged the alleged documents and has also filed any document before the office of RCS. The prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of A3 and A5 in the alleged offences.
Ld. Counsels for A4 and A7 have argued that in dealing with the file of the said society, A4 and A7 had done their duties in good faith and after taking all the necessary steps as per DCS Act and Rules. They have no reasons to disbelieve that the document/papers placed before them by their subordinate were not in order.
A4 has only approved the list of members of the said society as it is his duty to take the decision on the file sent by his subordinate with recommendation. In the file, there is no adverse remarks made by the Assistant Registrar or Joint Registrar on the proposed list. There is no evidence on record to prove that A4 and A7 were in conspiracy with the other accused persons to commit the alleged offences.
Ld. Counsel for A6 has argued that A6 has been falsely P31/59 32 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) implicated in the case as he has not committed any illegalities and has not violated any provisions of DCS Act or Rules thereunder. He has done his official duties in processing the file of the said society. The records were verified and checked by the Assistant Registrar as A6 was only a dealing assistant. A6 has no reasons to disbelieve the genuineness of the records filed on behalf of the said society as these records were verified/checked by Assistant Registrar. Sanction U/s 19 P.C. Act against A6 is not a valid sanction as it was not given by the competent authority and it has also been given mechanically and without application of mind. There is no evidence on record to prove that the accused has any role in the alleged conspiracy to commit the alleged offences.
5. It has been argued on behalf of A2, A6, and A7 that sanction orders against them are nonest in law as the same have not been obtained from the competent authority. It has been argued that the said sanction should have been taken from the official who was the competent authority at the time of commission of the alleged offence. The sanction order have been granted mechanically and without application of mind. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the Judgment Prakash Singh Badal and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2006 (4) Crl. 388 SC.
PW111, PW116 and PW118 had accorded the sanction for prosecution of A6, A7, A2 respectively. Perusal of their sanction orders shows that the sanctioning authority has given the reasons of granting the P32/59 33 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) sanction to the concerned officers and also perused the material and documents before granting the sanction, therefore, the sanctions do not suffer from any non application of mind.
The arguments of Ld. defence counsels that the sanction for prosecution should have taken from that particular official only who was posted as competent authority at the time of commission of alleged offences are without any merits. It is required to be seen whether the sanction U/s 19 of P.C. Act has been obtained from the competent authority or not. Moreover, merely because there is any omission, error, irregularities in the matter of according the sanction, that would not affect the validity of the proceeding unless such error, omission results in the failure of justice.(Relied upon in State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Rajmangal Ram {Criminal Appeal No. 709710 of 2010 (DOD: 31.3.14)}.
PW111, PW116, PW118 has been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons, but no such material has been come on record which would show that the sanction orders were not given by the competent authorities or there is a failure of justice.
6. It has also been argued on behalf of the accused persons A2, A6 and A7 that as no mandatory sanction has been obtained U/s 197 Cr.P.C., so these accused could not have been prosecuted for IPC offences.
It has been observed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Neera Yadav Vs. CBI (2006)2 All L.J. 442: P33/59 34 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) "For prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, once sanction under Section 19 of the said Act is granted, there is no necessity for obtaining further sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Where a public servant is sought to be prosecuted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B IPC and sanction under Section 19 of Act of 1988 has been granted, it is not at all required to obtain sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. from the State Government or any other authority merely because the public servant is also charged under Section 120B IPC.
The offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as charge of criminal conspiracy, cannot be said to constitute "acts in discharge of official duty".
It has also been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court Shri Vinod B Vs. K.S. Eshwarappa in criminal revision 224/14 (DOD 21.10.2014) that :
"Hence, it can be said that every case against a public servant, alleging an offence punishable under the provisions of the PC Act, can be presented only on obtaining a prior sanction under Section 19 of the said Act, but a sanction under Section 197 (1) of the Cr.P.C. Is not required to be obtained as a matter of course to initiate other criminal proceedings against a public servant, unless it is so expressly provided under any statute. "
P34/59 35 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) The Prevention of Corruption Act is a special statute. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and the fact that the P.C. Act is a special statute, I am of the opinion that as the sanction is given U/s 19 of the P.C. Act, so there is no requirement of again seeking sanction U/s 197 Cr. P.C. for prosecuting the accused persons.
7. A1 has also argued that the sanction U/s 197 Cr. P.C. for prosecution of A1 is required. As there is no such sanction in the case, so prosecution of A1 is bad in law. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.K. Ganguli Vs. CBI, 2015 (12) Scale 500 It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harihar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (1972)3 SCC 89.
"As far as offence of criminal conspiracy U/s 120B IPC was concerned, it could not said to be of the nature mentioned in section 197 Cr.P.C. meaning thereby it was not part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties, to enter into a criminal conspiracy or to indulge in criminal misconduct and therefore want of sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C. was not bar to prosecution."
In Rajib Ranjan and others Vs. R. Vijaykumar (2015) 1SCC 513 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"even while discharging his official duties, if a public servant enters into a criminal conspiracy or indulges in criminal misconduct, P35/59 36 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) such misdemeanour on his part is not to be treated as an act in discharge of his official duties and, therefore, provisions of Section 197 of the Code will not be attracted".
It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Pradhan Vs. State of Sikkam (2001) 6 SCC 704 :
"15 Thus, from a conspectus of the aforesaid decisions, it will be clear that for claiming protection under section 197 of the Code, it has to be shown by the accused that there is reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty. An official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. For invoking protection under section 197 of the Code, the acts of the accused complained of must be such that the same cannot be separated from the discharge of official duty, but if there was no reasonable connection between them and the performance of those duties, the official status furnishes only the occasion or opportunity for the acts, then no sanction would be required."
Keeping in view these judgments as A1 has also been charged for the offences to commit criminal conspiracy and his acts of concealment of material facts in the discharge of his duties and thereby fraudulently recommending the approval of the fake list of members of Janki Kunj CGHS cannot be said to be P36/59 37 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) the officials acts performed by him in the discharge of his official duties as there was no reasonable connection between these acts and the performance of his official duties. Accordingly, the protection of sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C. is not available to A1.
Sanction U/s 19 of P.C. Act was not required against A1 and A4 as they were not in service, when the charge sheet was filed for the purposes of taking cognizance.
8. Ld. Counsel for A3 and A5 has argued that A3 and A5 were Government Servants at the time of filing of charge sheet. There is no sanction U/s 19 of P.C. Act and U/s 197 Cr.P.C. against them and therefore they are liable to be acquitted.
PW117 has deposed that A3 and A5 were Government Servants. A3 was posted as officer in Ministry of Housing and Urban Alleviation and A5 was posted as Assistant Private Secretary to the Minister of Small Scale Industries, Government of India.
This argument of Ld. defence counsel is without any merits as A3 and A4 were not working in the office of RCS at the relevant time. The alleged offences cannot be said to have been committed by them being the public servant in discharge of their official duties as they have no connection with their official duties. Thus, there was no requirement for obtaining sanction U/s 19 of P.C. Act and U/s 197 Cr.P.C. against them.
P37/59 38 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS)
9. It has been argued on behalf of the accused persons that the registration of the FIR in the present case is illegal as no consent from the competent authority had been obtained. This argument is without any merits.
The FIR has been registered in the present case on the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dt. 2.8.05 in Civil Writ Petition No. 10066 of 2004. As per this order, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and after the conclusion of the preliminary enquiry, the FIR was registered. Therefore, there is no illegality on the aspect of registration of FIR.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights 2010 (2) SCALE 467 that High Court can direct CBI to investigate the offence without the consent of the State Government within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence is alleged to have taken place.
10. During investigation, questioned documents along with specimen handwriting/signatures of A3 and A5 were sent to CFSL Chandigarh. PW106 Dr. Ravinder Sharma who is handwriting expert has examined the questioned documents with the specimen handwriting/signatures of A3 and A5 and has proved his report as Ex.PW106/B. As per the FSL report Ex.PW106/B, the affidavit dt. 14.2.04 which is Ex. PW106/D140 has been signed by A3 as Sushil Kumar, Secretary. This affidavit filed with RCS is a material document as it gives details as to the P38/59 39 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) members of the society who have resigned and who were enrolled by the Managing Committee of the society.
As per the FSL report Ex.PW106/B, the affidavits of the members of the said society i.e. Ex. PW106/D, Ex. PW106/D1 to D139 has been signed by A3 and A5 in the name of fake members of the society by whom the said affidavits are allegedly shown to be signed.
As per the FSL report Ex.PW106/B, affidavit dt. 4.3.04 which is Ex. PW106/D141 filed with the RCS has been signed by A3 and A5 as Sushil Kumar, Secretary and P.K. Jain, President respectively; declaration Ex. PW106/D142 filed with the RCS has been signed by A3 as Sushil Kumar, Secretary; inspection report Ex. PW106/D143 and Ex.PW106/D144 has been signed by A3 as Sushil Kumar, Secretary; letter for removing the status of the society from the liquidation in the computer section which is Ex.PW94/B21 sent to A1 has been signed by A3 as Sushil Kumar, Secretary; letter for reconstruction of the file which is Ex. PW94/B6 sent to A1 has been signed by A5 as Pradeep Kumar Jain, President; final list of members of the said society which is Ex. PW95/B filed with the RCS has been signed by A3 and A5 as Sushil Kumar, Secretary and P.K. Jain, President respectively; the address 3/109, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi on the letter dt. 21.4.03 which is Ex. PW94/B3 praying that society to allow to get the list of members verified for allotment of land has been written by A5. Perusal of Ex.PW95/B also shows P39/59 40 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) that it is also signed by A1.
PW109 has witnessed the taking of specimen handwriting/signatures of A3 and A5 and has also proved their specimen handwriting/signatures in the court.
PW117 who is the investigating officer of the case has taken the specimen handwriting/signatures of A3 and A5 and has also proved the same in the court.
PW109 and PW117 has been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons but no such material has been come on record to show that the specimen handwriting/signatures does not belong to A3 and A5. Accordingly, it is proved that specimen handwriting/signatures are of A3 and A
5. Ld. counsel for A3 and A5 has argued that the specimen handwriting/signatures of A3 and A5 has been taken by investigating officer during the investigation without the permission of the court and it render the report Ex. PW106/B as inadmissible in evidence. I am of the opinion that this argument is without any merits as it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Singh @ Dara Singh Vs. Union of India AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1436 that the investigating officer has power to take specimen signatures during the investigation even without permission of the court and that report of such expert based on such specimen signatures/writing could be used as evidence.
P40/59 41 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) PW106 has been crossexamined by A3 and A5 at length and nothing has been come on record to show that he had not applied proper procedure for comparison purposes. The report Ex. PW106/B is a reliable document as it is well reasoned. In Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1980 SC 531 it has been held that : "There is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence through a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. (Cases law discussed)".
From the report Ex.PW106/B, it is evident that A3 has signed as Sushil Kumar, Secretary and A5 has signed as Pradeep Kumar Jain, President on the aforesaid documents and thereby they had prepared false/forged P41/59 42 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) documents of Janki Kunj CGHS to create fake members of the society for getting the allotment of land from the DDA.
11. Public servants i.e. A1, A2, A4, A6 and A7 have argued that whatever they have done in the file of the said society has been done in the discharge of their duties under the DCS Act and Rules thereunder. They have acted in good faith without any malafide intention and they have no means to evaluate the genuineness of the documents furnished on behalf of the said society. There is no evidence on record to connect them with the alleged offences.
To connect such public servants with the alleged offences, notings on the file are the vital piece of evidence. Evidential value of such notings has been recognized by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment of "Runo Ghosh T.Ramarao Vs. CBI.
There is no dispute with respect to note sheets and the signatures of these officials appearing thereon. The notings and the signatures of these officials have also been proved by PW94 and PW104.
12. It is also the defence of A2 that the inspection report Ex.PW94/B 16 does not bear his signatures and he has not signed any such report. There is no evidence on record to show that he has filed the false inspection report Ex. PW94/B16.
PW94 has deposed that A2 has been appointed as Inspecting P42/59 43 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) Officer in place of Shri M.P. Bajaj vide letter Ex. PW94/B15. The inspection report Ex. PW94/B16 bears the signature of A2. He identified the signatures of A2 as per the official record. The said inspection report was put up by A1 and A6 vide his noting dt. 20.1.2004 and the same was marked to A1.
In crossexamination on behalf of A2, PW94 has deposed that A 2 has not signed the report Ex. PW94/B16 in his presence. He has also deposed that while performing his duties as Assistant Registrar in the office of RCS certain files come to his knowledge for different reasons where he got the opportunity to see the writing and signatures of A2. A2 has not put any suggestion to PW94 that the inspection report Ex. PW94/B16 does not bear the signatures of A2.
Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act read as follows:
"Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant: When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
Explanation: A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that P43/59 44 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. "
PW94 was working as Assistant Registrar in the office of RCS and he has deposed that during the course of his duties, certain files comes to his knowledge where he got an opportunity to see the writing and signatures of A2. Accordingly, it can be said that PW94 was acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of A2 and so from his testimony, it is proved that inspection report Ex.PW94/B16 has been signed by A2.
The inspection report is in three pages. One of the page which is Ex.PW94/B16 and which contains the contents of inspection made by A2 bears signatures of A2. However, the other two pages which are Ex. PW106/D143 and D144 has not been signed by A2 but it bears the signatures of A3 who has signed as Sushil Kumar, Secretary. The inspection report Ex. PW94/B16 form the part of the noting 10/N which is Ex. PW94/B17 (colly.). This noting was put up by A6 and approved by A1. This inspection report was one of the basis for the approval of the list of members of Janki Kunj CGHS and therefore it was the material document.
A2 has submitted in the inspection report that he has visited at the office address of the society I.e.. 3/109, Lalita Pak, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi on P44/59 45 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) 8.1.04 and their he met Secretary of the society Shri Suhil Kumar.
PW86 has deposed that he has been residing at 3/109, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi since 2000. From this address, no society including Delhi College of Engineering Teachers CGHS/Janki Kunj CGHS was working. No official from the RCS has ever visited his premises for any purpose whatsoever. PW86 has denied the suggestion that A2 that A2 came to his office for society purpose in the year 2004.
From the testimony of PW86, it is proved that A2 has given the false inspection report Ex. PW94/B16 as on 8.1.04 there was no office address of the Janki Kunj CGHS at 3/109, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
A2 has also put a suggestion to PW86 that he came to his office for society purposes in the year 2004. By this suggestion, it appears that A2 wants to show that he has gone to the society for inspection purposes. This fact falsified the defence of A2 that he was not appointed as Inspecting Officer.
13. PW84, PW95 to PW99, PW105, PW108 and PW114 were the promoter members of the Delhi College of Engineering Teachers CGHS. From their testimonies, it is proved that Delhi College of Engineering Teachers CGHS has been registered in the year 1971 vide registration certificate Ex.PW94/B1. It is also proved that as per the byelaws of the Delhi College of Engineering Teachers CGHS which is Ex.PW94/B2, the membership of the society has been restricted to teachers of Delhi College of Engineering. These PWs has P45/59 46 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) also deposed that they have resigned from the society and has taken back their deposits from the society. The society had been become nonfunctional in the year 197879 as it failed to muster strength of 50 members which was the basic requirement of the allotment of the land to the society.
PW102 had deposed that vide order dated 21.05.96 which is Ex.PW102/A, he was appointed as liquidator of the Delhi College of Engineering CGHS.
PW103 had deposed that he was given the charge of liquidation society from previous liquidator Sh. S.L. Gambhir and has proved the said charge report as Ex.PW103/B. Vide order dated 21.05.06 which is Ex.PW102/A, he was transferred and Mr. V.K. Behl was appointed as liquidator of the society.
From the computer records of the RCS which is Ex. PW79/B, Delhi College of Engineering Teachers CGHS has been shown as liquidated.
The prosecution has not proved on record any liquidation order of the society, but from the testimonies of promoter members of the society, it is clear that the society has become defunct since 197879. From the testimonies of PW102 and PW103, it is evident that the society was under liquidation as they were appointed as liquidators of the society.
14. PW99 was the promoter member of the Delhi College of Engineering CGHS and has deposed that after the society was dissolved, no meeting was held for the revival of the society and no further meeting was held P46/59 47 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) for introducing new members. He had never attended any meetings of the Janki Kunj CGHS and has never filed any affidavit Ex.PW106/D98 nor any application Ex.PW99/D to become the member of the Janki Kunj CGHS. From his testimony, it is evident that his name has been entered fictitiously in the list of Janki Kunj CGHS which was sent to the DDA for allotment of the land.
As per the list of members of the society which has been sent by A3 and A5 for the approval of the RCS, one Sushil Kumar has been shown to be its member and his address has been shown as I320, Janta Quarter, Jal Vihar, New Delhi. However, PW89 had deposed that no such address exists at Jal Vihar Colony, New Delhi.
Similarly, Smt. Kalawati Devi has been shown to be its member and her address has been shown as 250, Ashok Vihar, PhaseIV, New Delhi. However, from the testimonies of PW82, PW90 and PW93, it is clear that no such person by the name of Smt. Kalawati had ever resided at this address.
Similarly, R.K. Gautam has been shown to be its member and his address has been shown as F63, Chandra Vihar, New Delhi. However, from the testimony of PW91, it is evident that this address does not exist in their area as there is no such block.
Similarly, P.K. Jain has been shown to be its member and his address has been shown as 194E, Gali No. 4, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi. However, from the testimony of PW92, it is clear that there is no house bearing P47/59 48 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) this address in Naveen Shahdara, Delhi.
Similarly, PW85 S. Bhattacharya has been shown as a member in the list of members of the Janki Kunj CGHS but he had deposed that he had never applied for becoming a member in any housing society including Delhi College of Engineering Teachers CGHS/Janki Kunj CGHS. He has not signed the application Ex.PW85/A and has never filed any affidavit which is Ex.PW85/B to become the member of the said society.
From the testimonies of PW1 to PW78, PW80, PW81, PW107, PW112 and PW113 who were postmen, it is proved that either the members mentioned in the list were not residing at the given addresses or the addresses were found fake as no such address exists in their area.
From all these prosecution witnesses, it is proved by the prosecution that the list of 140 members of the Janki Kunj CGHS which has been sent by A3 and A5 to the RCS is fictitious and fake.
15. One request letter dated 21.04.03 which is Ex.PW94/B3 alleged to be sent by one Pradeep Kumar Jain, President of Janki Kunj CGHS to the RCS to get the list of members verified for onward transmission to the DDA for the allotment of land has been received in the RCS office on 21.04.03. A6 who was the Dealing Assistant had processed this request letter by noting 1/N dated 19.06.03. As per this noting, the file in question is not traceable in the zone. The file may be reconstructed with the help of the society. On this noting, A1 has P48/59 49 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) remarked that first of all the file may be traced out as it must be mixed up with other files.
A1 had put up another noting dated 26.06.03 that the file could not be located in the zone. It be circulated in the office to locate the file in the other zones as well. This noting was approved by A1.
A1 and A6 while processing the request letter were duty bound to see the genuineness of the request letter as the society was approaching the RCS office after a period of about 24 years. Perusal of the request letter shows that the letter itself seems to be doubtful as at one place, the address of the society has been mentioned as RZ128, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi92 and at other place it has been mentioned as 3/109, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. A 1 and A6 has not taken any step in this respect to verify the genuineness of the letter and has also not even verified the identity of the person who was approaching the RCS office vide this letter.
A6 put up another noting 3/N dated 25.07.03 that circular was circulated to all the branches and no reply has been received . The file in question is entered in computer software (old list). This noting was approved by A1 and it was further marked to Joint Registrar and A4 the then Registrar for approval. From this noting it is clear that the status of the file of the said society as entered in the computer software came to the knowledge of A1 and A6. As per the testimony of PW79, status of the said society has been shown as P49/59 50 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) liquidated. This material fact as to the status of the said society has been concealed in the notings by A1 and A6 which shows their malafide intention to get the file reconstructed in order to achieve the object of conspiracy.
After the approval of this noting, one letter Ex.PW94/B5 signed by A1 was issued giving directions to the society to submit necessary documents for reconstruction of file. In response to this direction, one letter which is Ex.PW94/B6 signed by A5 as Pradeep Kumar Jain, President submitting the documents for the reconstruction of the file has been received in the RCS office on 26.08.03 which has been received by A1. After receiving of the said documents as mentioned in the letter of the said society, A6 put up another noting 5/N dated 15.09.03 for inspection U/s 54 of the DCS Act and recommending the name of Sh. M.P. Bajaj, GradeIII as Inspecting Officer. This noting was approved by A1 and A4. Sh. M.P. Bajaj has shown his inability to conduct the inspection. Another noting 8/N dated 16.12.03 was put up by A6 which was approved by A1 to appoint A2 to conduct the inspection of the said society and the file was marked to JR for approval on 16.12.03. A7 who was the Joint Registrar (JR) on 16.12.03 has recommended that Mr. Bajaj to complete the inquiry. As per the noting 9/N, Mr. Bajaj has again shown his inability to conduct the inspection. Then A2 was appointed as inspecting Officer U/s 54 of the DCS Act and this noting of A1 and A6 was approved by A4 and A7.
P50/59 51 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) After receiving the inspection report Ex.PW94/B16 of A2, A6 put up the noting 10/N to 18/N dated 08.03.04 which is Ex.PW94/B17 (colly.) for approval of the list of members of the society so as to transmit the same to the DDA for the allotment of land. A1 has approved this noting with the remarks that the record of the society has been verified from the original records and found in order. It was then marked to A7 for approval. A7 and A4 approved the noting.
In this noting put up by A6, it has been mentioned that the society was not put under liquidation but could not be considered for the allotment of land by the DDA because the members of the society were less than the required numbers.
One letter which is Ex.PW94/B21 regarding the removal of the status of the society from liquidation in computer section has been received by A1 and which was marked to A6. This letter has been signed by A3 as Sushil Kumar, Secretary. A1 and A6 has malafidely concealed this letter as it does not form part of any of the notesheets put by A6 and approved by A1.
There is change of address of the society as given in the request letter Ex.PW94/B3 from the address as mentioned in the certificate of registration Ex.PW94/B1 which was at Kashmere Gate, Delhi. A1 and A6 have not raised any objection regarding the change of address as there is no correspondence received in the office regarding the change of address of the P51/59 52 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) society. No efforts have been made by A1 and A6 to verity the addresses as given in the request letter and to see the genuineness and truthfulness of the documents furnished by and on behalf of the society.
PW94 had deposed that as the address of Delhi College of Engineering Teachers CGHS was Kashmere Gate, so the said area falls in North Zone of RCS and there is no order regarding dealing of the file of the said society in the East Zone. This fact proved that in order to achieve the object of conspiracy, A1 and A6 in conspiracy with A2, A3 and A5 deal that file in the East Zone.
A1 and A6 has never brought to the knowledge of A4 and A7 that the said society has remained under liquidation. A4 and A7 has given their approvals as per the notings of A6 which was approved by A1. A7 has dealt the file of the society for the first time on 16.12.03 when he recommended that Mr. Bajaj to complete the inquiry. The proposal for reconstruction of the file of the said society was approved prior to the taking of the charge by A7 as Joint Registrar (East). No evidence has been come on record against A4 and A7 that they have acted with malafide intention and were involved in the commission of the alleged offences with the other coaccused persons.
16. Ld. Counsels has argued that there is no evidence on record to prove that such public servants/accused i.e. A1, A2, A6 had entered into the alleged conspiracy as all the public servants have done their official duties in P52/59 53 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) processing the file of the said society and there is nothing to show the meetings of mind to commit the alleged offences.
It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India 1993 (3) SCC 609: ".....It is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is conceived as having three elements: (1) agreement; (2) between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects."
It has also been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003) 8 SCC 461: "Privacy and secrecy are more characteristic of a conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. Direct evidence in proof of a conspiracy is seldom available, offence of conspiracy can be proved either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of the formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took P53/59 54 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) 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, all this is necessarily a matter of inference."
From the evidence on record as discussed above, it is proved that the public servants A1, A2, A6 along with A3 and A5 had united together to achieve the common object of allotment of land to the said society from the DDA.
Ld. Counsels for these public servants has argued that they had acted in a routine manner without having any knowledge of the forgery or without having any intention to abuse their official position and so they have not committed any offence U/s 13 of PC Act and their alleged acts amounts only to preparation as no land was allotted to the said society. Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act reads as follows: "A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, if he, (I) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any P54/59 55 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) valuable thing to pecuniary advantage without any public interest;
It has been observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment Runu Ghosh T.Rama Rao Vs. CBI dt. 21.12.11 in criminal appeals 482/2002, 509/2002, 484/2002 that: " 73. Having regard to the previous history of the statute, the amendments to the 1947 Act, its avowed objects and the distinctive structure which parliament adopted consciously, under the 1988 Act, despite being aware of the preexisting law, as well as the decisions of the Court the conclusion which this Court draws is that mens rea is inessential to convict an accused for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(iii). It would be sufficient if the prosecution proves that the public servant "obtains" by his act, pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, to another, without public interest. The inclusion of public interest, in the opinion of the Court, tips the scale in favour of a construction which does not require proof of mens rea. There can be many acts of a public servant, which result in pecuniary advantage, or obtaining of a valuable thing to someone else; typically these may relate to payment of royalty, grant of license or concessions, issuance of permits, authorizations, etc. Yet, such grants, concessions, or other forms of advantages to third parties would not criminalize the public servants actions, so long as they have an P55/59 56 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) element of public interest. They (acts of the public servant) are outlawed, and become punishable, if they are "without public interest"."
From the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that if the public servant knew that his act, by overlooking or disregard to the precautions, would be injuries to public interest, he would be covered under section 13 of PC Act. This knowledge of public interest has to be gathered from the facts of the case. In the present case, the allotment of land to the society would be an act in the public interest, but if the land is granted to the fake said society it would be injuries to the public interest.
In the present case, all the public servants i.e. A1, A2, A6 had entered into a conspiracy with A3 and A5 for fraudulently approving the fake list of members of the said society and then sending the same to the DDA for allotment of land and therefore, there was an attempt to cause wrongful loss to the DDA and attempt to have wrongful gain by these accused persons.
From the evidence on record, it is proved that the acts of the public servants A1, A2 and A6 cannot be said to be an acts of mere negligence or dereliction of duty. They were actively involved with A3 and A5 to achieve the object of the conspiracy to get the allotment of land to said society from the DDA. They were successful in achieving their object as fake list of members of the said society was got approved and letter was sent to the DDA P56/59 57 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) for allotment of land. Fortunately, the land was not allotted to the society. In these circumstances, they have misused and abused their official position and it cannot be said to be acts of preparation as an attempt has already been made for the allotment of land from DDA to the said fake society. The acts of such public servants have amounted to attempt to drive pecuniary advantage either for themselves or for A3 and A5. Accordingly, criminal misconduct was committed and the offence U/s 15 of PC Act stands proved.
17. On the application U/s 340 Cr. P.C., Ld. counsel for A3 and A5 has argued that vide document D20, PW117 has seized the file i.e. VolumeIII of the said society. This file has not been produced in the court and it is very material document for fair and impartial trial. This file has been concealed with malafide intention as PW117 and Sh. D.K. Chaudhary, S.P. had conspired to create false and fabricated evidence against the accused. It is prayed that proceedings U/s 340 Cr. P.C. be initiated against PW117 and Sh. D.K. Chaudhary, S.P. Perusal of section 340 Cr. P.C. shows that it confers power in the Court to make a complaint in respect of an offence committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court.
Perusal of the chargesheet shows that VolumeIII is not a relied document on behalf of the CBI. From the evidence on record, no such material P57/59 58 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS) has been come on record which would show that any offence has been committed in relation to the proceedings in the court or in respect of any document produced or given in evidence in the proceedings in the Court. Accordingly, I do not find any merits in the application U/s 340 Cr. P.C. and it is dismissed.
18. In view of the above discussions, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons A1, A2, A3, A5 and A6 that they had entered into criminal conspiracy with the object to get the land allotted from the DDA to the Janki Kunj CGHS and for that object documents were forged to create fake list of members of the society, A3 and A 5 has signed the documents in different identities and such public servants has committed criminal misconduct in order to attempt to obtain pecuniary advantages for themselves or for A3 and A5.
Accordingly, I hold the accused A1, A2, A3, A5 and A6 guilty and convict them as under :
1. A1, A2, A3, A5 and A6 are held guilty and convicted U/s 120B red in conjunction with under section 15 read with section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 419 IPC, 468 IPC and Section 471 IPC, Section 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC.
2. A1, A2 and A6 are held guilty for substantive offences under Section 15 read with section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
P58/59 59 CC No. 12/08 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra etc. Judgment dt. 16.9.2016 (Janki Kunj CGHS)
3. A3 is held guilty for substantive offences under Section 419 IPC, 468 IPC and Section 471 IPC, Section 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC.
4. A5 is held guilty for substantive offences under Section 419 IPC, 468 IPC and Section 471 IPC, Section 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC.
However, A4 and A7 are hereby acquitted of all the charges levelled against them as the prosecution has failed to prove its case against them. Their personal bonds are cancelled and surety discharged. In terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. A4 and A7 are directed to furnish their personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ each with one surety in the like amount on or before 19.09.2016 for a period of six months.
Announced in the open court (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta) today i.e. on 16.09.16 Special Judge CBI02 (PC Act) (North West) , Rohini Courts, Delhi.
P59/59