Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Quamruddin Etc. Page No. 1 Of 134 on 21 May, 2014
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA:
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) : CBI - 03 :
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURT :
NEW DELHI
In re :
CC No. 69/11
Case ID No. 02403R005317201
RC No. 8A/2010/ACB/CBI/ND
u/Sec. 120B/420/471 IPC & 13(2)
r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) PC Act
STATE (CBI)
VS
1. Qamaruddin
S/o Late Shri Amir Baksh
R/o E-48, Abul Fazal Enclave, Par-I, Jamia
Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Roop Chand
S/o Shri Pooran Mal
R/o C-712, IInd Floor, Ganesh Nagar-II, Delhi-
110092.
3. Mohd. Salim Alvi
S/o Late Mohd. Ibrahim Alvi
R/o A-340, Gautam Puri, Phase-II,
Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
4. Mohd. Mustkeem
S/o Late Mohd. Ibrahim
R/o B-990, Gautam Puri, Phase-II,
Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
5. Mohd. Jahangir
S/o Shri Lalvant
R/o A-782, Gautam Puri, Phase-II,
Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 1 of 134
:: 2 ::
6. Rajender Singh
S/o Shri Ramlal
R/o E-177, Dharampal Colony,
Ali Vihar, Badarpur, New Delhi.
7. Hira Lal
S/o Chhotte Lal
R/o B-435, Gautam Puri, Phase-II,
Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
8. Khem Chand
S/o Shri Hotilal
R/o B-126, Gautam Puri, Phase-II,
Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
9. Rajender Kumar
S/o Sh. Rameshwar
R/o A-279, Gautam Puri, Phase-II,
Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
(Wrongly typed in charge-sheet as S/o Ratiram, R/o
B-279)
10. Joginder Singh
S/o Ramswaroop
R/o B-1072, Gautam Puri, Phase-II,
Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
11. Ram Avatar Tari
S/o Shri Mahadev
R/o RZ-1/79, Tuglakabad Extn.,
New Delhi.
Charge-sheet filed on - 04.07.2011
Charges framed on - 28.07.2012
Arguments concluded on - 17.05.2014
Judgment pronounced on - 21.05.2014
APPEARANCES:-
Sh. S. C. Sharma, Ld. Sr. PP for the State (CBI).
Sh. Apurb Lal, Advocate for A-1 Quamaruddin.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 2 of 134
:: 3 ::
Sh. P.K. Dubey, Advocate for A-2 Roop Chand
Sh. Nitin Joshi, Advocate for A-3 Mohd. Salim Alvi, A-5 Mohd.
Jahangir and A-7 Hira Lal.
Sh. Mukesh Kaushik, Advocate for A-6 Rajender Singh.
Sh. K.Z. Khan, Advocate for A-4 Mohd. Mustkeem, A-8 Khem
Chand, A-9 Rajender Kumar, A-10 Joginder Singh and A-11 Ram
Avtar Tari.
21.05.2014
JUDGEMENT
1.0 The present case was registered on 11.02.2010 on the basis of source information. Facts in brief as per Charge- sheet are, that during 2000-2001, the slum area known as JJ Colony, behind AIIMS, was demolished and its residents were rehabilitated at Gautam Puri, Molarband, Phase-I, II, Badarpur, by allotting 5000 plots. Out of these 5000 plots, 513 plots were cacealled, as these were found allotted to ineligible persons; status of these 513 plots was shown as vacant in the records of Slum & JJ Department of MCD i.e. these plots were not allotted to anyone.
1.1 Charge-sheet mentions that on receipt of information about unauthorized occupation/illegal construction on vacant plots, with respect to which no action to stop construction/demolition, was taken by MCD, joint surprise CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 3 of 134 :: 4 ::
checks were conducted on 18.03.2010 and 12.04.2010 by CBI officials, MCD officials of Vigilance Wing and officials of Slum Upgradation and Resettlement (SUR) Department, MCD. During such inspection/ physical verification, about 300 of such plots were found unauthorizedly occupied by private persons, having made illegal construction from one to four storeys.
1.2 Charge-sheet mentions that after the cancellation of plots, their status was being shown as vacant and various circulars and notices were issued by SUR Wing of MCD viz., F-9/Molar Band/MP Khadar/OSD (SUR)/S&JJ/2007 D-15 dated 30.08.2007, and other circulars/letters dated 21.08.2007, 19.11.2007 and 29.11.2007 reflecting the same; and officially, the allotment of these plots was not permissible. Shri O.P. Verma, Chief Engineer (Slum), vide oder no.CE(S)/4100 (337)/RELOCATION POLICY/PS/2008/D-452 dated 21.08.2008 directed that in compliance of the directions of Hon'ble High Court in WP No.6659 and CM No.11425/2001 dated 11.12.2001, the Engineering Wing of Slum Department, shall make utmost, sincere and concerted efforts to retrieve all cancelled plots by 31.12.2008. But, the JEs of Slum & JJ Department of MCD namely Qamaruddin (A-1) and Roop Chand CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 4 of 134 :: 5 ::
(A-2), in active connivance with builders and land mafia, facilitated illegal sale of aforesaid unallotted/vacant plots on the basis of false/fake documents; they also allowed unauthorized construction on such plots, belonging to MCD. Although, it was their duty to ensure that no illegal construction took place on the vacant plots and in case of detection of any such construction, to take action for demolition. 1.3 The charge-sheet further mentions about the process of rehabilitation of slum dwellers. It is mentioned that for relocation and allotment of plots for rehabilitation, the Sociology Division of Slum and JJ Department conducts a joint survey with a representative of land owning agency; a physical survey of JJ dwellers is conducted to ascertain the details of names, parentage, jhuggi number, occupation, ration card and I. Card number etc. A JJ dweller, to be eligible for allotment of plot under resettlement/rehabilitation scheme, must fulfil two conditions; first, his name must appear in the joint survey list;
second, he must have an identity proof such as, ration card, to establish that he is resident of Delhi prior to 31.12.1998. Each prospective allottee of the settlement scheme, is required to deposit an amount of Rs.7000/- with the Cash Section of Slum and JJ Department, for which a challan G8A, is issued; CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 5 of 134 :: 6 ::
thereafter, a draw of plots is held by Draw Committee and provisional identification slips are issued to the JJ dwellers. As per Annual Plan 2002 to 2003, one of the terms and conditions of allotment is, that the allotment would be on licence basis with no right to the licencee to transfer or part with possession of the land in question and that the transfer of possession would amount to automatic termination of the licence, without any notice.
1.4 The charge-sheet further mentions that number of cancelled/ vacant plots were unauthorizedly sold by land mafia/property dealers namely Mohd. Salim Alvi (A-3), Mohd.
Mustkeem (A-4), Mohd. Jahangir (A-5), Rajender Singh (A-6), Joginder Singh (A-10) and Ram Avtar (A-11) etc. to various persons on the basis of false/fake documents. Notices were issued to about 120 occupants of such plots, out of which only 60 responded and they were examined. The said occupants stated that they purchased the plots from the above named persons on the basis of the documents of ownership shown to have been issued by MCD, Slum & JJ Department and on being assured by the concerned JEs namely, A-1 Qamaruddin and A-2 Roop Chand that the properties proposed to be purchased by them were not CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 6 of 134 :: 7 ::
disputed;most of the purchasers also stated that they paid Rs. 15000/ to Rs.20,000/ to JEs Qamruddin and Roop Chand. Investigation revealed that about 60 plots having illegal construction were sold through GPA and having the photograph of the seller, on the basis of false and fake record like, bogus identification slip, bogus ration cards, fake G-8 Forms, receipt for Rs.7000/- and possession slips. During investigation, FSOs of the concerned ration circles numbers 43, 29, 30, 40, 55, C FSO, C-5 etc. confirmed that the ration cards found enclosed with the land records pertaining to the cancelled plots are bogus (except two ration cards bearing no.A 522685 of Shri Madan Sharma and card no.512906 of Smt. Hafijan).
1.5 Further, some of the documents viz. GPAs, Bayana Receipts and Sale Deeds which were sent to CFSL, Chandigarh for expert opinion on signatures and handwriting of suspects namely Rajinder Kumar S/o Rati Ram (A-9), Rajinder Singh S/o Ram Lal (A-6), Mohd. Salim Alvi S/o Mohd. Ibrahim (A-3), Jahangir S/o Shri lalvant (A-5), Mohd. Aslam S/o late Mohd.
Sahid, Hira Lal S/o Chote Lal, (A-7) Mohd Vakeel S/o Shri Mohd. Ibrahim, Mohd. Mustkeem S/o Mohd. Ibrahim (A-4) and Khem Chand S/o Hoti Lal (A-8) alongwith their specimen signatures/ handwritings. A positive GEQD report has been received. CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 7 of 134 :: 8 ::
1.6 The charge-sheet further mentions that around 36 plots including A-240, A-244, A-251 etc. were sold by A-3 Mohd. Salim Alvi, 4 plots bearing Nos.A-324, A-325, A-399, A-352 and A-353 were sold by A-4 Mohd. Mustkeem, 2 plots bearing nos. A-282 and A-293 were sold by A-5 Mohd.
Jahangir, 9 plots bearing nos. A-242, A-296, A-297, A-311, A-246, A-300, A-301 and A-479 were sold by A-6 Rajender Singh, 5 plots bearing nos. A-1, A-311, A-685, A-397 and A-479 were sold by A-7 Hiralal, 2 plots bearing nos. A-241 and A-906 were sold by A-8 Khem Chand, 2 plots A-265 and A-333 were sold by A-9 Rajender kumar; one plot bearing no. A-1 was sold by A-10 Joginder Singh. Plot No.A-1 was sold twice; one plot bearing no. A-271 was sold by A-11 Ram Avtar.
1.7 It is alleged that the aforesaid cancelled plots were unauthorizedly constructed during the period 01.10.2007 to 19.05.2010, during the posting of A-1 and A-2; and that A-1 and A-2 were looking after the work of unauthorized construction and encroachment. It is further mentioned that during investigation it was found that to escape from law and for avoiding criminal liability, JEs A-1 and A-2 filed large number of complaints with local police regarding illegal construction; CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 8 of 134 :: 9 ::
although, the construction had already taken place on such plots. The charge-sheet details the complaints lodged by both the JEs.
1.8 Accordingly, after obtaining sanction against A-1 and A-2, the charge-sheet against accused persons under Section 120-B IPC, 420 IPC, 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Sec.
13(1)(d) of PC Act and also the substantive offences thereunder was filed in the court, on 30.06.2011.
2.0 Vide order dated 28.07.2012 all the accused persons were charged under Section 120B IPC r/ w Sections 420/ 471 IPC and read with Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) PC Act;
2.1 A-1 Quamruddin and A-2 Roop Chand were further charged separately with the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) PC Act; 2.2 A-3 Mohd. Salim Alvi, A-4 Mohd. Mustkeem, A-5 Mohd. Jahangir, A-6 Rajender Singh, A-7 Hira Lal, A-8 Khem Chand, A-9 Rajender Kumar, A-10 Joginder Singh and A-11 Ram Avatar Tari were separately charged for offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 471 IPC. CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 9 of 134 :: 10 ::
2.3 Needless to mention that all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3.0 In support of its case, CBI examined 78 witnesses, who can be categorised as - the buyers of cancelled plots;
officials of Food & Supply Office and MCD; Members of Joint Survey Team; Police official, Handwriting expert/ Assistant GEQD, bank officials, sanctioning authority and the investigating officers.
3.1 Buyers of cancelled plots are - PW-4 Sh. Subhash, PW-5 Sh. Lakshman, PW-6 Sh. R.P. Gautam, PW-7 Sh. Ramwati, PW-8 Sh. Ajay Kumar, PW-9 Sh Anand Kumar, PW-10 Sh. Mahadev, PW-11 Sh. Ram Lal, PW-12 Sh. H.B. Khatri, PW-16 Sh. Intikhab Alam, PW-17 Sh. Ghanshyam, PW-18 Smt. Janki Devi, PW-19 Sh. Anand singh, PW-20 Smt. Saroj Bala, PW-21 Sh. Ram Nath, PW-22 Sh. Brij Kishore, PW-23 Sh. Kishan Lal, PW-24 Smt. Suprabha, PW-25 Sh. Raju Kanojia, PW-26 Sh. Anil Kumar, PW-27 Sh. Abrar Ahamad, PW-28 Sh. Ashok Kumar, PW-29 Sh. Prem Chand, PW-30 Sh. Padam Singh, PW-31 Sh. Ramesh Chand, PW-32 Sh. Raju, PW-33 Smt. Shanti Devi, PW-34 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, PW-35 Mohd. Mustkeem, PW-36 Sh. Jeev Lal Pandey, PW-41 Sh. L.R. Meena, PW-45 Sh. Aslam, PW-46 Smt. CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 10 of 134 :: 11 ::
Rekha, PW-47 Sh. Santosh, PW-50 Sh. Shymal Barua, PW-51 Sh. Uttam Barua, PW-52 Sh. Pradeep Kumar, PW-53 Sh. Vipin Kumar, PW-54 Sh. Fazal Rahman, PW-55 Smt. Ravita, PW-56 Sh. Jagdish Chander Joshi, PW-58 Sh. Mahinder Singh, PW-60 Mohd. Ali, PW-61 Sh. Nanak Ram, PW-62 Sh Panna Lal, PW-63 Smt. Sapna Sharma, PW-64 Sh Sanjaya Sharma, PW-65 Sh. Ashok Kumar, PW-66 Sh. Shyam Kumar Singh, PW-67 Smt. Meera Devi, PW-68 Sh. Rinku Dhawan, PW-69 Sh. Banke Lal, PW-70 Sh. Jaspal Singh, PW-72 Smt. Sunita, PW-75 Sh. Ramaiya Rao and PW-76 Sh. Sachin Kumar.
3.2 Officials from Food & Supply office/ MCD are -
PW-13 Sh. Ram Shankar, PW-37 Sh. Trilochan Singh, PW-38 Sh. B.K. Singh, PW-40 Sh. Alok Bhattacharya and PW-42 Sh. R.L. Dogra are the officials of Food & Supply office; PW-57 HC Sanjay Kumar Sharma is the police official, who was posted in the area PS Badarpur, during relevant time; PW-3 Sh. Shiv Kumar, PW-44 Sh. Raj Kumar and PW-71 Sh. Kundan Lal are the officials from MCD.
3.3 Members of Joint Survey Team - PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, PW-2 Sh. Om Prakash, PW-14 Sh. Ashok Kumar, PW-59 Sh. Manoj Kumar and PW-49 Sh. Rajeev Negi, Scientific CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 11 of 134 :: 12 ::
Assistant in Photo Division of CFSL, New Delhi, who photographed the plots, during survey.
3.3.1 PW-73 Sh. R. Chandra is Asst., GEQD, CFSL. 3.4 PW-43 Sh. K.L. Girotra, PW-45 Mohd. Aslam and PW-74 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Malhotra are the officials from bank.
3.5 PW-15 Sh. Amar Nath, is the Sanctioning Authority for A-1 Quamruddin and A-2 Roop Chand. 3.6 PW-77 Insp. Dharam Veer Singh and PW-78 Insp.
S.P. Singh are the Investigating Officers. 4.0 Statements of the accused persons u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC were recorded on different dates, that is, 22.04.2013, 27.04.2013, 30.04.2013, 09.05.2013, 27.05.2013 and 02.07.2013. The accused persons denied incriminating facts/ evidence put to them and stated that they are innocent. 4.1 A-1 Quamaruddin in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC stated that it is the duty of Enforcement Department to detect encroachment/ unauthorized construction and take action. However, In the interest of Department, he had lodged CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 12 of 134 :: 13 ::
complaints w.r.t. unauthorized construction/ encroachment, as and when the same took place, to the police as well as to the higher authorities of his department; he also initiated proceedings for demolition/ sealing of the properties, which were found unauthorized. He has been falsely implicated. 4.2 A-2 Roop Chand stated that all the allegations against him are false and no evidence has come on record against him; he has been falsely implicated. 4.3 A-3 Mohd. Salim Alvi stated that he was running a shop under the name and style of M/s Alvi Builders at A-340, Gautam Puri, Phase-II, Badarpur, New Delhi; and being a known figure in Gautam Puri area, people used to come to him for his advise for sale/purchase; he used to help people in sale and purchase of properties; he would accompany them at the time of sale/ purchase; sometimes when the seller was not available/ was not in Delhi, on their request, he used to collect the sale consideration on their behalf from the purchaser and also issued receipt in that regard, to the purchaser. He had signed as witness to the sale and purchase of the properties. He further stated that the cheque deposited in the account of M/s Alvi Builders with Oriental Bank of Commerce, was towards the CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 13 of 134 :: 14 ::
payment in respect of purchase of building material. 4.4 A-4 Mohd. Mustkeem stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated; he did not purchase or sell any plot on his or someone else's behalf.
4.5 A-5 Mohd. Jahangir stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated; he only signed the GPA, etc., as a witness. He had received money at the request of seller and on his behalf, as the seller was known to him. 4.6 A-6 Rajender Singh stated that he had signed as a witness on the GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. being a neighbour and known to the purchaser/ seller; he sold only one plot, which he had purchased from someone, whose name he did not remember.
4.7 A-7 Hira Lal stated that he had purchased only one plot from Rakesh Bansal and sold the same to Smt. Shanti Devi; his signatures on other documents were obtained as a witness. He further stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
4.8 A-8 Khem Chand stated that he sold only one plot CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 14 of 134 :: 15 ::
(A-906) to Ajay Kumar, which he had purchased from Rajender, S/o Mangat Ram. He further stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
4.9 A-9 Rajinder Kumar stated that he sold a plot, which he purchased from Rakesh Bansal, as he was in need of money for treatment of his ailing father; and that he used the said money for treatment of his father. He is innocent. 4.10 A-10 Joginder Singh stated that he signed the GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. as a witness only at the instance of seller, who was known to him; he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
4.11 A-11 Ram Avtar Tari stated that neither did he sign any document as a witness nor did he sell any plot to anyone; nor was any plot sold in his presence. He also stated that he is not the person - "Ram Avtar Tari"; he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
5.0 A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6, A-8 and A-11 opted to lead defence evidence; A-1 Quamruddin, A-6 Rajender Singh and A-11 Ram Avatar Tari, themselves stepped into the witness box as DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3, respectively. A-1 also produced CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 15 of 134 :: 16 ::
DW-7 Sh. Ram Dass and DW-8 Sh. R.C. Nawani besides DW-6 Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, who was the common witness of both, A-1 and A-2.
5.1 A-3 Mohd. Salim Alvi produced DW-4 Smt. Shakila and DW-5 Smt Munni.
5.2 A-8 Khem Chand did not lead any defence evidence, although he had opted to do so. 6.0 I have heard Sh. S. C. Sharma, Ld. Sr. PP for the State/ CBI, Sh. Apurb Lal, Advocate for A-1 Quamaruddin, Sh. P. K. Dubey, Advocate for A-2 Roop Chand, Sh. Nitin Joshi, Advocate for A-3 Mohd. Salim Alvi, A-4 Mohd. Mustkeem, A-5 Mohd. Jahangir and A-7 Hira Lal, Sh. Mukesh Kaushik, Advocate for A-6 Rajender Singh, Sh. K. Z. Khan, Advocate for A-8 Khem Chand, A-9 Rajender Singh, A-10 Joginder Singh and A-11 Ram Avtar Tari at length and have perused the record carefully. 7.0 Let me first deal with the legal objections raised by A-1 and A-2.
Sanctioning Authority was not competent. 7.1 It was argued on behalf of A-1 & A-2 that the CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 16 of 134 :: 17 ::
sanction for their prosecution is bad as PW15, who granted sanction was not competent; and also because, it suffers from non-application of mind. It was submitted on behalf of A-1 that as per Regulation 15, Delhi Development Authority (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1961, no officer or employee will be removed from service by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. It is pleaded on behalf of A-1 that he was appointed as JE in DDA by Vice Chairman, who is of the rank of Additional Secretary of Government of India. Thus, only an officer of that rank, was competent to remove him. Whereas, the sanction for prosecution of A-1 was granted by PW15, who was on deputation and was holding the charge of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (Board) and was an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary. Thus, he was not competent to remove A-1 from service/ grant sanction for prosecution. It was further argued on behalf of accused persons that sanction orders have been passed mechanically without application of mind.
7.2 On the other hand, Ld. Sr. PP submitted that PW15 being CEO, was competent to remove A-1 from his office; and CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 17 of 134 :: 18 ::
therefore, he was an officer, competent to grant sanction in terms of Section 19 of PC Act. Further, he granted sanction after duly considering the entire material. 7.3 Suffice it to state that as per Section 19 (1) P.C. Act, the sanction of the authority, competent to remove the accused Government servant, is required for prosecution under the Act. As per A-1 himself, Slum & JJ Department, became a part of MCD in 1992; and admittedly the Board came to be set up in April 2010, to handle the work of Slum & JJ Department. It has come in the testimony of PW-15 Amar Nath that he was appointed as CEO, of the Board; and that he was the competent authority for removal from service, any official, including Junior Engineers (JEs). He has stood by the same in his cross-
examination. It is noteworthy that A-1 Quamruddin, who stepped into the witness box in his defence as DW-1, himself admitted in cross-examination that CEO of the Board, is the competent authority for removal of Junior Engineer. 7.3.1 Thus, PW-15 was competent for according sanction for prosecution of JEs A-1 & A-2.
7.3.2 Further, PW-15 in his testimony has categorically CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 18 of 134 :: 19 ::
stated that he had gone through the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC and other documents, before granting sanction. He has stood by the same, in cross-examination and categorically denied that no material was produced by CBI before him at the time of seeking sanction. The fact that the documents in original were produced before PW15, has come in the testimony of PW78. PW78, Insp. S. P. Singh in his cross- examination by A-2 has stated that original documents were shown to/ examined by the competent authority while obtaining sanction. PW78 categorically denied that no documents were sent to the competent authority. Merely because, PW15 in the sanction orders, has not made specific reference to statement of each witness and the documents; and could not recollect in cross-examination, the details of documents placed before him, does not by itself reflect non-application of mind, as pleaded by accused persons. PW15 has explained that request for sanctions against A-1 & A-2 alongwith documents was put up before him by the concerned section; he, after duly considering the same had accorded sanctions; and stated that in absence of original record before him, he cannot comment about documents seen by him. Considering the Sanction orders Ex.PW15/A (for A-1) and Ex.PW15/B (for A-2) coupled with the CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 19 of 134 :: 20 ::
testimony of PW-15, I find that accused persons (A-1 & A-2) have failed to demonstrate lack of application of mind on the part of PW-15/ the competent authority. Thus, even the plea of non-application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority, is found to be bereft of any merit.
7.4 In view of the above, I find no infirmity in sanction orders for prosecution of A-1 & A-2.
Misjoinder of charges/ accused persons 8.0 Ld. counsel for A-2 Roop Chand argued that each unauthorized construction was a separate offence. Moreover, the accused persons were posted in the area during different time periods; A-2 was not concerned with all the other accused persons i.e, A-3 to A-11; therefore, no common charge could have been framed against them; it suffers from misjoinder of charges and accused persons and is, therefore, hit by Section 218 Cr.PC and deserves to be quashed. Ld. defence counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court dated 06.04.2011 in Criminal Original Petition No. 23479 of 2010, titled as J. Duraimunusamy Vs. State, by the Additional Superintendent of Police.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 20 of 134 :: 21 ::
8.1 The aforesaid judgment is of no assistance to the accused, the facts being very different in the instant case. In Duraimunusamy's case, a written test for recruitment of police constables was held on 27.03.2005; as the leakage of question paper of general knowledge was suspected, the same was cancelled and re-test was ordered. The re-test was conducted on 01.06.2005; the leakage of the said paper was again suspected, leading to cancellation of examination again. A criminal case was registered against the accused persons suspected to be involved in leakage of the paper. Ld. trial court framed a common charge. In this fact situation, the Hon'ble High Court noted that there were two independent occurrences, which happened on 27.03.2005 and 01.06.2005. Court also noted that it was not even the prosecution case that all the 31 accused persons conspired to commit the offences on both the occasions; A-1 to A-3 had nothing to do with the leakage of question paper on the first occasion; and there were certain accused persons, who had nothing to do with the second occurrence of leakage on 01.06.2005. In view of the same, the Hon'ble Court observed that as provided in Sec. 218 Cr.PC, the trial court ought to have framed separate charges in respect of distinct offences committed on two different occasions i.e. CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 21 of 134 :: 22 ::
27.03.2005 and 01.06.2005; and the accused should have been tried separately.
8.1.1 Whereas, in the instant case, the situation is very different. A-2 was posted as JE in the area during August 2007 to October 2008 and A-1 succeeded him and remained posted there, during October 2008 to 30.06.2010. The accused persons are charged that during the period 2007 to 2009, both of them entered into conspiracy and allowed A-3 to A-11, to encroach upon the cancelled/ vacant plots; and to sell the said vacant/ cancelled plots on the basis of forged/ fabricated ownership documents; they allowed unauthorized construction on cancelled plots; this continued during their respective postings. In view of the same, there is no mis-joinder of charges or of accused persons.
No proper charge under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) PC Act 9.0 Ld. counsel for A-1 as well as A-2 also argued that the charge under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act against the accused persons, is silent about demand of bribe and its acceptance by the accused persons, which is a sine qua non. Therefore, the said charge cannot be sustained; and if that CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 22 of 134 :: 23 ::
charge goes, this court ceases to have any jurisdiction in the matter. This argument is also stated, only to be rejected. As already mentioned above, A-1 & A-2 allowed A-3 to A-11, to encroach upon and sell cancelled plots; on the basis of forged documents, they facilitated such sale, by falsely telling the buyers that there was nothing wrong with the said plots; allowed such buyers to raise unauthorized construction on such plots; thus, A-1 and A-2, misusing/ abusing their position as a public servants, caused pecuniary advantage/ gain to A-3 to A-11. Therefore, there is no defect in charge under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.
CBI had no jurisdiction in the matter 10.0 Ld. counsel for A-2 further argued that raising of unauthorized construction is an offence under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1970 (DMC Act); DMC Act has not been notified under Section 3 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ((DSPE Act)); thus, CBI had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter. The entire proceedings, therefore, deserve to be quashed. Ld. counsel placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, dated 22.11.2013 in cases titled as A. K. Ganju Vs. CBI, Crl. M.C. 2384/2011 & CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 23 of 134 :: 24 ::
Crl.M.A. 8693/2011; Naresh Sharma Vs. CBI, Crl.MC 3011/2011; R. S. Gehlot Vs. CBI, Crl.MC 380/2011 & Crl.M.A. No. 18063/2011, in support.
10.1 In the instant case, under the scheme for relocation of JJ clusters, the plots were allotted to the JJ dwellers, subject to certain terms and conditions; the plots in question were cancelled due to ineligibility/ non-compliance of certain terms and conditions by the allottees. Allegation against the accused persons is, that cancelled plots/ government land was allowed to be usurped/ encroached upon/ unauthorizedly constructed/ to be sold on the basis of forged documents, by Government servants A-1 and A-2 in connivance with builders/ the land mafia/ illegal purchasers; and they are charged under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 420/ 471 IPC and read with Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) PC Act and the substantive offences. It is not the case of unauthorized construction in contravention of DMC Act. In view of the same, the aforesaid judgment is of no help to the accused in the instant case.
11.0 Let me now proceed with the matter on merits. The facts particularly, the demolition of the slum area known as JJ Colony behind AIIMS and the rehabilitation of the residents of CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 24 of 134 :: 25 ::
the said Colony at Gautam Puri, Molar Bandh, Phase-I & II, Badarpur, by allotting 5000 plots to the residents; subsequent cancellation of 513 plots on account of violation of various terms and conditions of allotment; declaration of such plots as cancelled/ vacant, are not in dispute. A-2 vide his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC (Q-6) has admitted that Ex.PW3/E-1 (colly.) is the certified list of 485 cancelled/ vacant plots at Molar Band, Phase-I & II.
11.1 It is also not in dispute that about 300 (out of 513) of such cancelled/ vacant plots (including the plots in question in the present case) were found to have been encroached upon/ having unauthorized construction.
11.2 The facts that in view of reports of encroachment and unauthorized construction, joint site inspections of Block-A, Phase-II, Molar Band, New Delhi, were carried out by CBI team alongwith officials of police and MCD on 18.03.2010 and 12.04.2010; and that the said teams included PW-1 Sanjay Sharma, AE (Civil), MCD, PW-2 Om Prakash, Senior Vigilance Inspector, MCD, PW-14 Ashok Kumar, Field Investigator, Slum & JJ Department, MCD, PW-59 Manoj Kumar, Sub Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi and PW-49 Rajeev Negi (Photographer); that CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 25 of 134 :: 26 ::
the photographs of the properties were also taken; and that joint site inspection memo Ex.PW1/A (D-7) and the physical joint inspection memo Ex.PW1/B-1 to Ex.PW1/B-20 (w.r.t inspection of 18.03.2010) and joint site inspection memo Ex.PW (D-18) and the physical joint inspection memo Ex.PW2/B-1 to Ex.PW2/B-22 (w.r.t inspection of 12.04.2010), were prepared, are admitted by A-1 Quamruddin.
11.3 Admittedly, A-2 & A-1 were posted as JEs in that area during relevant period. A-2 Roop Chand was posted (vide office order dated 20.08.2007, Ex.PW77/D-8) as JE, Development Division-V, Maharani Bagh, which covered Molar Bandh, Phases-I & II and other areas w.e.f. August 2007 to October 2008. A-1 succeeded A-2 and was posted (vide order dated 07.10.2008, Ex.PW77/D-9) in the said Division w.e.f.
October 2008 to 30.06.2010. A-1 in his testimony as DW-1 has stated that he was transferred to Molar Band Phase-I & II and took charge from A-2 w.e.f. 15.10.1998; a list of 207 vacant/ cancelled plots was handed over to him. Whether it was the duty of A-1 & A-2 to detect encroachment/ unauthorized construction and demolish. 12.0 It was argued by A-1 Qamaruddin and A-2 Roop CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 26 of 134 :: 27 ::
Chand that it was not their duty to detect and demolish unauthorized construction; same was the duty of Enforcement Department. Reference in this regard was made to Ex.PW77/D-1, Ex.PW77/D-2, Ex.PW77/D-3 and Ex.PW77/D-4. Therefore, the charge against them that in active connivance with builders and land mafia, they failed to discharge their duty, by failing to detect and demolish unauthorized construction, is absolutely misplaced. It was further pleaded that although, it was not their duty, still whenever any unauthorized construction was noticed by them, it was brought to the notice of police and higher authorities of their Department, by lodging complaints.
12.1 A-1 further argued that he was posted in the area w.e.f. October 2008 to 30.06.2010; when he joined in 2008, the construction had already taken place; therefore, there was no occasion for him to prevent unauthorized construction. The said argument is contrary to A-1's own statement under Section 313 Cr.PC (Q.35), as well as his own deposition as DW-1 (A-1), wherein, he has stated that as and when any encroachment/ unauthorized construction took place/ came to his notice during his visits, he lodged the complaint CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 27 of 134 :: 28 ::
with police and reported the matter to his higher authorities. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, A-1 has also stated that he initiated the proceedings for demolishing/ sealing of unauthorized properties, in the interest of department, although, it was the duty of Enforcement Department. In his deposition as DW1, A-1 further stated that on his reporting, action of sealing was taken with respect to plots no. A-261 and A-685; even demolition had taken place with respect to 29 plots, during his posting.
13.0 With respect to duties of A-1 & A-2, PW 71 Kundan Lal, who was OSD (SUR) in Slum & JJ Department and remained posted there till 2009, has deposed that vide letter dated 30.08.2007 Ex.PW71/Z-4, list of cancelled plots was circulated to SE (S)-III and EE DD (S)-V for necessary action with direction to seal the unit immediately; and the said letter was marked to SE (S)-III & Ex.Engg., DD(S)-V for necessary action. Relevant portion of the said letter reads as under :
"NO:F.09/Molar Band/M. P. Khadar/OSD
(SUR)/S&JJ/2007/D-15 Dated:30.8.07
..........
..... On the basis of report in respect of vacant plots received from the Area Ex. Engineer, the allotment of all such vacant plots stand cancelled.... CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 28 of 134 :: 29 ::
SE(S)-III is requested to kindly issue directions to the Area Ex. Engineer to display these lists in the respective blocks for information of all concerned. In case any dweller undertake construction on vacant cancelled plots, the same may be removed and their unit be sealed immediately. A copy of the list of cancelled vacant plots in respect of Molar Band I & II and Madan Pur Khadar is enclosed for necessary action.
(KUNDAN LAL) OSD (SUR)".
13.1 PW71 has further deposed that vide letter dated 29.11.2007 Ex. PW 71/U, SE(S) II and III were requested for issuance of directions to all area Engineers to display the list in the respective area for information of all concerned that physical possession of vacant/ cancelled plots would be taken over by the area Engineer in case of unauthorized construction and that the same may be sealed and FIR be lodged against the person. Ld. counsel for A-2 himself suggested to PW77 that he had conducted proper survey and had reported the matter of unauthorized construction/ encroachment in the ordinary course of business, which was denied by PW77.
13.2 PW71 has further testified that vide letter dated 27.12.2007, Ex.PW71/J, Chief Engineer was called upon CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 29 of 134 :: 30 ::
to forward Action Taken Report with respect to physical possession of cancelled vacant plots and to ensure safety/ security of such plots by deploying security guards. He has also deposed that vide letter dated 05.03.2008, Ex.PW71/S, instructions were issued to the SEs-III and EE's DD-V for taking immediate action against the unauthorized construction carried out on the plots mentioned therein at Phase-II, Gautam Puri. Further, vide Ex.PW71/Z-5, i.e., letter no. CE(S)/4100(337)/ RELOCATION POLICY/PS/2008/452 dated 21.08.2008, further directions in this regard were issued. The relevant portion of the said letter Ex.PW71/Z-5 is reproduced hereinunder :
"......S&JJ Deptt had taken the initiative & cancelling allotment of the plots in violation of terms and conditions of allotment during the year 1999, 2000 & 2002 itself. As mentioned in Para 1, a large number of plots during this period as well as further in the year 2007 were cancelled by the Deptt.
However, due to various reasons and
unforeseen circumstances, the physical
possession of the cancelled plots in violation of terms & conditions of the approved scheme of Relocation of Squatters are with the Engineering Wing.
It is assured that in compliance of the CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 30 of 134 :: 31 ::
directions issued by the Hon'ble High court, the Engineering Wing of the Slum Department will make utmost, sincere and concerted efforts to retrieve all cancelled plots by
31.12.2008.
( O P VERMA) CHIEF ENGINEER(SLUM)"
13.2.1 PW-71 has also stated vide letter dated 05.03.2008, Ex.PW71/S, marked to EE (S) DD-V specific instructions with respect to cancelled plot no. A-264 & A-265 were given to them to lodge an FIR, under information to them, if the jhuggi dweller had started construction work.
13.3 PW-71 has also deposed that subsequently, vide letter dated 17.03.2009, (Ex.PW71/K), EE DD-V(S) was instructed to identify cancelled vacant plots on which unauthorized construction had been made, for carrying out demolition/ sealing process; and that the same was marked to JEs for immediate action; DD-V in response, had forwarded consolidated list of such plots (having unauthorized construction), which is Ex.PW71/L. It would be pertinent to refer here to the said note/ letter Ex.PW71/K (Page 741). CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 31 of 134 :: 32 ::
Relevant portion of the same reads as under :
"SLUM & JJ DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
NO:PM/1810/148/S/2008/D-15 Dated:17.3.09
Sub: Demolition of encroachment/
unauthorised construction on the plots
cancelled by the SUR Division at Gautam Puri, Molarband Phase-I & II.
In this context, Dy. Commissioner (S&JJ) M has desired that Ex.Engg. (S) DD-V must take approval of specific no. of cancelled vacant plots which have been constructed by the unscrupulous elements and take action immediately in this regard.
You are requested to identify the specific number of cancelled vacant plots on which the construction has been made by the unscrupulous elements. After identifying such specific plots the approval of the Competent Authority be obtained and thereafter the demolition/ sealing process be initiated in respect of all such plots.
The reference in original received from their office is enclosed for necessary action.
(KUNDAN LAL) OSD (P&M) CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 32 of 134 :: 33 ::
Ex. Engg.(S) DD-V For immediate action pl.
AF//-III Sh. Qamaruddin JE Pl. submit the list of un-authorised construction/ encroachment on cancelled plots at Molar Bund schemes."
From the above, it is seen that the said note was marked to A-1 for necessary action.
13.4 It has also come in PW-71's testimony that vide note dated 24.03.2009 (Ex.PW71/G), the matter was put up; and pursuant to said note, letter dated 02.04.2009, Ex.PW71/H was issued whereby instructions were issued to all the Engineers to protect and check the unauthorized construction on cancelled/ vacant plots and if anything was noticed, action be taken immediately against such person. The aforesaid note dated 24.03.2009, Ex.PW71/G and letter Ex.PW71/H (Page 718) read as under :
Ex.PW71/G " This is regarding cancellation of vacant plots.......
........ Addl. Commissioner (S&JJ) has desired CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 33 of 134 :: 34 ::
that the strict instructions be issued to all the area Engineers to stop the construction on the cancelled vacant plots.
..... a number of complaints have been received....... but the construction has been made on the vacant cancelled plots by the unscrupulous elements.
Since it is a sensitive matter the
instructions must be sent to all the
Engineering Divisions to check the
unauthorized construction on cancelled
vacant plots and if anything is noticed action be initiated against all such persons immediately.
.........
24.03.2009 (KUNDAN LAL) OSD (O&E/ P&M)"
Ex.PW71/H "NO:F.09/Molar Band/OSD(SUR)/S&JJ/2007/D-17 Dated:2.4.09 This is regarding cancellation of vacant plots which were allotted to the jhuggie dwellers but did not occupied by them in a stipulated period.
....... The allotment of all such plots was CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 34 of 134 :: 35 ::
cancelled and the area Engineers were advised to take over the physical possession of these plots so that unscrupulous elements may not encroached upon the same.
A number of complaints have been received from the various resettlement pockets wherein it has been pointed out that unscrupulous elements has made construction of the cancelled vacant plots.
All the SEs are hereby requested to issue instructions to all the area Engineers that no construction is taken place on the cancelled vacant plots in future."
13.5 The only suggestion in this regard, which was put to PW71 in cross-examination was, that Enforcement Department was created within each Division to detect and take action against unauthorized construction/ encroachment. But none of the above circulars/ letters/ notings vide which instructions were issued for protecting the vacant/ cancelled plots and taking action, was disputed. Furthermore, when testimony of PW71/ instructions issued vide noting Ex.PW71/G, noting dated 24.03.2009 and letters dated 02.04.2009 Ex.PW71/H and letter Ex.PW71/Z-4, vide which a list of cancelled plots was circulated to EE, DD-V, for taking necessary action with a direction to seal the units immediately, were put to A-1 & A-2 in their statement CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 35 of 134 :: 36 ::
under Section 313 Cr.PC, A-1 simply stated that he did not know; A-2 admitted circular Ex.PW71/Z-4 and the instructions conveyed thereby; he has stated that it is a matter of record. 13.6 Now reverting to the learned defence counsel's plea that vide Ex.PW77/D1, letter dated 06.04.2010, the Executive Engineer (S) DD-V has mentioned that no field functionary JE/ AE/ EE was responsible for detection and follow up action for unauthorized construction and encroachment; and reference to old circulars dated 28.12.2006 (Ex.PW77/D-2), 14.09.2005 (Ex.PW77/D-3) and 30.10.2000 (Ex.PW77/D-4), enclosed with same, was made. It is significant to note that these documents were not put to PW71 (in his cross-examination), the relevant witness in this regard. When put to IO - PW77/ Dharamavir Singh in cross-examination, he stated that the circulars referred to in letter dated 06.04.2010 (Ex.PW77/D1) were not applicable during the relevant period. The said letter/ circulars were also put to PW78, the other IO Inspector S.P. Singh, in cross-
examination. PW78 has categorically denied that the duty of detecting unauthorized construction/ taking action against the encroachers was vested with JD (Enforcement); and stated that as per the statements of witnesses, it was the duty of accused CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 36 of 134 :: 37 ::
JEs.
13.7 Further, from the testimony of PW71 and above circulars/ letters issued from time to time, it has come on record that JEs A-1 & A-2, were duty bound to protect cancelled plots; to bring to Department's notice, any encroachment/ unauthorized construction on the same; the accused's (A-1 and A-2) Division, was directed to take steps for survey/ report/ lodging FIR/ removal - sealing of unauthorized construction, etc. Further, PW71 has categorically stated in his cross-
examination that duty to take action for sealing or for demolition of any unit was in the domain of the Engineering Department and denied that it was his duty. The suggestion made to PW-71/ his admission that case for alleged corrupt activities was initiated against him in the year 2001, has no bearing on the evidence on record. 13.7.1 Rather, in PW-71's cross-examination (by A-2), it has come on record that the Asst. Director (Sealing - Demolition), takes action as an executing authority whenever any such request is received from Engineering Department. From the same, it is apparent that such report (of encroachment/ unauthorized construction) was to be made by CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 37 of 134 :: 38 ::
JEs and they were to seek approval of competent authority for sealing/ demolition and then send the same for execution to the Enforcement Department.
13.8 It may also be mentioned that when considered in totality, it has come in the testimony of accused's own witnesses that it was the duty of JEs to report to police/ their superiors, whenever any unauthorized construction/ encroachment came to their notice. DW-6 Sanjeev Goyal, AE (Civil) has deposed that while his posting as AE at Development Division-V, Maharani Bagh, Delhi during June 2007 to March 2008, A-2 was one of the JEs working under him; the duty of the JEs was to look after the development and maintenance work in the area; and whenever, any unauthorized construction/ encroachment in the concerned area, came to their notice, they were supposed to inform their superiors about the same. But, in his cross-examination (on behalf of A-1), DW-6 changed his stand and stated that it was not the duty of JE to report about unauthorized construction, but only in the interest of the department, they reported the same. Same is not only contrary to the record, but also to his further deposition. In his cross-examination by Ld. CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 38 of 134 :: 39 ::
Prosecutor, DW6 admitted that it is the duty of JE to oversee the entire area under his jurisdiction. 13.8.1 DW-6 also deposed that unauthorized construction in Molar Band area was generally carried out and completed during night time or on holidays, as the plot sizes are very small, so as to suggest that it was not possible for A-2 to detect unauthorized construction. However, in his further cross-
examination by Ld. Prosecutor, DW-6 admitted that it is not humanly possible to construct over night, a three storeyed building on a plot measuring 18 sq. meter. Rather, as discussed in para 60.1 (infra), it has come on record vide DD Entry dated 29.01.2009 (Ex.PW57/B) (colly.) that A-1/ JE Quamruddin had told the plot holders to carry out (unauthorized) construction on their plots on saturday and sunday, same being holidays. 13.9 Although, A-1 & A-2's witness DW-7 Ram Dass, Executive Engineer, who was posted at Development Division- V, Maharani Bagh since 2008 till 2009 stated that it was not their duty to ensure that no illegal construction took place on vacant/ cancelled plots at Molar Bandh area; and that detection of illegal encroachment/ unauthorized construction; follow-up action is within the domain of the Enforcement Division. But, it CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 39 of 134 :: 40 ::
has come in his testimony that on the basis of reports received from AE and JE; and at that time perhaps the JE was A-1 Quamruddin, he had put up note dated 20.02.2009 - Ex.DW7/DA to Superintendent Engineer, informing about increase in encroachment/ unauthorized construction in Molar Bandh area, in the file of Approval for Demolition of Encroachment/ unauthorized construction on the plots cancelled by SUR at Gautam Puri, Molar Bandh, Phases-I & II. DW-7 further deposed that there were reports of unauthorized construction on record even prior to his joining in the said Division in the year 2008, on the plots, which were cancelled in the year 2007. DW-7 testified about the office note dated 20.02.2009 (at page-1/ N), which shows that A-1 & A-2's Division was putting up note for approval of demolition of encroachment/unauthorized construction. 13.9.1 The relevant portion of the said note Ex. DW7/DA, reads as under:-
"SLUM & J J DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DD-V Sub: Approval for the demolition of encroachment/ Unauthorized construction on the plots CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 40 of 134 :: 41 ::
cancelled by SUR Section at Gautam Puri, Molarband Plase-I & II 1 ............ Thereafter, in the month of August/September 2007, SUR Section cancelled a large number of plots on account of violation of various terms & conditions of allotment and consolidated lists were supplied to various divisions for taking further action in the matter. 2 Soon after the receipt of these lists from the SUR Section, the concerned Jr. Engineer/Asstt Engineers were directed to initiate action so that the interest of the Deptt. could be safeguarded. The concerned Engineers have sent a number of communications to the concerned SHO as well as concerned officers to take up the matter with the higher authority. As per Field Report, out of cancelled plots, 37 plots have been encroached upon in Phase I and 247 Plots have been encroached upon in Phase-II and unauthorized construction is being undertaken there.
3 ........... In the absence of proper watch and ward arrangement, the Field Engineers do not have any proper mechanism except to visit the site every day and report, even this is hanging fire till date. ...........
4 In view of above, to resolve the issue once for all, necessary approval may kindly be accorded for undertaking demolition operation till such time when all the plots cancelled by SUR Section are being retrieved and vacant possession taken over by the site Engineers.
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DD-V"
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 41 of 134 :: 42 ::
13.9.2 From the above, it is evident that field engineers/ JEs/ AEs were to visit the area and were directed to take action with respect to encroachment/ unauthorized construction; the engineers were visiting the site everyday; further, A-1 & A-2's Division even sought approval for carrying out demolition of such unauthorized construction.
13.10 The fact that JEs were supposed to visit the area and report , is also made out from the testimony of DW-8.
DW-8 Sh.R.C. Nawani, Asst. Engg. (witness of A-1), who was posted in Molar Bandh area from 26.11.2008 till 06.08.2010, has testified that A-1 Quamruddin had informed the higher authorities about unauthorized construction. 13.11 Considering the testimony of PW71 alongwith the testimony of defence witnesses of A-1 and A-2, the documents referred to by them and other material on record including statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC, in totality, it has come on record that it was the duty of A-1 & A-2 to report/ take immediate preventive/ corrective steps, as soon as the encroachment/ unauthorized construction on cancelled/ CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 42 of 134 :: 43 ::
vacant plots was noticed by them. It is A-1 & A-2's own case that they lodged number of complaints [Ex.PW57/B (Colly.)]. about unauthorized construction with local police. Why were so many complaints filed by A-1 and A-2, when it was not their duty to detect and take action against unauthorized construction? The reasons for the same have come on record, which are discussed a little later in para 60.0 and its sub paras. It may be mentioned that it has come on record that these complaints were made after the unauthorized construction was over; and the same were filed by A-1 & A-2, just as a formality and to create record, to save themselves.
13.12 Even if for a while, A-1 and A-2's plea that it was not their duty to detect and demolish unauthorized construction is accepted, it does not help them much. In view of the evidence on record as discussed in subsequent paras it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that both, A-1 & A-2 were hands in glove with A-3, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9; they facilitated/ allowed encroachment/ sale of cancelled plots by the said accused persons on the basis of forged and fabricated documents/ and raising of unauthorized construction on such plots, misusing/ abusing their official position.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 43 of 134 :: 44 ::
A-1 & A-2 facilitated sale of vacant/ cancelled plots/ unauthorized construction thereon in connivance with co-accused, abusing/ misusing their official position. A-1 Qamaruddin
14.0 PW-4 Subhash deposed that vide documents Ex.PW4/A (Colly.), he had purchased Plot No. A-242, Gautam Puri, Phase-II, in his wife Lokesh's name, through Rajinder from Jagdish; at the time of construction of the house on the said plot, A-1 Quamruddin, JE came and stopped the construction and asked for some "Sewa Pani"; on the said demand, he gave him Rs.10,000/- and only then the construction was carried out. PW-4 duly identified A-1 Quamruddin in court. PW4 has stood by the same in his cross-examination. He stated that at the time of construction when JE Quamruddin/ A-1 visited his plot, he was accompanied by one Pandit Ji, and by a policeman, and as demanded, he handed over Rs.10,000/- to A-1 and another Rs.10,000/- to the policeman. PW-4 categorically denied that A-1 did not demand any money from him and that a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- was not paid to A-1.
14.1 The fact that A-1 had visited plot no. A-242, is admitted by A-1 in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. But, he has denied that any amount was asked from or was paid by CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 44 of 134 :: 45 ::
PW4; and w.r.t. construction, A-1 has stated that he had asked PW4 to stop the construction; and that he had made a complaint in this regard to the police as well as to the higher authorities.
14.1.1 It may be mentioned that in cross-examination, PW4 was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC, so as to point out discrepancy that, to CBI, he had told that he had paid money (for construction) to Pandit Ji and also regarding amount of sale consideration paid by him. PW-4's testimony, when read in totality, inspires confidence. Further, on perusal of his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC Ex.PW4/DA also, no material inconsistency is noticed when read in conjunction with his deposition. In his statement under Section 161 C.PC, PW-4 has stated that when he purchased the plot (A-242), there was one room with "tin-shade roof", which was demolished by him during October/ November, 2009;
subsequently, after demolishing the same, he constructed one room at ground floor and half room at first floor. He has also stated that "after demolition, JE Shri Kammruddin JE objected for reconstruction and I have to give Rs.10,000/- as bribe to beldar/ labour/ peon namely Pandit Ji of MCD Slum and JJ Deptt. CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 45 of 134 :: 46 ::
Pandit Ji demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- for handing over the same to Shri Kammuruddin JE". Even in his cross-examination, PW4 stated that A-1 was accompanied by one Pandit Ji. Minor discrepancies in date of purchase and amount of consideration also, are hardly of any consequence.
15.0 PW-12 Sh. H.B. Khatri deposed (on 13.09.2012), that about four years back, he purchased plots no. A-303 and A-302, Molar Band Phase-II, New Delhi, vide documents Ex.PW12/A (Colly.) and Ex.PW12/B (Colly.), respectively; at the time of construction, A-1 came alongwith his staff and asked for Rs.30,000/- -Rs.35,000/- for construction; as he did not have money, he stopped the construction. In his cross-examination, he denied that A-1 did not demand any money from him; although, he stated that A-1 did not come to demand; 3 - 4 staff members from A-1's office had approached him for money and he was told that construction would not be allowed, unless the money was paid. He further described that two of them were security guards and two were some private persons. Keeping in mind the strata, to which the witness belonged, minor variation in his version in examination-in-chief about demand by A-1 being made personally and through 3 - 4 staff CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 46 of 134 :: 47 ::
members, does not make his version suspect.
16.0 PW33 Shanti Devi has deposed (on 04.12.2012) that she purchased plot bearing no. A-685, Molar Band, Phase- II, New Delhi, vide documents Ex.PW33/A (Colly.), through Hira Lal (A-7) about two years back i.e., in the year 2010; she had raised construction on the said plot just after its purchase; and for that purpose, she had given a sum of Rs.4000/- to the JE of area through her son. Although, PW33 could not identify A-7 Hira Lal, in the court, but the fact that she purchased the plot from A-7 Hira Lal, is admitted by A-7, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. A-7 Hira Lal in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC has stated that he purchased (only) one plot from Sh. Rakesh Bansal and sold the same to Shanti Devi (PW33). 16.1 Further, PW33 could not identify the JE to whom the money was given. As she resiled from her previous statement, she was cross-examined by Ld. Prosecutor. In her cross- examination by Ld. Prosecutor, PW33 admitted that she had told CBI that she visited A-1's office situated at Gautam Puri; A-1 had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for allowing construction on the plot; and after negotiation, a sum of Rs. 4000/- was paid to A-1. She even identified A-1, on being CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 47 of 134 :: 48 ::
pointed out by the Ld. Prosecutor.
16.2 It has come out in PW33's cross-examination (on behalf of A-3 to A-11), that prior to purchase of the said plot, she had shown the property documents to A-1, who informed her that the said documents were in order;
and that she had raised 2½ storeys on her plot. It has further come in her cross-examination (by A-1) that she was not stopped by A-1 from raising construction. Ld. defence counsel pleaded that there is a contradiction in PW33's version before the court and in her statement under Section 161 Cr.PC; to point out the said contradiction, Ld. defence counsel confronted PW33 with portion "A to A" of her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C, Ex.PW33/DA. In view of the same, reference is made to the relevant portion of PW33's statement under Section 161 Cr.PC, which reads as under :-
A"After purchasing the plot, we started the construction on 21, 22 December 2009 at that time baildaar, Sh. Panditji visited the site and asked for stopping the construction work and called in the office of JE. A Accordingly, I visited the office of the JE Sh. Kamruddin alongwith Rajender and Heera Lal at that time JE demanded Rs. 10000/- CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 48 of 134 :: 49 ::
but, on request of Heera Lal and Rajender Singh he agreed on Rs. 3000/- and the same amount was handed over to JE, Kamruddin through Heeral Lal."
16.2.1 When portion "A to A" is read in the light of the next para of PW33's statement as reproduced above, no material contradiction is found in her testimony and statement under Section 161 Cr.PC, in this regard. There is consistency in her version that money was paid to A-1 for carrying out construction. The fact that in her examination-in-chief PW33 stated that she had given a sum of Rs.4000/- to JE (Qamaruddin) through her son, whereas, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.PC she stated that she had paid a sum of Rs.3000/- to A-1 through Hira Lal, is not of much consequence, in view of consistency in her version before the court about payment of money to A-1 for carrying out construction. 16.2.2 Rather, as deposed by PW33, it has also come in the testimony of witnesses PW4 and PW-20 that A-1 acted through conduit/ staff - "Panditji".
16.3 It has come in PW33's cross-examination that her CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 49 of 134 :: 50 ::
property was sealed. It was suggested to her that she has made a false deposition, to settle score with A-1, as her property was sealed at the instance of A-1. It is noteworthy that when the evidence of PW33 was put to A-1 while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, he simply denied the same and stated that neither did he make any demand nor was any money paid to him. No averment about settling of score by PW33 on account of sealing of her property, was made.
17.0 The complicity of A-1 is also made out vide testimony of PW55. PW55 Ravita has testified that she vide documents Ex.PW55/A (Colly.) had purchased plot no. A-320, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi, from A-9 Rajinder Kumar, through A-3 Salim Alvi, for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-, in the year 2008. She had inquired about the genuineness of the plot from A-1, after purchase; A-1 informed that the plot had been cancelled, therefore, she should carry out the construction immediately and somebody should reside in the property. She has stood by her deposition, in her cross examination. 17.1 No doubt, it has come out in her cross-examination that she was a Data Entry Operator in MCD and knew that the plot belonged to Slum & JJ Department. But, she has further CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 50 of 134 :: 51 ::
stated that the seller did not inform her that the plot was not meant for sale; and that her neighbour had suggested to her to inquire about the cancellation of plot from A-1; as such she visited the office of A-1 to inquire. She has categorically denied that she was not asked by A-1 to construct the house on the said plot and reside there. In her cross-examination by A-3 to A-11, PW55 stated that she had verified about the genuineness of the plot before purchase. Whether she made enquiry before or after the purchase, is not of much significance, in view of the consistency in her testimony about A-1's advice to build the house immediately and live there, despite the plot being cancelled.
A-2 Roop Chand
18.0 Complicity of A-2 in sale of cancelled plots/ unauthorized construction has also come on record vide testimony of prosecution witnesses PW16, PW20, PW28, etc. PW16 Intikhab Alam deposed that he purchased a plot bearing No. A-251, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi, in his father's name, vide documents Ex.PW16/A (Colly.), through A-3 Salim Alvi, in the year 2006. During the year 2007, at the time of cancellation of plot, A-2 Roop Chand had visited the said plot CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 51 of 134 :: 52 ::
and demanded from him, a sum of Rs.10,000/- for saving it from cancellation. He has further stated that when he disclosed that he (PW16) is from Delhi Police, A-2 Roop Chand did not return. PW16 identified A-2 Roop Chand in the court. In his cross-examination by A-2, PW16 could not give date and month of year 2007, when A-2 Roop Chand had approached him. But, he specified that it was winter season (of 2007). It is a matter of record that A-2 Roop Chand was posted in that area w.e.f. August 2007 to October 2008; and that the list of plots unoccupied by allottees was found by Engineering Division. 18.1 It was argued by Ld. counsel for A-2 that it is highly improbable that PW16, a Government servant/ police official, would not have lodged a complaint had A-2 demanded any bribe. Thus, his version can hardly be believed. Merely because, PW16 did not lodge any complaint about demand of bribe, despite being a police official, does not discredit his version. 19.0 PW20 Smt. Saroj Bala has deposed that she had purchased plot no. A-321, Gautam Puri, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi from Mohd. Aslam, through A-3 Salim Alvi in the year 2008 vide documents Ex.PW20/A; at the time of construction on the plot, A-2 Roop Chand had demanded Rs.10,000/- from her, CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 52 of 134 :: 53 ::
which she paid; and thereafter, she made the construction on the said plot. PW20 identified A-2 Roop Chand in the court. She has stood by her deposition in her cross-examination. Perusal of the property documents Ex.PW20/ A (Colly.) reveals that the said documents were executed on 28.06.2008, i.e., during the period of posting of A-2 in that area. Further, PW20 has clarified in her cross-examination that during her questioning by CBI, she had told them about demand of Rs.10,000/- from her by JE; but, she had not told the name of the JE to CBI, as she did not know his name at that time.
19.1 PW20 also deposed that at the time of purchase of the said plot, she had inquired from A-2 Roop Chand, about the genuineness of the plot and whether it was cancelled or not; A-2 Roop Chand told her that the plot had not been cancelled and that she may purchase the same. But, in her cross- examination, she stated that she had not told CBI about consulting A-2 Roop Chand, at the time of purchase of plot; and then voluntarily stated that she had shown the documents to one Pandit in the compound of office of JE. This discrepancy is not of such a nature, so as to discredit her testimony. Moreso, as already noted, the role of one "Panditji" acting as a conduit CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 53 of 134 :: 54 ::
for area JE has also come on record vide testimonies of PW4 and PW33.
20.0 PW28 Ashok Kumar deposed that he purchased plot no. A-324, Gautam Puri, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi, from A-6 Rajender Singh, in the year 2008 vide documents Ex.PW28/A (colly.). He has further stated that at the asking of A-6, he had paid Rs.15,000/- to Area JE Roop Chand (A-2) to construct the house; that A-6 Rajender Singh had told him that the said amount was required to be paid to the Area JE for constructing the house on the plot. He identified A-2 in the court. It has come in his cross-examination that he had made construction on the plot just after 4 -5 days of its purchase. He has stood by his deposition in cross-examination and denied that A-2 never met him with regard to the construction on his plot. He reiterated that he had met A-2 in his office, although, he could not tell number of tables and chairs which were there in A-2's office, which is not of much significance, in view of his consistent version.
20.1 PW28 in his cross-examination stated that he had not told in his statement to CBI about payment of Rs.15,000/- to A-2 Roop Chand. Ld. counsel for A-2 Roop Chand argued that CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 54 of 134 :: 55 ::
PW28 has made an improvement before this court and, therefore, his version is not worthy of credit. Undisputedly, the (unauthorized) construction on the aforesaid plot took place during A-2's tenure; and it was the duty of A-2 to check the same, [as discussed in detail in paras 12.0, 13.0 and their sub- paras (supra)], which was not discharged by A-2, meaning thereby, that A-2 abused his official position. 20.2 It may be mentioned that testimony of PW28 is corroborated by Rajender Singh/ A-6, who stepped into the witness box in his defence as DW2. A-6/ DW2 has testified that he had purchased plot no. A-324, Gautam Puri, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi and had sold only the said plot. But, he had also arranged some more plots in Gautam Puri, Molar Band, Phase-II, for his friends and relatives through A-7 and A-8. DW-2 placed on record the property documents pertaining to about 22 plots in Gautam Puri, Molar Band, Phase-II, which as per him, he got purchased by his relatives.
20.3 DW2 has further testified that A-7 & A-8 used to inform him about the availability of plots and used to provide the documents pertaining to the said plots; presuming the said documents to be genuine, he used to arrange buyers for the CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 55 of 134 :: 56 ::
same. He has further stated that the said plots were sold after confirming with A-2 Roop Chand about the genuineness of the documents given by A-7 and A-8. While denying the suggestion of Ld. Prosecutor that despite being aware that plot numbers A-242, A-246, A-296, A-297, A-300, A-301, A-311, A-479 and A-65, Gautam Puri, Molar Band, Phase-II, Delhi, were cancelled plots, he sold them, A-6/ DW-2 stated that - "Only after confirming about the plots being proper with A-2 Roop Chand, I got them purchased by my relatives." It is also noted that while denying a further suggestion of Ld. Prosecutor that he used to pay Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-, to A-2 Roop Chand, every time he confirmed with him about the plots, DW-2 stated that - "Maine apne hath se kabhi koi paisa nahi diya. The purchasers/ relatives used to themselves give the money to A-2 Roop Chand. But, I cannot say what amount they paid because it was not paid in my presence." 20.3.1 DW-2 in his cross-examination by A-2, stood by his deposition and denied that he never purchased plot no. A-324 because he left Molar Band area in the year 2004.How did A-2 know that A-6 left the area in 2004? Same reflects about A-2's acquaintance with A-6. Even otherwise A-6/ DW-2, reiterated CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 56 of 134 :: 57 ::
his version and stated that he had purchased the said plot in the year 2008, when A-2 Roop Chand, JE was posted there. He also stood by his deposition regarding confirming from A-2, about the plots before the same were purchased by his relatives.
20.3.2 It is noteworthy that A-2 suggested to DW-2 (A-6) in cross-examination that he (DW-2) has deposed falsely to save himself and to implicate A-2, because of personal enmity with him. Only a general suggestion in this regard was made and no specific reason of such enmity was disclosed by A-2, for the reasons best known to him.
20.4 No doubt, as per Illustration (b) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. In view of the above material on record, testimony of A-6 Rajender Singh/ DW-2, stands corroborated in material particulars. His testimony not only lends credence to PW28's version that at the asking of A-6, he had paid Rs.
15,000/- to A-2; but also, to the version of other prosecution witnesses, who have deposed on the same lines. CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 57 of 134 :: 58 ::
21.0 From the above evidence on record, it is established that although, it was the duty of A-1 & A-2 to protect the vacant/ cancelled plots. But, in gross abuse/ misuse of their official position, they not only facilitated sale of cancelled plots, but also, allowed unauthorized construction thereon, for pecuniary gain.
A-3 MOHD. SALIM ALVI 22.0 Allegation against A-3 is, that he sold about 36 vacant/ cancelled plots in connivance and conspiracy with JEs A-1 & A-2 during the period 2007 - 2009. Vide his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, A-3 himself has stated that being well known in the area, he was approached by people for advise about sale/ purchase of property and he helped people. He has also admitted that he even accompanied people at the time of sale/ purchase, and even collected sale consideration and issued receipt to the buyers. No doubt, he has further stated that, he did so at the request of seller, when the seller was not available. He has also admitted signing on sale documents, but, as a witness.
22.1 The fact that A-3 was instrumental/ engaged in sale of cancelled plots in Molar Bandh, Phase-II, has also come on CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 58 of 134 :: 59 ::
record vide testimony of his own witness DW-5 Smt. Munni. It has further come on record vide testimony of prosecution witnesses, PW17, PW-18, PW-19, PW-20, PW-22, PW-26, PW-27, PW-35, PW-45, PW-46, PW-51, PW-52, PW-53, PW-54, PW-61, PW-63, PW-63, PW-64, PW-65, PW-66, PW-69, PW-70, PW-75, PW-75 and PW-76.
23.0 DW-5 Munni has deposed that - "she knew A-3 Salim Alvi prior to the purchase of the aforesaid plot (A-519), as she had visited Gautam Puri with certain ladies, who bought the plot and had met A-3 Salim Alvi, who was selling sand etc. she had to purchase a plot in Gautam Puri and she had given bayana to A-3 Salim Alvi......" Although, DW5 further stated that she had bought the said plot from a person at Jhandewalan Mandir, Karol Bagh, but, she could not tell the name of the person, to whom she had made the payment for the plot.
23.1 It is noteworthy that summon to DW-5 Munni was issued at address A-519, Gautam Puri, Phase-II, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044; and it has come in her testimony that presently there is no construction on the said plot (meaning thereby, DW-5 is not living there). In response to court question, DW-5 CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 59 of 134 :: 60 ::
stated that she did not receive any summon from court and she just came along with another witness of A-3, namely, Shakeela (DW-4), who is living in Gautam Puri. It is interesting that DW-5, who had not received any summons and had just come alongwith the other witness, had even brought the documents of purchase of plot at Gautam Puri. On asking the reason for carrying property papers, she, in her cross-examination stated that - "whenever anyone leaves the house, one carries the documents." From these facts it is evident that the DW-5 had appeared and deposed at the behest of A-3.
23.2 Be that as it may. From DW-3's testimony, it is evident that A-3 was being approached for purchase of plots in Molar Band, Phase-II area; even DW-5 had met him in this regard and even paid advance money to him. Perusal of documents Ex.DW5/A - Agreement to Sell and Purchase, GPA, Receipt, Possession Letter, Deed of Will, reveal that the same bear the signatures - "Mohd. Salim" as "witness". In her cross-
examination by Ld. Sr. PP, she has stated that she cannot say whether the said plot was purchased from A-3 and the documents Ex.DW5/A, bear A-3's signatures; same clearly shows an attempt on the part of DW5 to suppress the true CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 60 of 134 :: 61 ::
facts.
24.0 PW-17 Ghanshyam has categorically stated that he purchased two plots bearing nos. A-315 and A-316, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi, vide documents Ex.PW17/A (colly.) and Ex.PW17/B (Colly.), respectively, in the year 2008, in the names of his son Pankaj Kumar and wife Rajwati, respectively, from A-3. He has stood by the same in cross-examination and categorically denied that he just took along A-3, at the time of purchase of aforesaid plots and reiterated that he had purchased the said plots from A-3. From A-3's own suggestion, it is evident that he was admittedly approached by PW17 for purchase of aforesaid plots. It is also noteworthy that the property documents Ex.PW17/B (Colly.) admittedly bear signatures of A-3 on GPA, though under the head "witness". Although, PW17 admitted that documents of plot no. A-315/ Ex.PW17/A (Colly.) do not bear signatures of A-3. But, perusal of the said documents reveal that signatures of A-3 appear on GPA, though, as a witness. Be that as it may. From the testimony of PW17 when considered in conjunction with the documents, it is evident that A-3 was instrumental in sale of the said cancelled plots.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 61 of 134 :: 62 ::
25.0 PW18 Smt. Janki Devi deposed (on 18.10.2012) that she purchased plot no. A-407, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi, vide documents Ex.PW18/A (Colly)., from A-3 for a sum of Rs.2,15,000/-, about 4 - 5 years back. She even identified A-3 in court. She stood by her deposition in her cross- examination. Perusal of property documents Ex.PW18/A (colly.) reveals that these documents are dated 22.09.2006. But, from the nature of typing, it is evident that the particulars of the buyer were typed subsequently; the date of execution, in Agreement to Sell and Affidavit, is left blank; further, only the thumb impression of the executor/ first party are put on all the documents without mentioning the name of the person. From these facts, it is apparent that although, the documents are dated 22.09.2006, but the same do not reflect the actual date of transaction. Rather, from the evidence which has come on record, it is apparent that the back dated typed documents/ incomplete documents (with spaces meant for consideration/ date, left blank) were given to the buyers of vacant/ cancelled plots/ by A-3, at the time of sale transaction. 26.0 PW19 Sh. Anand Singh deposed (on 18.10.2012) that he purchased plot no. A-293, Molar Band, Phase-II, New CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 62 of 134 :: 63 ::
Delhi, vide documents Ex.PW19/A (Colly.), from A-3 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-, about 4 - 5 years back. He even identified A-3 in court. He has stood by his deposition in cross-examination. Perusal of Ex.PW19/A reveals that although, the documents Agreement to Sell & Purchase, Affidavit, GPA bear the date 22.09.2006; but, the non judicial stamp paper, on which these documents are written, were purchased on 27.02.2009; and they also bear Notary Public date stamp of 09.03.2009. It is also noted that Receipt with respect to Plot No. A-293 is issued by "Jahangir" on 18.09.2008; it mentions that the said plot has been sold for Rs.3.50 lacs and that Rs.3 lacs have been received and the balance Rs.50,000/- shall be paid after Diwali on 10.11.2008. The date of actual execution of these documents further corroborate the testimony of PW-19. 26.1 As discussed above in para 19.0 (supra), it has also come in the testimony of PW20 Smt. Saroj Bala that she had purchased plot no. 321, Molar Band, New Delhi, vide documents Ex.PW20/A (Colly.), through A-3. She has stood by the same in her cross-examination. She also identified A-3, in court. Further, perusal of Ex.PW20/A (Colly.) reveals that the same were executed by one Rahul in favour of Saroj Bala on 28.06.2008 CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 63 of 134 :: 64 ::
and bear questioned signatures of A-3 on GPA at Q-64, Agreement to Sell and Purchase at Q-65, Receipt, (which does not mention the amount received) at Q-66, Possession Letter at Q-67, Will at Q-68. The questioned signatures of A-3 at Q-64 to Q-68 have been proved to be that of A-3. PW-73 vide his report Ex.PW73/Q has opined that the said questioned signatures and specimen signatures at S-21 to S-36 [Ex.PW73/P-3 (Colly.)] have been written by the same person. The fact that specimen signatures at S-21 to S-36 are that of A-3, is not in dispute. Further, nothing could be brought out in cross-examination of the expert/ PW73, by the accused persons, so as to doubt the credibility of PW-73's report. The only suggestion which was put to PW73 in cross-examination was, that he did not personally examine the exhibits and did not prepare the aforesaid report Ex.PW73/Q, himself, which was categorically denied by PW73.
27.0 It has come in the testimony of PW45 Mohd. Aslam that at the instance of Mohd. Saleem Alvi, A-3, who is known to him and runs a shop in the name of "Alvi Builders" at A-340, Gautampuri, Phase-II, Badarpur, New Delhi, he on 03.10.2008 had prepared a Receipt in the name of Uttam Barua, with respect to purchase of plot no. A-276, Gautampuri, Phase-II, CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 64 of 134 :: 65 ::
Badarpur, New Delhi. PW45 has also testified that for the purchase of said plot, "Uttam Barua made a payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- by cheque, Rs.50,000/- by cash and last payment of Rs.10,000/- by cash. ...."; and that all the moneys were actually taken by A-3. The fact that A-3 was known to PW45 is borne out from A-3's own suggestion to PW45 in cross-examination to the effect, that PW45's office is adjacent to A-3's office. Further, PW45 has stood by his version in his cross-examination and categorically stated that, "...I had received the aforesaid amount on behalf of Mohd. Saleem Alvi. ...". 27.1 It may also be mentioned that the facts that total sum of Rs.3,60,000/- was received from Uttam Barua; and out of the said amount, Rs.3 lacs was received by way of cheque by A-3; and that receipt of the said amount was issued on the stationary of A-3, are admitted by A-3, in view of his own suggestion to PW45, which is reproduced here - "...It is wrong to suggest that I had obtained the bill book from Alvi Builders and prepared the receipt Ex.PW45/A. It is wrong to suggest that Uttam Barua gave the cheque for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to Mohd Alvi at my instance. It is wrong to suggest that I had received a sum of Rs.60,000/- from Uttam Barua ".
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 65 of 134 :: 66 ::
27.2 The fact that an amount of Rs.3 lacs was deposited in A-3's account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Office Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi (OBC), has also come out in the testimony of PW43 K.L. Girotra, who was posted in the said Branch of OBC as Senior Manager, at the relevant time. PW43 testified that vide letter dated 19.08.2010 (Ex.PW43/H), he had forwarded certified copies of cheques no. 327851 and 327849, Ex.PW43/H-4 and Ex.PW43/H-5, respectively, in the name of Alvi Brothers. He had also forwarded through his letter dated 05.08.2010 (Ex.PW43/C), documents, inter alia, statement of the said account for the period 01.01.2007 to 05.08.2010, (which is Ex.PW43/G). None of these documents were disputed by A-3 as PW-43 was not cross-examined in this regard. The perusal of the aforesaid cheques Ex.PW43/H-4 and Ex.PW43/H-5 and statement of account Ex.PW43/G, reveals that both the cheques are for a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs each and are dated 03.10.2008.
As per the statement of account Ex.PW43/G, these cheques were credited in the aforesaid account of A-3 on 06th October and 07th October, 2008, respectively.
27.2.1 It is noted that although, the aforesaid facts and CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 66 of 134 :: 67 ::
documents remained undisputed; but, when the testimony of PW-43 and the aforesaid documents, were put to A-3 during his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, A-3 denied the same. 27.3 It is also noteworthy that the factum of deposit of the cheques of Rs.3 lacs in A-3's aforesaid account, has come in A-3's statement under Section 313 Cr.PC (Q-56). Although, he has stated that the cheque deposited in M/s Alvi Builders' account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, was the payment made to him in respect of purchase of building material. Same is contradictory to his own suggestion to PW45, to the effect that he (A-3) had received the payment of Rs.3 lacs from Uttam Barua on behalf of PW45. A-3's version under Section 313 Cr.PC, thus, exposes his falsehood.
28.0 It may be mentioned that Uttam Barua, who stepped into the witness box as PW51, has deposed that in 2008, he purchased plot no. A-276 through A-3 from Mohd.
Aslam, for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- vide documents Ex.PW51/A; he got the plot constructed from A-3 and paid Rs.1 lac for construction, which included expenditure towards payment of JE of the area and police; the construction was started 2 - 3 months from the date of purchase, i.e. during the tenure of A-1. CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 67 of 134 :: 68 ::
PW51 has stood by his testimony in cross-examination and categorically denied that A-3 is only building material supplier and not the builder.
28.1 Perusal of documents Ex.PW51/A (colly.) reveals that GPA, Agreement to Sell & Purchase, Receipt, Possession Letter, Will, dated 03.10.2008, bear questioned signatures of A-3 at Q-33, Q-34, Q-35, Q-36, Q-37, respectively, albeit as a witness. The said questioned signatures, Q-33 to Q-37 have been proved to be that of A-3 Salim Alvi. The said questioned signatures have been opined by expert PW-73, vide his report Ex.PW73/Q, to have been written by one and the same person whose specimen signatures are S21 - S36. The fact that specimen signatures S-21 to S-36 (on Ex.PW73/P-3), are that of A-3 Salim Alvi, is not in dispute.
28.2 It is interesting to note that when testimonies of PW45 and PW51 were put to A-3 (Q-32 & Q-35), in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, A-3 denied all the facts point blank, including running of shop under the name and style of M/s Alvi Builders, receipt of any amount, etc., which bares open the falsehood of A-3.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 68 of 134 :: 69 ::
28.3 On considering the testimonies of PW45, PW51 and the aforesaid documents in totality, it is evident that the plot no. A-276 was sold by A-3, although, the documents were got executed through PW45; the sale consideration was received by A-3; unauthorized construction on the said plot was also got done through A-3, for which he charged Rs.One Lakh, which even included the payment to be made to area JE and police. 29.0 PW53 Vipin Kumar deposed that in the year 2008, they had purchased plots bearing nos. A-322 and A-323, Molarband, Phase-II, Badarpur, New Delhi from Hem Raj and Jai Prakash, respectively through Mohd. Salim, in his name and in the name of his brother Umesh Kumar, vide documents Ex.PW53/A & Ex.PW53/B, respectively; for which, they had paid total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to them. He further deposed that they had inquired about the genuineness of the plots from A-3 Salim Alvi, who told him that the plots were genuine and there was no problem in the purchase of the same. PW53 even identified A-3 in court. It has come in his cross-examination that he knew A-3, being a supplier of building material in the area.
The fact that A-3 was associated with the sale of the said plot has come out vide his own suggestion to PW53; it was CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 69 of 134 :: 70 ::
suggested to PW53 that he (only) accompanied PW53, for purchase of plot, which was categorically denied by PW53. PW53 also denied that enquiry about genuineness of plots, was made by him, from Hem Raj and Jai Prakash and not from A-3.
29.1 Perusal of Ex.PW53/A (colly.) reveals that it bears signatures of A-3 Mohd. Salim, R/o A-340 on GPA, Agreement to Sell & Purchase, Receipt, Possession Letter, Will, although as a witness, at Q-54, Q-55, Q-56, Q-57, Q-58, respectively, which have not been disputed by him, as PW-53 was not cross- examined in this regard. Even otherwise, PW-73 vide his report Ex.PW73/Q has opined that the aforesaid questioned signatures and specimen signatures S-21 to S-36, have been written by the same person. The fact that specimen signatures S-21 to S-36 are that of A-3, is not in dispute.
30.0 PW66 Shyam Kumar has deposed that in the year 2009, vide documents Ex.PW66/A, he had purchased plot bearing no. A-261, Molarband, Phase-II, Badarpur, New Delhi from A-3 Mohd. Salim Alvi in his name; for which, he had paid total amount of Rs.3,10,000/- to him. He identified A-3 in court. It has also come in his testimony that A-3 got executed documents from some person/ seller. He has also stated that he CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 70 of 134 :: 71 ::
even paid Rs.15,000/- for JE Qamaruddin (A-1) and Rs.10,000/- for police to accused Salim Alvi, to manage everything and that he had not paid the money himself.
30.1 PW66 has stood by his version in cross-examination and categorically denied that no payment was made to A-3 with respect to purchase of aforesaid plot. He has also stated that A-3 had told him that the said plot belonged to him; and that people in the neighbourhood also confirmed the same. He has further explained that, "..... I had asked accused Mohd. Salim Alvi about the seller and he told me that plot belongs to me and about photograph he told that it happens in this way only........
The chain papers of the aforesaid property had been provided by accused Mohd. Salim Alvi to me.....". No suggestion to the contrary was put to PW66. A-3's own suggestion to PW66 that he (PW66) had made construction on the said plot at his own risk and responsibility, obliquely reflects that the payment for JE/ police was to ensure unauthorized construction on the said plot; and also towards the fact that the construction was carried out on the said plot, after its purchase. 30.2 It is noteworthy that when testimony of PW66 was put to A-3 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC (Q44), he CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 71 of 134 :: 72 ::
stated that he had received amount of Rs.10,000/- from PW66, at the instance of seller, which belies A-3's own suggestion to PW66 that he did not make any payment to A-3. 30.3 In view of the above, it is evident that it was actually A-3 who sold the Plot no. A-261 to PW66 and provided all the documents to him, and received the consideration;
though, the documents were got executed through other person. Not only that, A-3 even received an amount of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for A-1 Quamaruddin & police, respectively, for carrying out of construction on the said plot; PW66 had then carried out the construction on the plot. 31.0 PW-35 Mohd. Mustkeem deposed that vide documents Ex.PW35/A (Colly.) and Ex.PW35/B (Colly), he, in the name of his mother and his maternal aunt, purchased two plots bearing no. A-352 & A-353, Molar Band, New Delhi, respectively, from A-3, in the year 2007, and had paid a total sum of Rs.9,50,000/- to him. He duly identified A-3 in the court. He has stood by his deposition in cross-examination and denied that the said plots were purchased by him from Saudan Singh and Leelawati and that no transaction took place between him and A-3.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 72 of 134 :: 73 ::
31.1 Perusal of Ex.PW35/A (colly.) and Ex.PW35/B, both dated 02.07.2007 reveals that GPA, Agreement to Sell & Purchase, Possession Letter, Receipt and Will, bear signatures (as witness) of Hira Lal (A-7). A-7 has not disputed his signatures on these documents, as PW-35 was not cross-
examined in this regard.
31.2 From the testimony of PW35/ documents Ex.PW35/A & Ex.PW35/B, it is established that A-3 had sold the plot, though the documents were got executed by others/ witnessed by A-7, who was in league with A-3 (as would be discussed in detail, a little later).
32.0 Even PW-46 Rekha has deposed that she and her husband purchased two plots bearing no. A-286 and A-287, Molar Band, New Delhi, vide documents Ex.PW46/A (Colly.) & Ex.PW46/B (Colly.), respectively, through A-3, in the year 2008, from Prakash Chand Saini, for a total sum of Rs. 6,50,000/-. She duly identified A-3 before the court. She has also stood by her deposition in cross-examination. She has also stated that she had not personally met the person from whom the said plots were purchased. She has also categorically denied that she had not made any payment to A-3 and has CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 73 of 134 :: 74 ::
wrongly identified A-3 at the behest of CBI. 32.1 Perusal of the documents Ex.PW46/A (Colly.) and Ex.PW46/B (Colly.) reveal that A-3 was very much the part of transaction of sale of the aforesaid plots. It is seen that documents Ex.PW46/A (Colly.) - GPA, Agreement to Sell and Purchase, Receipt, Possession Letter and Will, bear the questioned signatures of A-3 at Q-75, Q-76, Q-77, Q-78, Q-79, respectively, and on Ex.PW46/B (Colly.), his questioned signatures appear at Q-86, Q-87, Q-88, Q-89, Q-90. As per PW73's report Ex.PW73/Q, the said signatures are that of A-3.
Thus, A-3's point blank denial of PW46's testimony in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, exposes his falsehood; it also belies A-3's suggestion to PW46 that she has deposed at the behest of CBI.
33.0 PW-47 Santosh has deposed that vide documents Ex.PW47/A (Colly.), she purchased plot no. A-274, Molar Band, New Delhi, from A-3, in the year 2008, for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. She has also stated that on inquiry about genuineness, A-3 told her that there was no defect or problem in the plot. She duly identified A-3 in the court. She has stood by her deposition in cross-examination. It is CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 74 of 134 :: 75 ::
noteworthy that A-3, in cross-examination, suggested to PW47 that she has deposed falsely at the behest of CBI; and that she had made payment to the person from whom the plot was purchased i.e. named in the documents. Whereas, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, he has admitted (Q34) having sold the said plot to PW47, stating that , "I had purchased the said plot from Rakesh Bansal and further sold the same". Same exposes the falsehood of A-3. 33.1 Further, perusal of Ex.PW47/A (colly.) (dated 08.03.2008) reveals that GPA, Agreement to Sell and Purchase, Affidavit (of A-3), Possession Letter, Receipt (amount left blank) bear questioned signatures of A-3 at Q-35A, Q-36A, Q-37A (on GPA), Q-38A, Q-39A, Q-40 (on Agreement to Sell and Purchase), Q-42, Q-43 and Q-44 (on Affidavit), Q-45 (Possession Letter), Q-47 (on Receipt). A-3 has not disputed his signatures on these documents, as PW-47 was not cross-examined in this regard.
Even otherwise, PW-73 vide his report Ex.PW73/Q has opined that the aforesaid questioned signatures and specimen signatures S-21 to S-36, have been written by the same person. The fact that specimen signatures S-21 to S-36 are of A-3, is not in dispute. A-3 has signed these documents as the executant/ CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 75 of 134 :: 76 ::
first party.
33.2 In view of the above, it is established that A-3 sold the aforesaid vacant/ cancelled plot to PW47 and even assured about the genuineness of the transaction and that there was no defect in the said plot.
34.0 PW-54 Fazal Rehman, PW-63 Sapna Sharma, PW-64 Sanjay Sharma, PW-65 Ashok Kumar, PW-69 Banke Lal, PW-70 Jaspal Singh, PW-75 Ramaiya Rao, PW-76 Sachin Kumar have also deposed that they purchased plot nos. A-13, A-320, A-391, A-264, A-260, A-258, A-259, A-265, A-281, Molarband, Phase-II, Badarpur, respectively through/ from A-3 Saleem Alvi. All these witnesses duly identified A-3 in the court.
35.0 PW-54 has deposed that vide documents Ex.PW54/A (Colly.), he purchased plot no. A-13, from Shakeela Bano, in the name of his daughter Rasheeda Khatun, through A-3, in the year 2009; and had paid a total sum of Rs.
8,50,000/- to her. He denied in cross-examination that he was deposing falsely at the instance of CBI. Perusal of Ex.PW54/A (Colly.) reveals that the said documents i.e., GPA, Agreement to CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 76 of 134 :: 77 ::
Sell & Purchase, Affidavit, Possession Letter, Receipt and Will were executed on 23.05.2009.
36.0 PW-63 Sapna Sharma has deposed that vide Ex.PW63/A (Colly.) she purchased plot No. A-391, Molar Band, New Delhi, from A-3 in the year 2008 for a sum of Rs.
3,60,000/-; and handed over the said documents to CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW63/B (Colly.). She has further stated that at the time of construction on the said plot, she paid to A-3, Rs. 10,000/- for area JE and Rs.10,000/- for police, which were accepted by A-3. She has also stated that as she had paid the money, nobody came to stop the construction on her plot. She has stood by her deposition in cross-examination and has further stated that she had relied upon A-3 and had not made any inquiries regarding the plot.
36.1 Perusal of Ex.PW63/A (colly.) dated 11.06.2008 reveals that GPA and Agreement to Sell and Purchase, Possession Letter, Receipt of Rs.3.60 lacs bear signatures of A-5 Jahangir. The GPA and Possession letter even bear his address as 782, Phase-I (as given in charge-sheet). These signatures have remained undisputed as PW-63 was not cross-examined in this regard.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 77 of 134 :: 78 ::
36.2 It is noteworthy that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC (Q-41), A-3 has stated that PW-63 had purchased the aforesaid plot from her relative, but, he has not disclosed the name of PW63's relative. He has also stated that on the request of both of them, he had written the Receipt of payment and had signed the same. No such suggestion was put to PW63 in cross-
examination. From his own admission, the involvement of A-3 in sale of the aforesaid plot, is apparent. Same belies his own suggestion to PW63 that she has falsely implicated him at the instance of CBI.
37.0 PW-64 Sanjay Sharma has also testified that vide documents Ex.PW64/A (Colly.), he had purchased plot no. A-264, Molar Band, New Delhi, from A-3 in the year 2008, for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. He has further stated that at the time of construction of chabutra, A-3 was paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- at his asking, in the name of area JE so that construction was not stopped; as he paid the said amount, nobody came to stop the construction. PW64 has stood by his deposition in cross- examination and denied that A-3 was merely a witness to the sale transaction; and that he had not sold the aforesaid plot of land. He also denied that no payment was made to A-3. A minor CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 78 of 134 :: 79 ::
discrepancy i.e., PW64's in examination in chief stated that he had not seen the seller i.e. Amzad, whereas, in his cross- examination he stated that at the time of execution of GPA, Amzad, was present, is not of such a nature, so as to discredit his testimony. More so, as A-3 did not deny PW64's version, when his evidence was put to A-3 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC; A-3 simply stated that (Q42), "I do not know.". A-3 gave an evasive reply, though, in cross-examination he himself suggested to PW64 that he only acted as a witness. Even, GPA (ExPW64/A) bears signatures of Mohd. Salim, A-340, Gautam Puri, Phase-II, though as a witness, which are not in dispute. A-3's falsehood, thus, stand exposed.
38.0 PW-65 Ashok Kumar deposed that he had purchased in his mother-in-law's name, plot no. A-216, Molar Band, New Delhi, from A-3, in the year 2009, for a sum of Rs. 3,10,000/- vide documents Ex.PW65/A (Colly.); and that bayana receipt Ex.PW65/C was signed by A-3, in his presence. The witness duly identified A-3 in the court. He has stood by the same in his cross-examination. It has further come in his cross- examination that full payment was made by him to A-3, although, the plot was purchased from Irshad. From the CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 79 of 134 :: 80 ::
testimony of this witness also, it is evident that though the property documents were in the name of Irshad, but, the plot was sold by A-3 and the sale consideration was received by him.
38.1 Perusal of Ex.PW65/C (D-132) reveals that "bayana raseed" dated 27.09.2009 was issued towards sale of plot No. A-260, Molar Band, New Delhi to Ashok Kumar, for a sum of Rs.
3,10,000/-; out of which, Rs.One Lakh was received in cash and remaining Rs.2,10,000/- was to be paid on 15.10.2009; this "raseed" bears questioned signatures of A-3 at Q-91 (on revenue stamp) as a seller. Further, receipt of Rs.80,000/- on 29.09.2009 recorded on the same "bayana raseed". The same also bears questioned signatures of A-3 at Q-92. 38.1.1 It may be mentioned that the questioned signatures at Q-91 & Q-92 and in S-21 to S-36 (specimen signatures of A-3), have been opined by PW-73, vide his report Ex.PW73/Q, to have been written by one and the same person, i.e., A-3. 38.2 It may also be mentioned here that vide testimony of PW40 Sh. Alok Bhattacharya and his report Ex.PW40/A, it has come on record that the ration card of the allottee of plot CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 80 of 134 :: 81 ::
A-216, i.e., Sukhmani Malik, bearing No. 167326 is forged; the said report mentions that no such entry exists in Master Register No. 490.
39.0 PW-69 Banke Lal has deposed that Vide documents Ex.PW69/A (Colly.), he purchased plot no. A-258, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi, in the year 2008, from A-3 and had paid him a sum of Rs.2,67,000/- and has stood by the same in cross-examination. He has also stated that he had not made enquiry about genuineness of the plot from anyone and had relied upon A-3, in this regard. PW-69 further has stated that one year after its purchase, vide documents Ex.PW69/B (Colly.), he had resold the said plot to A-3, who had got executed the GPA in the name of Naresh Kumar.
39.1 It is noted that said documents of resale Ex.PW69/B (Colly.) were executed on 05.06.2009; meaning thereby, PW69 had purchased the said plot from A-3 around June 2008. From these facts, it is apparent that although, the documents Ex.PW69/A are dated 10.11.2006, but actually the transaction took place somewhere around June 2008. Same go to support PW-69's version that the said plot was purchased by him in 2008.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 81 of 134 :: 82 ::
39.2 It is noted that PW69 was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC Ex.PW69/DA, wherein it is mentioned that he sold the plot to Naresh Kumar through his relative Krishan Kumar. This discrepancy by itself does not discredit his entire version, particularly about purchase of plot from A-3, in view of overall consistency between his version under Section 161 Cr.PC and his deposition before the court. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC also PW-69 has stated that the plots A-258 and A-259 were purchased by him and Jaspal Singh (PW70) from A-3 during March 2008. But, the papers were shown to be prepared during November 2006.
Moreso, when it is read alongwith the testimony of PW-70. 40.0 PW-70 Jaspal Singh deposed that he purchased plot no. A-259 from A-3, vide documents Ex.PW70/A (Colly.), in the year 2008 for a total amount of Rs.2,67,000/-; that after one and a half years of purchase, he had resold the said plot to Ashok Kumar; PW-70 has stood by his deposition in cross- examination and categorically denied that he did not purchase the aforesaid plot from A-3 and did not pay any amount to him. It may be mentioned that PW-70 was also confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC Ex.PW70/DA, to point out CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 82 of 134 :: 83 ::
that there is no mention of payment of Rs.2,67,000/- to A-3. Perusal of Ex. PW70/DA shows that the witness has stated that he and Banke Lal (PW-69), had purchased plots no. A-258 and A-259 from A-3 for a total sum of Rs.5,34,000/-, that is, one plot was sold for half the said amount, which comes to Rs. 2,67,000/-. Thus there is no inconsistency in the deposition of the witness before the court and his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC.
40.1 Further, perusal of Ex.PW69/A (Colly.) and Ex.PW70/A (Colly.) reveals that the documents - GPA, Agreement to Sell and Purchase, Affidavit, Deed of Will, Possession Letter and Receipt are typed, but the names of the buyers/ PW-69 and PW-70 are written in hand. It is further noted that in the Affidavit (Ex.PW69/A), date of Agreement to Sell and Purchase is left blank; even Receipt is issued only for Rs.
20,000/-. In Ex.PW70/A (Colly.) also, in Agreement to Sell and Purchase, spaces meant for consideration are left blank. It is further noted that these documents are purportedly issued by Mamta, the allottee and bear thumb impression, but, the name of the person, who put the said thumb impression, is not mentioned.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 83 of 134 :: 84 ::
40.2 Further, it has come on record vide testimony of PW40 Sh. Alok Bhattacharya/ Ex.PW40/A, that the copy of the ration card no. 167816 in the name of Mamta, W/o Sh. Ramu, R/o S-108/A-327, G.N. Camp, RG No. J-300, part of the aforesaid documents Ex.PW70/A (colly.), is forged, as no such entry existed in Master Register no. 300. PW40 was not cross-
examined. His deposition/ document Ex.PW40/A (Colly.), have remained unchallenged. Further, vide testimony of PW3/ Ex.PW3/D-1, it has also come on record that Form G-8-(Receipt of Rs.7000/-) bearing no. A-508460, in the name of Mamta pertaining to allotment of plot no. A-259, which is part of Ex.PW40/A (Colly.), is also forged and has not been issued by officers of MCD.
40.3 In view of the above, it is established that A-3 had sold aforesaid plots to PW-69 and PW-70 on the basis of fake/ forged documents, which could not have passed on any right, title or interest in the said plots, in favour of the buyers A-4 MOHD. MUSTKEEM 41.0 The allegation against A-4 is that he sold vacant/ cancelled plots no. A-324, A-325, A-352, A-353, A-399, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 84 of 134 :: 85 ::
41.1 PW-32 Raju deposed that vide Ex.PW32/A (Colly.) he purchased plot no. A-325, Molar Band, New Delhi, in the name of his mother Smt Kalawati, from A-4, in the year 2007, for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. In his cross-examination, PW-32 stated that the Receipt was executed by A-4; and that the same was handed over by him to CBI. Admittedly, there is no such receipt on record. Perusal of the Receipt, which is part of EX.PW32/A (Colly.), reveals that it was executed by one Gulshan. Even, other documents [Ex.PW32/A (colly.)] are executed by Gulshan (the original allottee), in favour of Smt. Kalawati. These documents do not bear the signatures of A-4, even as a witness.
41.2 Further, although, PW-32 stated that he purchased the aforesaid plot in the year 2007, but the perusal of documents Ex.PW32/A reveal that the same were executed on 22.09.2006, when the plots were not even cancelled. 41.3 Prosecution has not produced any witness with respect to sale of plot no. A-399. So far as, plot No. A-324 is concerned, it has come in the testimony of CBI's own witness, i.e., PW28 Ashok Kumar, that he purchased the said plot in the year 2008 from Rajender Singh (A-6) vide documents CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 85 of 134 :: 86 ::
Ex.PW28/A (Colly.), as is discussed in para 20 and its sub-paras (supra).
41.4 With respect to the remaining plots i.e., A-352 and A-353, CBI's witness PW-35 Mohd. Mustkeem deposed that he purchased the said plots from A-3, Mohd. Salim Alvi, in the name of his mother and his maternal aunt, vide documents Ex.PW35/A (Colly.) and Ex.PW35/B (Colly.), as has been discussed in para 31.0 and its sub-paras (supra) 41.5 In view of the above, the CBI has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that plot no. A-325 was sold by A-4. It has also failed to prove its allegation that A-4 sold vacant/ cancelled plots no. A-324, A-352, A-353, A-399, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi.
A-5 MOHD. JAHANGIR 42.0 Allegation against A-5 is, that he sold vacant/ cancelled plots no. A-282 and A-293. PW25 Raju Kanojia deposed that vide documents Ex.PW25/A (Colly.) he purchased plot no. A-282, Molar Band, New Delhi, in the name of his wife Kalawati, in January 2007, from A-5 Jahangir, for a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/-; at the asking of A-3 & A-5, he had also paid Rs. CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 86 of 134 :: 87 ::
10,000/- for area JE for construction of the house. PW25 duly identified A-3 as well as A-5 in the court. He has stood by his deposition in cross-examination. He stated that the bayana was paid by him to A-5, who prepared the bayana receipt and signed the same. He categorically denied that the said receipt does not bear the signatures of A-5 and that the receipt is forged and, that is, why the original had not been handed over to the CBI. PW25 then clarified that by mistake A-5 had signed in the column of witness and thereafter, he signed on the revenue stamp. While denying that the bayana receipt was prepared by him, he stated that the bayana receipt was prepared by brother-in-law of A-5.
42.1 Perusal of Ex.PW25/A (Colly.) reveals the said documents are dated 22.09.2006 and bear signatures of Rajender Kumar, resident of A-279, Gautam Puri, i.e., A-9. Copy of "bayana raseed" dated 06.01.2007, placed on record, bears signatures of Jahangir Alvi; but, same being a copy, no expert opinion is available in this regard. Be that as it may. The plot was sold in January, 2007, i.e., prior to the tenure of A-1 & A-2 and before the cancellation of plots in 2007. 43.0 PW31 Ramesh Chand has deposed that vide CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 87 of 134 :: 88 ::
Ex.PW31/A (Colly.) he purchased plot no. A-298, Molar Band, New Delhi, in his wife's name, on 03.10.2008, from A-5, for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. He identified the signatures of A-5 on "Bayana Raseed" (receipt). The witness even identified A-5 in the court. He has stood by his deposition in cross-examination and denied that he had not paid the amount (of Rs.50,000/-) to A-5. He also denied that A-5 had signed the documents as a witness and not as a seller.
43.1 Although, property documents bear the date 22.09.2006. But, PW31's version that the said plot was purchased on 03.10.2008 is corroborated by Ex.PW31/A (Colly.) Perusal of Ex.PW31/A (Colly.) reveals that the bayana receipt with respect to aforesaid plot A-298 was executed on 03.10.2008 and "Jahangir" - A-5 is described as "seller". The relevant portion of this receipt is reproduced hereunder :
"Bayana Raseed Aaj dinaak 3.10.2008 ko mai jahangir s/o Lalwan, A-782, Gautampuri, me ek plot ka sauda kar raha hun Shri Ramesh Chand ..... Jis plot ka no.A-298 hai jiska sauda kimat 3,50,000/- me hua hai bayane me 50,000/- pachas rupaye de diye hai baaki rakam - 3,00,000/- rupaye (teen lakh rupaye) dinaak - 06-10-2008 ko de denge J.E va CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 88 of 134 :: 89 ::
police ka kharcha Jahangir Ji ka hai.
Gawaah Bechne Waale ke
Hastakshar
(1) Vakil Alvi Jahangir
A.376, Gautam Puri 3/10/08"
43.1.1 On the backside of the aforesaid receipt, is
recorded another receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- on 05.10.2008 by "Jahangir" - A-5, who has signed in the capacity of "seller"; and the said receipt is witnessed by Raju Kanojia (A-282), Rajender (A-279), Pappu (A-376).
43.2 It is noteworthy that the signatures of "Jahangir" on the aforesaid receipt under the head "Bechne waale ke Hastakshar", that is, at Q-98 and Q-100, have been opined by PW73, R. Chandra, Assistant GEQD, CFSL, vide his report, Ex.PW73/Q to be of the same person, whose specimen signatures are S-37 to S-55 [on Ex.PW73/P-4 (Colly.)]; the fact that the said the specimen signatures are of Mohd. Jahangir, is not in dispute. In view of the above evidence on record, it is proved that the aforesaid bayana receipt/ Receipt of balance sale consideration was signed by A-5 as seller. It is interesting to note that being a seller, A-5 even agreed to bear the CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 89 of 134 :: 90 ::
expenses of JE and police. Further, the Bayana Raseed leaves no doubt that though, the property documents bear the date 22.09.2006, but the sale transaction actually took place on 03.10.1998, as stated by PW31.
43.3 It is noted that in his statement Ex.PW31/DA, PW31 has stated that he purchased the aforesaid plot from Mohd.
Salim, the property dealer in the area and the token money receipt was signed by his relative Jahangir (A-5), who is indulging in this illegal business alongwih Mohd. Salim. In view of the material on record, this variation in PW31's statement under Section 161 Cr.PC, Ex.PW31/DA and his version before the court, does not discredit his testimony. The same rather shows that A-5, a relative of A-3, was in cahoots with A-3, in illegal selling of cancelled plots, on the basis of documents, which could not pass any valid right, title and interest in property. The factum of A-5 Jahangir being in league with A-3 has also come on record vide testimony of PW19 & PW63 and documents Ex.PW19/A (Colly.) and Ex.PW63/A (Colly.) as discussed in paras 26.0 & 36.0 and sub-paras thereof (supra). PW19 was not cross-examined on behalf of A-5. Even PW63 was not cross-examined in this regard by A-5; the documents CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 90 of 134 :: 91 ::
Ex.PW19/A (Colly.) and Ex.PW63/A (Colly.) have also remained unchallenged.
A-6 RAJENDER SINGH 44.0 A-6 stepped into the witness box in his defence, as DW-2. As discussed in para 19.2 (supra), he himself placed on record property documents of 22 plots, which as per him, he got purchased by his relatives. It has also come in his deposition that he was associated with the sale of plots no.
A-242, A-246, A-296, A-297, A-300, Gautam Puri, Molar Band, Phase-II, Delhi, although he has stated that he had signed the documents relating to the sale of said plots, as a witness; and has denied that he sold the aforesaid plots despite knowing fully well that the same were cancelled plots. It has also come in his own deposition that with respect to plot no. A-479, he received earnest money and had issued Earnest Money Receipt. Although, he has stated that the said plot was sold by A-7 Hira Lal's wife; and that as A-7 was unavailable, he, at Hira Lal's asking received money and issued Receipt; and had handed over the money to A-7 Hira Lal.
44.1 Further, with respect to property no. A-549 [sold vide Ex.DW2/C (colly.)], DW-2 stated that the same was CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 91 of 134 :: 92 ::
purchased by his Samdhi, but, could not recollect the name of his Samdhi; he could not even give the name of his relative, who had purchased plot no. A-551 vide Ex.PW2/D (colly). 44.2 It has also come in A-6/ DW-2's testimony that the said plots were already cancelled and could not have been sold, although, he has stated that this fact was not in his knowledge at the time of sale and was revealed later on. The fact that the aforesaid plots were cancelled plots, has also been established vide testimony of PW-3 and PW-71 and documents Ex.PW3/I and Ex.PW71/B. From DW2's testimony, when considered in totality and taking into account the factum of production of property documents pertaining to as many as 22 plots; and admission of being involved in sale of other plots, receipt of even earnest money by him; and not being able to recollect his Samdhi's name, it is evident that DW2 was engaged in sale of vacant/ cancelled plots.
45.0 The fact that, A-6 was illegally selling cancelled plots has also come on record vide testimony of prosecution witnesses PW-4, PW-24, PW-28 and PW-29. PW-4 Sh. Subhash has deposed that vide document Ex.PW4/A (Colly.) he purchased Plot No. A-242, Gautam Puri, in his wife's name, CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 92 of 134 :: 93 ::
through Rajender (A-6) from Jagdish, s/o Puran, on 02.08.2007. He identified A-6 Rajender Singh in court. PW4 has stood by his deposition, in cross-examination. It has come in PW-4's cross- examination that he did not know A-6 earlier; his relative Chandu had introduced him to A-6 for the purpose of purchase of plot.
45.1 It is noteworthy that the questioned signatures of A-6 on property documents Ex.PW4/A (Colly.) at Q-111, Q-112, Q-113, Q-114 and Q-115 i.e., on GPA, Agreement to Sell and Purchase, Affidavit, Receipt (of Rs.80,000),dated 02.08.2007, Possession Letter, respectively, have been opined by PW73, R. Chandra, Assistant GEQD, CFSL, vide his report, Ex.PW73/Q to be of the same person, whose specimen signatures are S-11 to S-120, [on Ex.PW73/P-2 (Colly.)]; it is not in dispute that the specimen signatures S-11 to S-120 are that of A-6 Rajinder Singh. Even otherwise, aforesaid signatures have not been denied by A-6; he himself suggested to PW-4 that he had signed the documents only as a witness, which was denied by PW-4.
45.2 In his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, A-6 simply denied the evidence of PW-4; he did not even say, that CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 93 of 134 :: 94 ::
he signed the documents, as a witness. Same exposes the falsehood of A-6.
45.3 Why and how was A-6 arranging sale of plots; and was witnessing so many sale transactions? No explanation in this regard has come from A-6. This, when considered in the light of his own deposition/ discussion made in preceding paras particularly paras -20.2 & 20.3 (supra), it becomes evident that, it was A-6, who was instrumental/ engaged in sale of aforesaid plot to PW4.
46.0 Further, PW24 Smt. Suprabha has deposed that vide documents Ex.PW24/A (Colly.) she purchased plot no.
A-246, Molar Band, New Delhi, for a sum of Rs.80,000/-, from Rajender Singh (A-6), in the month of August 2007; as asked by A-6, she had also paid to him, Rs.15,000/- for area JE and Rs. 10,000/- for police; A-6 had told her that the said amount is required to be paid to the said officials for constructing the house on the plot. She duly identified A-6 in the court. She has stood by her deposition in her cross-examination. In cross- examination, she has also stated that she relied upon A-6 with respect to the status of the plot and had not made inquiries with anyone. The fact that A-6 was associated with sale of CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 94 of 134 :: 95 ::
aforesaid plot has come in his own cross-examination (as DW2). Although, he stated that he signed the documents only as a witness.
46.1 It is interesting to note that although, A-6 (in his own deposition (as DW2) has stated that he got various plots purchased by his relatives, but, no such suggestion was put to PW24 that she was his relative.
47.0 PW28 Ashok Kumar has deposed that he purchased plot no. A-324, Molar Band, New Delhi, in the year 2008, for a sum of Rs.4,15,000/-, from Rajender Singh (A-6) vide documents Ex.PW28/A (Colly.) (D-155). PW28 identified signatures of A-6 on property documents and even identified the accused/ A-6 in the court. No suggestion to the contrary in this regard, was put to the witness. Thus, PW-28's deposition particularly, that the aforesaid plot was purchased from A-6, has remained unchallenged. Further, in his cross-examination by (A-3 to A-11), PW28 even described the property; he stated that when he purchased the said plot, there were four Kacha boundary walls with tin shed and that he had told A-6 that he wanted to raise pakka construction over it. PW-28 was not cross-examined even in this regard.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 95 of 134 :: 96 ::
47.1 Even otherwise, PW-28's deposition is further corroborated by property documents - Ex.PW28/A. Perusal of Ex.PW28/A (colly.) (dated 10.06.2008) reveals that these documents w.r.t. Plot No. A-324 were executed in favour of Smt. Kaushal, W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, R/o T-238, Mangol Puri, Delhi-83; General Power of Attorney, even bears photograph of A-6 Rajender Singh; further, and bear the questioned signatures of A-6 Rajender Singh at Q-123, Q-124, Q-125, Q-126, Q-127, Q-128, Q-129, Q-130, Q-131, Q-132, Q-133, Q-134, Q-135, Q-136 and Q-137, as executant.
47.1.1 It is further noted that one Mohd. Rahim executed the documents Ex.PW73/J (documents undated, but bear notary public stamp dated 02.08.2007) with respect to plot no. A-324, in favour of Rajender Singh S/o Sh. Ram Lal, R/o E-177, Dharampal Colony, Ali Vihar, New Delhi (the parentage and the address is same as that of A-6 in charge-sheet); the said documents include GPA, Agreement to Sell and Purchase, Affidavit, Possession Letter, Receipt and Will, and bear questioned signatures of A-6 at Q-118, Q-119, Q-120, Q-121 and Q-122, respectively, as second party/ purchaser. 47.2 The aforesaid questioned signatures of A-6 on CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 96 of 134 :: 97 ::
property documents pertaining to plot no. A-324, i.e., Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW73/J, have been opined to be that of A-6 Rajender Singh by PW73, R. Chandra, Assistant GEQD, CFSL, vide his report, Ex.PW73/,Q who has not been cross-examined. Thus, the signatures of A-6 on the above documents stand proved.
47.3 From the above it is established that A-6 purchased plot No. A-324 vide documents Ex.PW73/J, dated 02.08.2007, for a sum of Rs.80,000/-; and he sold the said cancelled plot to PW28 vide Ex.PW28/A (Colly.) in June 2008, for a sum of Rs.
4,15,000/-, i.e., for a profit of Rs.3,35,000/-. 48.0 So far as plots no. A-296 & A-291 are concerned, it has come in the testimony of PW29 Prem Chand that the same were purchased from A-6 Rajinder Singh in March 2007, that is, when plot was not a cancelled plot. Similarly, even with respect to plot no. A-300, it has come in the testimony of PW30 Padam Singh recorded on 03.12.2012 that he purchased the said about 5 - 6 years back, from Rajender Singh (A-6), for a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/-; A-6 handed over to him documents Ex.PW30/A (Colly.), i.e., receipt of Rs.7000/-, ration card in the name of prabhu, S/o Sh Ayudhya Prasad, Provisional Identification Slip CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 97 of 134 :: 98 ::
issued by Slum & JJ Department. PW30 duly identified A-6 in court. He has stood by his deposition in cross-examination. PW30 denied that he did not hand over the original documents to CBI because, he did not have any transaction with A-6. 48.1 Be that as it may. In view of the testimony of PW30, the aforesaid plot was either purchased in December 2006 or December 2007. Thus, it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the said plot was a cancelled plot, at the time of its sale.
49.0 In view of the above, it is established that A-6 was involved in sale of vacant/ cancelled plots on the basis of false documents, which could not have transferred any ownership rights in favour of the buyers, thus, deriving wrongful gain. 49.1 A-6 has pleaded that he was not aware that the plots were cancelled and has placed on record complaint lodged by him with PS Badarpur vide DD No. 57-B dated 13.08.2009 - Ex.DW2/A and another complaint Ex.DW2/B bearing acknowledgment dated July 2012; (date not very clear
- whether 3rd or 30th July); whereby, he complained that plots worth Rs.9.50 lacs were purchased from A-8 Khem Chand for CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 98 of 134 :: 99 ::
himself and relatives; but on confirming the documents with JE, Gautam Puri, it was revealed that the same were forged; and that Khem Chand (A-8) was not returning the money. Similar complaint was made in July 2012 against A-7 Hira Lal. These complaints have not been proved as per law. Even otherwise, complaint dated July 2012 was filed during the pendency of the present case. So far as A-6's version in other complaint dated 13.08.2009 is concerned, same is contrary to his own deposition before the court. In his deposition, A-6/ DW2 has stated that only after confirming with JE Roop Chand that plots were proper, he got them purchased by his relatives. On considering the entire evidence in totality, it is apparent that the said complaints were filed by A-6, in order to exculpate himself.
A-7 HIRA LAL AND A-8 KHEM CHAND 50.0 Involvement of A-7 & A-8 has come out in the testimony of A-6 Rajender Singh, who deposed as DW2. As discussed in para 20.3 (supra), it has come in DW2's testimony that on being told about availability of plots by A-7 and A-8, he (A-6) used to arrange the buyers for the same. DW-2 has stood by the same in his cross-examination by A-7 Hira Lal and CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 99 of 134 :: 100 ::
denied that A-7 had nothing to do with sale/ purchase of the plots, (documents pertaining to which have been placed on record by A-6). A-6/ DW2 reiterated that the said documents were handed over to him by A-7 Hira Lal, in the presence of one Ram Jeet. DW-2/ A-6 denied that he has falsely implicated A-7 Hira Lal, as A-7 was asking for return of Rs.2.50 lacs, which was given by him by way of a cheque to him (A-6), to be handed over to one Aman. Nothing prevented A-7 Hira Lal from placing on record the details of the said cheque to corroborate his version. But, he failed to do so, for the reasons best known to him.
50.1 Even on behalf of A-8 Khem Chand, it was suggested to DW-2/ A-6 that he has falsely implicated him (A-8), because of a dispute with him on account of money. It was also suggested to DW-2 that he had even kidnapped A-8, when his demand for money was not met by A-8; and pursuant to which, A-8 and his wife had lodged complaints [Ex.DW2/DA-8 (Colly.)] with police authorities; A-8 confronted A-6 with copies of complaints. Same were categorically denied by DW-2/ A-6.
A-8 has failed to prove the said complaints as per law. 51.0 The role of A-7 is also made out vide testimonies of CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 100 of 134 :: 101 ::
prosecution witnesses. With respect to plot no. A-311, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi, it has come in the testimony of PW11 Ram Lal that vide documents Ex.PW11/A (Colly.), he had purchased the said plot from Hira Lal (A-7), Joginder Singh (A-10), Sonu, Rajinder Singh (A-6), on 22.09.2006, for which he paid Rs.2,11,000/- to A-7 Hira Lal. He duly identified A-6 Rajinder Singh and A-7 Hira Lal in the court. It has also come in his cross-examination that payment for the plot was made to A-7 and the documents of the aforesaid plot were given to him by A-7 Hira Lal. The fact that documents were handed over by A-7, has not been disputed, as PW11 was not cross-examined in this regard. The only suggestion which was put to him, was that he did not make any payment to Hira Lal (A-7), which he categorically denied.
51.1 Be that as it may. It has come in PW11's deposition that the said plot was purchased by him on 22.09.2006; even, perusal of property documents Ex.PW11/A (Colly.) reveals that the documents were got executed on 22.09.2006. Thus, the said plot was not a cancelled plot; and it was not sold during the tenure of A-1 & A-2. But, it does reflect that A-7, in league with A-6 was engaged in sale of plots.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 101 of 134 :: 102 ::
52.0 With respect to plot no. A-685, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi, PW33 Shanti Devi deposed (on 04.12.2012) that vide Ex.PW33/A (Colly.) she purchased the said plot about two years back, for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-, from Hira Lal (A-7) vide documents Ex.PW33/A (Colly.). PW33 could not identify the accused in court. However, in her cross-examination by Ld. Sr. PP, on pointing out by him, she identified the accused and explained that due to lapse of time she could not identify the accused. No suggestion to the contrary with respect to purchase of plot by her from A-7 for the aforesaid consideration, was put to the witness. Thus, her deposition in this regard/ photocopies of documents Ex.PW33/A on record, have remained unchallenged. Perusal of documents Ex.PW33/A (Colly.) reveal that the same were executed on 04.12.2009 by Hira Lal in favour of Shanti Devi. As per Agreement to Sell, the said plot was sold for a total consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- and Receipt is also issued for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, though, PW33 has stated that she purchased the said plot for Rs.4,50,000/-. 52.1 It is also seen that as per documents Ex.PW73/O (which are photocopies), plot no. A-685 was sold by Sadanam to Hira Lal on 03.12.2009 for Rs.2,50,000/-. No doubt, no opinion CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 102 of 134 :: 103 ::
was expressed on questioned signatures of A-7 Hira Lal at Q158 to Q165 on Ex.PW73/O. But, these documents when considered alongwith the testimony of PW33, point towards the fact that A-7 purchased the said plot on 03.12.2009 and sold the same to PW33 on 04.12.2009. It is apparent that the plot was purchased for Rs.2.5 lacs and was sold overnight, at a profit of Rs.50,000/-.
52.2 It is also significant to note here that vide testimony of PW3/ Ex.PW3/D-1, it has come on record that Form G-8 (Receipt of Rs.7000/-) bearing no. A46428 in the name of R.Sadanan, pertaining to allotment of plot no. A-685, which is part of documents Ex.PW35/A (Colly.), is forged and has not been issued by officers of MCD.
53.0 PW34 Rajesh Kumar has deposed that he purchased plot no. A-397, Molar Band, New Delhi, in the year 2006, for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, from Mariam, through A-7 Hira Lal, vide documents Ex.PW34/A (Colly.); he had paid the said amount to Mariam. He even identified A-7 in the court. A-7 Hira Lal himself has suggested to PW-34 in cross-examination that he had signed on the documents, but only as a witness;
and that no transaction ever took place between him and A-7., CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 103 of 134 :: 104 ::
which was categorically denied by PW34. Perusal of Ex.PW34/A (colly.) reveals that GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt (of Rs.1.50 lacs) (from Rajesh Kumar) bear signatures of Hira Lal, S/o Sh.
Chote Lal, R/o B-435, Gautam Puri, Badarpur, New Delhi, as witness.
A-8 54.0 So far as A-8 is concerned, PW-8 Ajay Kumar has deposed that vide documents Ex.PW8/A (colly.) he purchased plot bearing no. A-906, Molar Bandh, Phase-II, New Delhi, in 2009 from A-8 Khem Chand for sale consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/-. He duly identified A-8 - Khem Chand in the court. PW-8 was not cross-examined by A-8. In view of the same, the testimony of PW-8 has remained unchallenged and the photocopies of sale documents Ex.PW8/A (colly.), that is, GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Will, Possession Letter, have remained undisputed. PW-8's testimony is corroborated by Ex.PW8/A, perusal of which reveals that all the aforesaid documents have been signed by A-8 as the executant. It is noted that even otherwise, A-8 in his statement under section 313 CrPC has admitted having sold the said plot to PW-8. 55.0 Above evidence on record, when considered in CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 104 of 134 :: 105 ::
entirety, it is established that A-7 Hira Lal and A-8 Khem Chand, were engaged in sale of cancelled plots on the basis of false documents, which could not have transferred any title in such plots.
A-9 RAJINDER KUMAR
56.0 As has already discussed in Para 17.0 (supra), that it has come in the testimony of PW55 Ravita that she, vide Ex.PW55/A (colly.) (D-144), had purchased plot no. A-320, Molar Band, New Delhi from Rajinder Kumar (A-9) through A-3 Salim Alvi, for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-, in the year 2008. PW-55 was not cross-examined by A-9 regarding the sale transaction. Thus, testimony of PW-55 and documents Ex.PW55/A have remained unchallenged/ undisputed. 56.1 Further, perusal of the documents Ex.PW55/A (Colly.) reveals that the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney (undated, but typed on non-judicial stamp paper dated 31.07.2008), is executed by Rajinder Kumar S/o Rati Ram, (A-9), in favour of PW-55. A-9 has also signed Agreement to Sell and Purchase (as vendor), the Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter, Will, in favour of PW-55; on bayana receipt also, A-9 has signed on revenue stamp, as seller. The GPA even bears CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 105 of 134 :: 106 ::
photograph of A-9. The questioned signatures of the executor of these documents/ A-9 at Q-171, Q-172, Q-173, Q-174, Q-175, Q-177, Q-178, Q-179, Q-181, Q-182, Q-183, Q-184, Q-186, Q-187, Q-188, Q-189, Q-191 have been opined by PW-73 vide his report Ex.PW73/Q, to be written by the same person, whose specimen signatures are from S-1 to S-10 on Ex.PW73/P1 (Colly.). The fact that the specimen signatures from S-1 to S-10 are that of A-9 Rajinder Kumar, is not in dispute. It is interesting to note that when testimony of PW-55 was put to A-9 in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, he denied the same. But, in the next breath he admitted that he sold the aforesaid plot to PW-55 after purchasing the same from Rakesh Bansal, as he was in the need of money for treatment of his ailing father. 56.2 No doubt, it has come in the cross-examination of PW-55 that she worked as Data Entry Operator in MCD and knew that the plot belonged to Slum & JJ Department. But, she clarified she did not know that this plot could not be sold; she has also stated that A-9/ the seller did not inform her that the plot was not meant for sale.
56.3 In view of the above, it is established that A-9 sold cancelled plot to PW-55 on the basis of documents which could CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 106 of 134 :: 107 ::
not have passed on any right, title or interest in the said plot, in her favour, thus, deriving wrongful gain. A-10 JOGINDER SINGH 57.0 PW41 L. R. Meena has deposed (on 06.12.2012) that his nephew Dharmender Kumar, vide documents Ex.PW41/A (Colly.), purchased plot no. A-1, Block A, Molar Band Phase-II, New Delhi, one floor built, from Sonu, Bansal, Joginder (A-10) and Hira Lal (A-7), about 5-6 years back, for which he paid Rs.2,50,000/-, . Subsequently, it came to their knowledge that one lady namely Sunita also had possession over the said plot; his nephew then got executed a GPA from her in his favour, which is Ex.PW41/B. PW-41 was not cross examined by the accused persons. In view of the,same it is established that A-10 had sold the aforesaid plot A-1. But, as per this witness himself, the said plot was purchased 5-6 years back that is, either in December 2006 or in December 2007.Further,the perusal of Ex.PW41/A (Colly.) reveals that GPA, Agreement to Sell & and Affidavit, bear the date of execution of 12.09.2006.
57.1 It is noted that documents Ex.PW41/B (Colly.), that is, GPA, Agreement to Sell & Purchase, Affidavit and Receipt CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 107 of 134 :: 108 ::
were executed by Smt. Sunita Chauhan, wife of Sh. Rajinder, R/o B-805, Molar Band in favour of Dharmender Kumar Meena; all the documents are undated except Agreement to Sell & purchase, which also mentions the month/ year of execution as March 2008, but, does not bear the date; the non-judicial stamp paper, on which GPA, Agreement to Sell & Purchase, Affidavit are typed bear the date 24.03.2008.
57.2 It is significant to note here that vide testimony of PW3/ Ex.PW3/D-1, it has come on record that Form G-8 (Receipt of Rs.7000/-), bearing no. 517583, in the name of Rajbir, pertaining to plot no. A-1,which is part of documents Ex-41/A,is forged and is not issued by the officers of MCD. 57.3 From the above evidence on record, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the said plot was sold after its cancellation in August 2007; and during the tenure of either of the JEs, that is, A-1 and A-2. That is, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against A-10, beyond reasonable doubt.
A-11 Ram Avtar Tari 58.0 The allegation against A-11 is that he sold cancelled plot no. A-271. It may be mentioned that A-11 CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 108 of 134 :: 109 ::
stepped into the witness box as DW-3 and stated that he is "Ram Avtar" not "Ram Avtar Tari". But, in his cross-examination by Ld. Prosecutor, he admitted his signatures (under the Head "Witness") and also his address on the Receipt dated 03.11.2006, Ex.DW3/PA, evidencing receipt of Rs.20,000/- from Sh. Gurmeet Pal son of Sucha Ram, resident of E-24, Shiv Durga Vihar, Lakarpur, Faridabad, Haryana, towards sale of plot no.
A-271, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi. 58.1 It may be mentioned that as per copies of Voter I- card (Ex.DW3/A), SBI Reference Card (Mark-A/DW3), SBI Kiosk Banking - I-Card (Mark-B/DW3), placed on record by A-11 himself, his father's name is Mahadev, same as mentioned in charge-sheet. Further, A-11's address in Voter I-Card Ex.DW3/A, is mentioned as, "22/749, Block-22, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi". It is the same address, which is mentioned on the aforesaid Receipt Ex.PW3/PA. It may also be mentioned that in Mark-A/DW3 and Mark-B/DW3, SBI Kiosk Banking Reference Card and I-card, respectively, A-11's address is mentioned as RZ-1/79, Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi-19. It is the same as A-11's address, mentioned in the charge-sheet. In view of the same, identity of A-11 is established; he is the same CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 109 of 134 :: 110 ::
person, who signed as a witness on aforesaid Receipt. No doubt, in the aforesaid documents, his name is only mentioned as "Ram Avtar" and not "Ram Avtar Tari". But, from his parentage and address, A-11 is duly identified. 58.2 With respect to allegation against A-11 that he sold plot no. A-271, Molar Band, Phase-II, New Delhi, prosecution produced PW-48, Sucha Ram. PW-48 himself has deposed that vide documents Ex.PW48/A (Colly.), he had purchased plot A-271 from Ravi, in the name of his son Gurmeet Pal, for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. He does not talk about A-11.
Further, even perusal of Ex.PW48/A (Colly.) i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Possession Letter, Affidavit, Deed of Will and Receipt, reveals that the aforesaid documents have been executed by Sh. Ravi, S/o Ganeshi, in favour of Sh. Gurmeet Pal, S/o Sucha Ram (PW-48), which corroborates the version of PW-48. It is seen that A-11 has signed on these documents including the Receipt (Ex.DW3/PA), only as a witness. 58.3 In view of the above, prosecution has failed to prove its allegations against A-11.
59.0 In view of the above evidence on record, it is CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 110 of 134 :: 111 ::
established beyond reasonable doubt that during the period 2007 to 2009, during the respective postings of A-1 and A-2 in Development Division-V, Maharani Bagh, which covered Molar Bandh, Phases-I & II and other areas, A-3, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9 in active connivance with them (A1 and A2), sold vacant/ cancelled plots to gullible persons on the basis of false documents, which could not have passed any right, title or interest in the said plots/ properties in favour of the purchasers; and for pecuniary gain, the buyers were allowed to raise unauthorized construction on such plots by A-1 & A-2, abusing/ misusing their official positions.
Complaints - a camouflage to shield themselves
60.0 It was argued by A-1 & A-2 that although, it was not even their duty, still they had been reporting about unauthorized construction to police/ higher authorities; thus, there is no question of their conniving with accused persons. Rather, they were taking action against any unauthorized construction, which came to their notice, by reporting the same to police/ higher authority.
60.1 From the testimony of PW57 HC Sanjay Kumar Sharma, when read in conjunction with above evidence on CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 111 of 134 :: 112 ::
record, it becomes apparent that the complaints lodged by A-1 & A-2, were an eye-wash; evidently filed to create record/ save themselves. PW57 has deposed that a lot of unauthorized construction was being carried out by the local builders, in the said area; various complaints [Ex.PW57/B (colly.)] were lodged by JE Qamaruddin (A-1) and Roop Chand (A-2), in this regard; for verification of the said complaints, on his visits to the site, he found that the complaints were made after the construction on the given plots had already been carried out, because no construction was going on at the time of his visit; he had made the DD entry in this regard and even visited the office of JEs A-1 & A-2; they told him that the complaints were being filed by them only for the formality. Ld. counsel objected to said statement of the witness. But, no reason for raising of such objection, was specified. PW-57 has stood by his deposition in cross-examination.
60.2 Even otherwise, as discussed in preceding paras, it has already come on record that A-1 & A-2 facilitated/ allowed sale of vacant/ cancelled plots and allowed unauthorized construction thereon by the buyers, in gross abuse/ misuse of their official position, for pecuniary gain/ advantage. PW57 in CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 112 of 134 :: 113 ::
his cross-examination has also stated that whenever they attempted to stop the illegal construction at the spot, the accused JEs did not accompany them; the superior officers were apprised about the same. He categorically denied that superior officers were not apprised about the same. PW57 also denied that he/ his superior officers deliberately failed to act on A-1's complaints as they themselves were allowing unauthorized construction. PW57 further testified that as required, they filled up the form with respect to unauthorized construction, whenever it came to their notice and sent the same to MCD; they could not take any further action since the accused JEs did not render cooperation to them. PW-57 denied that due assistance was provided by A-2 to prevent unauthorized construction.
61.0 It is noted that PW77, Investigating Officer, Dharamveer Singh, Dy. SP, in his cross-examination (on behalf of A-2), stated that he had verified the details of the complaints lodged by (A-2)/ collected documents concerning unauthorized construction available with the local Police Station; in none of the cases, FIR was registered , since such reports/ complaints were made by A-2 much after completion of construction. CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 113 of 134 :: 114 ::
61.1 Further, the perusal of Ex.PW57/B (colly.) reveals that there are number of DD entries with respect to unauthorized construction in Molar Bandh area. Vide DD No. 58B dated 13.03.2008, PS Badarpur, recorded by HC Khalil Ahmad and vide DD No. 59B dated 05.09.2008, PS Badarpur, HC Rajbir Singh has recorded that on visiting Gautam Puri area alongwith beat staff, Beat No. 10, unauthorized construction was noticed on number of plots (as detailed therein); the said information was personally brought to the notice of JE Roop Chand of Slum Department, for taking immediate action; the report was put up to SHO.
61.2 There are further DD entries No. 45B and No. 57B, PS Badarpur, dated 07.01.2009 and 24.01.2009, respectively, recorded by Ct. Vivek Anand to the similar effect; same record that JE of Slum & JJ Department was personally informed about the plot numbers, on which the unauthorized construction was detected. Vide DD No. 57B, it is recorded by the Ct. Vivek Anand that he noticed unauthorized construction on various plots (as detailed therein), which was stopped; and on enquiry, the labour informed that JE Quamruddin of Slum & JJ Department had told them to carry out construction on CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 114 of 134 :: 115 ::
holidays, that is, Saturday and Sunday; and that the police cannot do anything without their complaint. DD further mentions that he then contacted the JE (Quamruddin) on his mobile number about unauthorized construction; on which, JE told him that he cannot come on holidays and the Monday, being 26th January, he would lodge a complaint about such construction on 27.01.2009.
61.3 Vide DD No. 30B dated 23.05.2010, PS Badarpur, HC Sanjay Kumar Sharma, has recorded that pursuant to receipt of complaint dated 19.05.2010 from JE Quamruddin about unauthorized construction on various plots, he visited the site. But, on visiting the site, it was revealed that no unauthorized construction was going on at that time; and that construction up to one storey - two storeys on the said plots, was already existing; he took photographs of such constructions and sent them to the concerned Department alongwith his report. DD also mentions that HC Sanjay Sharma also informed A-1 JE Quamruddin about the status on phone, to enquire from him as to why did he lodge the false complaint.
On which, JE Quamruddin informed that he lodged the said complaint to save himself, as CBI enquiry in the matter was CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 115 of 134 :: 116 ::
going on; SHO was apprised about the entire matter. On record, there are copies of photographs of the construction, which were sent to Slum & JJ Department of MCD.
62.0 In view of the above facts and circumstances and evidence on record, it is evident that the complaints filed by A-1 & A-2 were sham and were filed to simply create a record to save themselves from any future action. 63.0 It was argued by Ld. defence counsel that CBI has not collected any scientific evidence of the time of such (unauthorized) construction. PW77 was cross-examined in this regard by A-1. In response, PW-77 stated that assessment about the period of unauthorized construction on cancelled plots was done on the basis of spot verification. PW-77 categorically denied that encroachment/ unauthorized construction had already been carried out on the cancelled plots prior to joining of accused Qamaruddin. 63.1 It is noteworthy, (as already discussed in preceding paras), A-1 himself has stated that whenever any unauthorized construction/ reconstruction came to his notice, he reported the same immediately. Thus, the above argument does not lie in CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 116 of 134 :: 117 ::
the mouth of A-1 that encroachment/ unauthorized construction had already taken place.
64.0 It is a matter of record that under the rehabilitation scheme, the plots in Molar Band, Phase-I & II, Badarpur, were allotted to jhuggi dwellers on licence basis; the allottees/ licencees had no right to transfer the said plots. It is also a matter of record that the plots in question were cancelled because of ineligibility of allottees/ violation of certain terms and conditions of allotment. Such plots were declared vacant/ cancelled and were Government property. 64.1 It has also come on record that A-3, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9, in connivance and conspiracy with A-1 and A-2, sold the aforesaid plots on the basis of false documents, knowing fully well that such documents could not/ did not pass on, any right, title or interest in the said plots in favour of the purchasers, which demonstrates dishonest intention on the part of accused persons; they derived wrongful gain and caused wrongful loss to the gullible purchasers/ Government. Even otherwise, some of the documents were absolutely sham; the spaces meant for material information viz.,date, sale consideration etc. were left blank in Agreement to Sell/GPA; CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 117 of 134 :: 118 ::
parentage and addresses of witnesses not mentioned on Deed of will; some documents bore only thumb impression, without identification of person putting the thumb impression, to describe a few of the deficiencies. For pecuniary gain, A-1 & A-2 in gross abuse/ misuse of their official positions, not only, allowed sale of such vacant/ cancelled plots by other accused persons, but also, facilitated sale of such plots by assuring the purchasers that there was nothing wrong with the plots. In one case, A-1 even suggested to a buyer (PW-55 Ravita) that although, the plot was cancelled; but, there would not be any problem, if she immediately (after purchase) constructed the plot and started residing there. Besides, they (A-1 & A-2) also allowed unauthorized construction by the buyers on such plots. 64.2 It was argued on behalf of A-8 Khem Chand and A-9 Rajinder Kumar that none of the witnesses have averred that they were cheated/ induced to purchase the plots by these accused persons; and that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons knew that the plots were cancelled.
This argument is only stated to be rejected, in view of sufficient evidence on record against the accused persons, as discussed in preceding paras.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 118 of 134 :: 119 ::
65.0 In view of the above findings : -
(i) A-4 Mohd. Mustkeem, A-10 Joginder Singh and A-11 Ram Avtar Tari are acquitted. Their bail-bonds are cancelled and surety bonds are discharged.
(ii) A-1 Quamaruddin, A-2 Roop Chand, A-3 Mohd. Salim Alvi, A-5 Mohd. Jahangir, A-6 Rajender Singh, A-7 Hira Lal, A-8 Khem Chand and A-9 Rajender Kumar, are found guilty of offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420/471 r/w Sec. 468 IPC and further read with Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(iii) A-1 Quamaruddin and A-2 Roop Chand, the public servants, are also found guilty of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(iv) A-3 Mohd. Salim Alvi, A-5 Mohd. Jahangir, A-6 Rajender Singh, A-7 Hira Lal, A-8 Khem Chand and A-9 Rajender Kumar are further found guilty of offences punishable under Section 420 and Section 471 r/w sec. 468 IPC.
65.1 A-1 Quamaruddin, A-2 Roop Chand, A-3 Mohd. CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 119 of 134 :: 120 ::
Salim Alvi, A-5 Mohd. Jahangir, A-6 Rajender Singh, A-7 Hira Lal, A-8 Khem Chand and A-9 Rajender Kumar are convicted accordingly.
Announced in the open Court on this 21st Day of May 2014. (POONAM A. BAMBA) Special Judge (PC Act):
CBI-03 :PHC :New Delhi CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 120 of 134 :: 121 ::
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA:
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) : CBI - 03 :
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURT :
NEW DELHI In re :
CC No. 69/11 Case ID No. 02403R005317201 RC No. 8A/2010/ACB/CBI/ND u/Sec. 120B/420/471 IPC & 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) PC Act STATE (CBI) VS
1. Qamaruddin S/o Late Shri Amir Baksh R/o E-48, Abul Fazal Enclave, Par-I, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Roop Chand S/o Shri Pooran Mal R/o C-712, IInd Floor, Ganesh Nagar-II, Delhi-110092.
3. Mohd. Salim Alvi S/o Late Mohd. Ibrahim Alvi R/o A-340, Gautam Puri, Phase-II, Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
4. Mohd. Mustkeem (Acquitted on 21.05.2014) S/o Late Mohd. Ibrahim R/o B-990, Gautam Puri, Phase-II, Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 121 of 134 :: 122 ::
5. Mohd. Jahangir S/o Shri Lalvant R/o A-782, Gautam Puri, Phase-II, Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
6. Rajender Singh S/o Shri Ramlal R/o E-177, Dharampal Colony, Ali Vihar, Badarpur, New Delhi.
7. Hira Lal S/o Chhotte Lal R/o B-435, Gautam Puri, Phase-II, Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
8. Khem Chand S/o Shri Hotilal R/o B-126, Gautam Puri, Phase-II, Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
9. Rajender Kumar S/o Rameshwar R/o A-279, Gautam Puri, Phase-II, Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
(Wrongly typed in charge-sheet as S/o Ratiram, R/o B-279)
10. Joginder Singh (Acquitted on 21.05.2014) S/o Ramswaroop R/o B-1072, Gautam Puri, Phase-II, Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi.
11. Ram Avatar Tari(Acquitted on 21.05.2014) S/o Shri Mahadev R/o RZ-1/79, Tuglakabad Extn., New Delhi.
Date of pronouncement of Judgment :21.05.2014 CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 122 of 134 :: 123 ::
Date of Order on Sentence :24.05.2014 ORDER ON SENTENCE : 24.05.2014 1.0 The convicts A-1 Quamaruddin, A-2 Roop Chand,
A-3 Mohd. Salim Alvi, A-5 Mohd. Jahangir, A-6 Rajender Singh, A-7 Hira Lal, A-8 Khem Chand and A-9 Rajender Kumar, are found guilty of offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420/471 r/w Section 468 IPC and further read with Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
1.1 A-1 Quamaruddin and A-2 Roop Chand, the public servants, are also found guilty of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 1.2 A-3 Mohd. Salim Alvi, A-5 Mohd. Jahangir, A-6 Rajender Singh, A-7 Hira Lal, A-8 Khem Chand and A-9 Rajender Kumar are further found guilty of offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 471 r/w Section 468 IPC. 2.0 I have heard learned Sr. PP Sh. S.C. Sharma as well as Sh. Apurb Lal, Advocate for A-1 Qamaruddin, Sh. P.K. Dubey, CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 123 of 134 :: 124 ::
Advocate for A-2 Roop Chand, Sh. Nitin Joshi, Advocate for A-3 Mohd. Salim Alvi, A-5 Mohd. Jahangir and A-7 Hira Lal, Sh. Mukesh Kaushik, Advocate for A-6 Rajender Singh, Sh. Nishank Mattoo, Advocate for A-8 Khem Chand and A-9 Rajender Singh. I have also perused the record carefully.
A-1 Quamaruddin
3.0 It was submitted on behalf of convict Quamaruddin (A-1) that he is 52 years of age and has no previous involvement in any criminal case. He is married having one son, who has completed his MBA and is planning to pursue further studies. His parents are also living with him. He is the only bread earner in the family.
A-2 Roop Chand 3.1 It was submitted on behalf of convict Roop Chand (A-2) that he is 47 years of age and has no previous involvement in any criminal case. He is married and has a family to look after. It was further submitted that his presence and guidance is required and he need to accompany his daughter for counselling for admission in a college. It was further submitted that the elder brother of the convict expired and he only is looking after even his brother's family. CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 124 of 134 :: 125 ::
A-3 Mohd. Salim Alvi 3.2 It was submitted on behalf of convict Mohd. Salim Alvi (A-3) that he is 41 years of age and has no previous involvement in any criminal case. He is married and is having six children; the eldest child is 14 years of age; he has to look after his wife and children and even the widowed mother, who is dependent upon him. He is the sole bread earner.
A-5 Mohd. Jahangir 3.3 It was submitted on behalf of convict Mohd. Jahangir (A-5) that he is 46 years of age and has no previous involvement in any criminal case. He is married having three children; two of them are school going. He is running a Paan shop and has to look after his family, who is dependent upon him.
A-6 Rajender Singh 3.4 It was submitted on behalf of convict Rajender Singh (A-6) that he is 43 years of age and has no previous involvement in any criminal case. He is married having three children, two of them are school going. He has to look after his family including his aged parents. He is the only earning member.
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 125 of 134 :: 126 ::
A-7 Hira Lal 3.5 It was submitted on behalf of convict Hira Lal (A-7) that he is 43 years of age and has no previous involvement in any criminal case. He is married having three children; the eldest one is eleven years old; he has to look after his family, who is dependent upon him.
A-8 Khem Chand 3.6 It was submitted on behalf of convict Khem Chand (A-8) that he is 52 years of age and has no previous involvement in any criminal case. He is married having three children; one child is already married; other two children are studying in twelfth and tenth standard; he has to look after his family, who is dependent upon him.
A-9 Rajender Kumar 3.7 It was submitted on behalf of convict Rajender Kumar (A-9) that he is 41 years of age and has no previous involvement in any criminal case. He is married having three children; two of them are school going; he has to look after his family, who is dependent upon him.
3.8 All the convicts submitted that in view of the above CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 126 of 134 :: 127 ::
facts, a lenient view be taken and minimum punishment as prescribed, be awarded.
4.0 On the other hand, learned Sr. PP submitted that the convicts deserve no leniency. He prayed that maximum punishment as prescribed by law should be awarded to the convicts, to send a signal to the society that corruption cannot be tolerated.
5.0 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the sides. It may be mentioned that the economic offences constitute a class apart and involve progressing at the expense of public money by the persons belonging to respectable section of the society. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mukesh Jain Vs. CBI, 2010 AD (Delhi) 443 noted that the economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies need to be viewed seriously as they affect the financial health of the country; any sympathy to such offenders would not only be entirely misplaced, but also against the larger interest of the society. The hon'ble Court further observed that a strong message needs to be conveyed to such white collared criminals and also to those, who are waiting in wings, that, in the long run, it does not pay to be on the wrong CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 127 of 134 :: 128 ::
side of law.
5.1 Convicts Quamaruddin (A-1) and Roop Chand (A-2), the public servants were supposed to ensure safety/ security of vacant/ cancelled plots. It was their duty to make sincere and concerted efforts to retrieve cancelled plots; and if any unauthorized construction by unscrupulous elements was noticed by them, to initiate immediate action against them.
But, these convicts i.e, Quamaruddin and Roop Chand, who were supposed to the protect the Government land, acted absolutely contrary to the call of their duty. They rather, not only allowed sale of such vacant/ cancelled plots, but also, facilitated it for pecuniary advantage; they even allowed unauthorized construction thereon, in a brazen manner, in gross abuse/ misuse of their official position. 6.0 Convict Mohd. Salim Alvi, who was the supplier of building material in the area and was hand in glove with convicts (A-1) Quamaruddin and (A-2) Roop Chand, dishonestly sold large number of vacant/ cancelled plots on the basis of false/ forged documents, which could not have passed on any right, title or interest in property in favour of such purchases; thus, cheating the gullible buyers. Even the convicts (A-5) CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 128 of 134 :: 129 ::
Mohd. Jahangir and (A-7) Hira Lal sold the plots in league with convict (A-3) Mohd. Salim Alvi and even otherwise. Convicts (A-7) Hira Lal and (A-8) Khem Chand, sold the cancelled plots themselves and also made available, the documents of large number of cancelled plots, which were sold through convict (A-6) Rajender Singh.
6.1 Convict (A-6) Rajender Singh himself sold number of such vacant/ cancelled plots directly and even roped in many more buyers and got them purchased such cancelled plots on the basis of false documents made available by convicts (A-7) Hira Lal and (A-8) Khem Chand, which could not have transferred any title in land.
6.2 So far as convict (A-9) Rajender Kumar is concerned, he has sold one cancelled plot. 6.3 It has come on record that convict (A-3) Mohd.
Salim Alvi was the key person in the area, instrumental in sale of vacant/ cancelled plots. Other convicts were selling such plots on their own as well as in league with convict (A-3) Mohd. Salim Alvi.
7.0 In view of the above and taking into account the CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 129 of 134 :: 130 ::
facts & circumstances of this case in entirety, the settled position of law and the aggravating and mitigating factors, as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the following punishment shall meet the ends of justice. SENTENCE
8.0 I hereby sentence as under :
Convict Quamaruddin (A-1)
(v) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 120B read with Sec.
420/471 r/w Sec. 468 IPC and further read with Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and he shall also pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only); and in default, to undergo RI for a period of three months; and,
(vi) is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 13 (2) r/w Sec. 13 (1) (d) PC Act; and he shall also pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only); and in default, to undergo RI for a period of three months. Convict Roop Chand (A-2) CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 130 of 134 :: 131 ::
is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 120B read with Sec. 420/471 r/w Sec. 468 IPC and further read with Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and he shall also pay a fine of 25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only); and in default, to undergo RI for a period of three months; and, is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) PC Act; and he shall also pay a fine of 25,000/-
(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only); and in default, to undergo RI for a period of three months.
Convict Mohd. Salim Alvi (A-3)
(i) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 120B read with Sec. 420/471 r/w Sec. 468 IPC and further read with Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and he shall also pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand only); and in default, to undergo RI for a period of three months; and,
(ii) is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 131 of 134 :: 132 ::
period of four years under Section 420 IPC; and he shall pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand only); and in default, to undergo RI for a period of three months; and
(iii) is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 471 r/w Section 468 IPC; and he shall pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand only); and in default, to undergo RI for a period of three months.
Convicts Mohd. Jahangir (A-5), Rajender Singh (A-6), Hira Lal (A-7) and Khem Chand (A-8) :
(i) are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 120B read with Sec.
420/471 r/w Sec. 468 IPC and further read with Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and they shall also pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) each; and in default, they shall undergo RI for a period of three months; and
(ii) are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 420 IPC; and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) each; and in default, they shall undergo RI for a period of CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 132 of 134 :: 133 ::
three months; and
(iii) are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 471 r/w Sec. 468 IPC; and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) each; and in default, they shall undergo RI for a period of three months.
Convict Rajender Kumar (A-9)
(i) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 120B read with Section 420/471 r/w Sec. 468 IPC and further read with Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and he shall also pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand only); and in default, to undergo SI for a period of two months; and,
(ii) is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 420 IPC; and he shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand only); and in default, to undergo SI for a period of two months; and
(iii) is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 471 r/w Sec. 468 IPC; CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 133 of 134 :: 134 ::
and he shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand only); and in default, to undergo SI for a period of two months.
The above sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC be given to the convicts. 9.0 Copy of the judgment dated 21.05.2014 as well as order on sentence passed today be supplied to the convicts free of cost.
10.0 Personal bonds and surety bonds of the convicts are hereby cancelled and endorsement, if any, on their documents/ FDRs, be cancelled and the same may be released.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court
on this 25th May, 2014 (POONAM A. BAMBA)
Special Judge (PC Act):
CBI-03 :PHC :New Delhi
CC No. 69/ 11: RC No. 8A/ACB/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Quamruddin etc. Page No. 134 of 134