Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Srichand Etc.(Navyug Cghs) on 31 October, 2023
CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL ANTIL, SPECIAL JUDGE,
PC ACT, CBI-15, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
CBI No. : 218/2019
CNR No. : DLCT 11-000869-2019
RC No. : 13(E)/2005/EOW-1/CBI/NEW Delhi
U/Sec. : Section 120-B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and
Section 13(2)r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988
and substantive offences thereof
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VERSUS
1. Srichand
S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh
R/o H. No. 274-A, Pocket-C,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-II,
Delhi .......................................(A-1)
2. Anna Wankhede
S/o Sh. Parnuji,
R/o H. No. 148E/2,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-III,
Delhi .......................................(A-2)
3. Niranjan Singh
S/o Sh. Babu Lal
R/o 309, Karkardooma Delhi Govt. Flats
Delhi .......................................(A-3)( Expired)
4. Jitender Sharma
S/o Late Sh. N.S. Sharma
R/o 1073/A-3, Ward No. 1, Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030 .............................(A-4) (Expired)
Digitally
signed by
ANIL ANIL ANTIL
Date:
CBI Case No. 218/19 ANTIL 2023.11.03
11:41:29
1 of 146
+0530
CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
5. Narain Diwakar
S/o Late Sh. Chatthi Lal
R/o G-30, Masjid Moth,
New Delhi .......................................(A-5)
6. Gopal Singh Bisht
S/o Late Sh. Inder Singh Bisht
R/o 269, DDA Janta Flats, Vasant Apartments
New Delhi .......................................(A-6)
7. Anil Kumar Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. Tilak Raj Aggarwal
R/o V.K.. Residency, 302B, Second Floor, D Block,
Mohd. Pur Majri,
Delhi-110081. .......................................(A-7)
8. P.K. Thirwani
S/o Late Sh. Moti Ram
R/o 348-E, Pocket-2,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi-110091 .......................................(A-8)
9. Roop Rao Mohad
S/o Sh. Ram Krishan
R/o H. No. 26/2, Trilokpuri,
Delhi-110091 .......................................(A-9)
Date of Institution : 30.04.2007
Arguments Concluded : 13.09.2023
Clarifications Sought : 26.10.2023
Announced on : 31.10.2023
Decision : i)All the accused persons,
except A-3 and A-4, stands
acquitted.
ii) A-3 and A-4 proceedings
against them abated.
CBI Case No. 218/19 2 of 146
CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
JUDGEMENT
1. The above named accused persons have been charge- sheeted by the prosecuting agency (CBI) to face trial for committing offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988 as well as substantive offences thereto.
2. In short, the present case relates to the alleged forgeries committed in the records of a Group Housing Society namely 'Navyug CGHS Ltd' for approval of List of the members of the Society for onward transmission to DDA to seek land at concessional rates on priority basis for developing Group Housing Society.
3. That in compliance with the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed on 02.08.2005, in Civil Writ Petition no.10066/2004, an inquiry was carried out, and on completion of the Preliminary Enquiry no. PE 2(E)/2005-EOW-1, present case was registered on 30.09.2005 vide RC No. 13(E)/2005/EOW- 1/CBI/NEW Delhi, under Section 120-B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2)r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof against accused Srichand (A-1) and eight other accused persons.
ACTUAL FACTS OF THE CASE : -
4. The case of the prosecution herein is that a Society by the name of Navyug CGHS Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") with official address of Lal Dwara Building, Jhandewalan, Extension, Delhi, was registered with the office of CBI Case No. 218/19 3 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 15.07.1971 vide Registration No.64(H) with 20 founder members.
5. Investigation disclosed that the Navyug CGHS Ltd was formed by a group of employees of M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd, a Unit of Birla Group of Companies with office at Lal Dwara Building, Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi, and registered with RCS on 15.07.1971 with 20 founder members and subsequently the membership was increased to 51 in December, 1976.
6. That in the year 1976, the land was proposed to the Society by the DDA at Paschimpuri, Delhi, and a notice was accordingly given to it to accept the land by depositing 25% of the cost of the land.
7. That the Society failed to deposit the said amount due to financial constraints, possession of the land was not taken. Compliance of DCS Act & Rules was not made thereafter, and the Society therefore was put under liquidation in terms of the order dt. 20.03.1979 passed by Sh. Ashok Bakshi, the then Dy. Registrar, and Sh.M.L.Ahuja was appointed as Official Liquidator accordingly.
8. Investigation revealed that the Society was in-active since 1982, due to shifting of the Units of M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd and transfer of its staff members to Kolkata.
9. Investigation disclosed that after a gap of about 21 years, Sh. Roop Rao, a Self-styled President of the Society submitted an application dated 10.01.2003 to the Registrar (South) with a request to approve the list of the members of the CBI Case No. 218/19 4 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Society and forward the same to DDA for allotment of land.
10. That the said application was marked to Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6), the then Dealing Assistant by Sh. J.S. Sharma (A-4, since deceased), the then Asstt. Registrar (South) for further action in that regard.
11. Investigation revealed that on 17.01.2003, Sh. Bisht (A-6) without verifying the records and without tracing the main file of the Society had put a suggestive note to obtain Status Report/Information from EDP, Audit and Policy branches. The approval in this regard was granted by Sh. J.S. Sharma (A-4), Asstt. Registrar, and all the branches/zones were asked to furnish the report accordingly.
12. Investigation revealed that a status report qua the existence of 'Navyug CGHS Ltd' with registration no.64(H) and its audit from 01.07.1971 to 30.06.1973 was furnished by Audit Branch of RCS Office.
13. Investigation further revealed that Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) vide his note dated 22.01.2003 also recommended to issue a letter to DDA to ascertain the status qua allotment of land by the DDA to the said Society.
14. That on the same day, this letter of Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) was approved by Sh. Narayan Diwakar (A-5) the then RCS, and was sent to the DDA under the signatures of Sh. J.S. Sharma (A-4) AR (South) on 23.01.2003.
15. That vide a letter dated 24.02.2003, DDA informed that since the records below the registration no. 582 had not been CBI Case No. 218/19 5 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) supplied to them therefore it was not possible to say whether land was allotted to Navyug Society 64(H) or not.
16. That thereafter Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) recommended for inspection of the Society u/s 54 of the DCS Act, 1972, and accordingly Sh. J.S. Sharma, (A-4) AR (South) appointed Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3) Grade II Inspector as Inspecting officer and issued circular to find out the status of the file.
17. Investigation revealed that an Inspection Report dated 03.03.2003 was furnished by Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3) mentioning that he had visited the office of the Society at 128, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on 02.02.2003 ; Sh. Anil Aggarwal (A-7), Secretary of the Society, met him and produced the relevant records of the Society.
18. It was also stated in the report that that after passing Resolution on 05.05.1991 duly approved by the General Body Meeting held on 20.12.1991 Society had shifted its address from Lal Dwara Building, Link Road, Jhandewallan Extension New Delhi to 128, Vinobha Puri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. However, no record to show the shifting or intimation to the RCS Office regarding it was available in their office.
19. Investigation revealed further that Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) vide his note dt 06.03.2003 recorded that the main file of the Society was not traceable in the RCS office, nor could it be traced in the Zones/Branches of the RCS in terms of the Circular dated 27.02.2003 issued in that regard.
20. That accused Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) further CBI Case No. 218/19 6 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) mentioned that no record of the Society was available in DDA, Policy, EDP & Audit Branch, and the status of the Society should be treated as defunct, "the list not yet approved'.
21. Accused Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) had also recommended that the Society be directed to submit attested copies of registration Certificate, bye-laws and other available records of the Society for its reconstruction, which was endorsed by accused J.S. Sharma (A-4) the then AR (S), and later by Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar (JR), and then by accused Narain Diwakar (A-
5) on 17.03.2003.
22. Investigation revealed that thereafter Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) had put up an exhaustive note dt. 24.03.2003, mentioning that Sh. Roop Rao (A-9), President of the Society, vide a letter dated 18.03.2003 had submitted various documents including attested copy of Registration Certificate & Bye Laws of the Society, correspondences made from time to time with the department, proceedings of the latest Election/AGM and the Audit Report.
23. That a list of 120 members of the Society submitted by its then President Sh. Roop Rao (A-9) for approval and onward transmission to DDA for allotment of the land was also forwarded by Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) with the note that no records of the Society were available in the office of RCS, nor in the office of DDA.
24. That Sh. J.S. Sharma (A-4) endorsed the note put up by Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) that copies of all the documents including affidavits have been checked and verified and CBI Case No. 218/19 7 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) requested for forwarding the list of 120 members to the DDA.
25. That on 24.03.2003 Sh. Narain Diwakar (A-5) thereafter approved the proposal and the list of 120 members of the Society, submitted by Sh. J.S. Sharma (A-4) the then Asstt. Registrar, hurriedly on the same day for onward transmission to DDA.
26. Investigation revealed that out of the said 120 members, 39 members were from the original list of 51 promoter members ; out of which 12 promoter members, who were also office bearers of the Society during 1970, were shown to have resigned in January 2003, despite the fact that few of them had already expired.
27. That the other 58 members were taken from another Society run by the name of Samrat Ashok Enclave CGHS Ltd and remaining 23 were other persons including accused persons namely Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7), Secretary, Sh. Roop Rao (A-9) Former President ; witnesses namely Sh. Arun Sardar (Former Treasurer), Sh. Satbir Kaur (Treasurer) ; and Ms. Rachna Ganguly, the then President.
28. Investigation revealed that out of the 12 founder members, allegedly shown resigned in January 2003, one Sh. P.G.Shah (Membership No.1) expired in 1990 ; Sh. T.C. Choradia, Sh. B.K. Goyal and Sh. O.P. Kedia the then office bearers denied to have resigned on 02.01.2003, and stated that their signatures on the alleged resignations are forged and fabricated ; and Sh. M.S. Sekhawat also confirmed the receipts and resignations furnished in his name during 2003 are forged CBI Case No. 218/19 8 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) documents.
29. Investigation revealed that the affidavits dt. 09.01.2003 of the founder members/promoter members submitted to the RCS Office by Society were found to be forged documents.
30. That the members of other Society Samrat Ashoka Enclave CGHS Ltd allegedly shown to have taken the membership of Navyug CGHS also denied their signatures on the affidavits so submitted by the office bearers of the Society.
31. That Sh.Avanish Kumar, Assistant of Sh. P.R.Bhatia, Stamp Vendor, Old Court Building, Parliament Street confirmed that the 120 Stamp papers for the purpose of affidavits were purchased from them by accused Sh. Anna Wankhede(A-2), who had also provided the details/particulars of the said persons for typing the same to typist Sh. Ravi Rohinson.
32. Investigation revealed that accused Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7), Chartered Accountant by profession, was handling the work of the Navyug Society from March, 2003 onwards and also of some other Societies controlled by accused Srichand (A-1) and had inducted new members to the Society, above the freeze list of 120 of its members.
33. That the said fact was disclosed in response to an advertisement published by the then RCS in the local newspapers in the year 2004, wherein several new members had furnished their details along with the affidavits.
34. That the new members were not able to produce relevant documents of their membership of the Society initially, CBI Case No. 218/19 9 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) but later almost all of them produced Share Certificates issued by the Society on 02.12.2005, bearing the signatures of Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) as its President and Ms. Satbir Kaur as its Treasurer.
35. That Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) took the membership of the Society on 10.02.2003 and immediately co- opted as a 'Secretary' in a Management Committee meeting held on 15.02.2.003, in violation of Rule(s) especially 59(K) of DCS Rules, 1973.
36. Investigation revealed that Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) opened the bank account, bearing account number 49025 of the Society with Punjab National Bank, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi and maintained the same under his signatures ; Smt. Satbir Kaur informed that Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal introduced her as Treasurer without election ; and he (A-7) despite knowing the fact that the list of 120 members was bogus and enrolled more than the approved list of members intentionally to control the allotment.
CASE AGAINST ACCUSED SRICHAND (A-1)
37. It is alleged that accused Srichand was the mastermind in getting the list of members approved from RCS sent to DDA for allotment of land ; that during 1996-2004, Srichand was President/Vice President of Samrat Ashoka Enclave CGHS and he provided the names and details of 58 members of the said Society to Navyug CGHS ; that some false/fabricated Notings in the Minutes of the Meeting were written by him in the Proceeding Register of the Society and this fact was confirmed CBI Case No. 218/19 10 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) by Government Examiner in his GEQD report.
CASE AGAINST ACCUSED ANNA WANKHEDE ( A-2)
38. It is alleged that accused Anna Wankhede (A-2) was the man behind purchase of the Stamp papers in the name of false members and preparation of bogus affidavits dated 09.01.2003 of 120 members of the Society.
CASE AGAINST ACCUSED RCS OFFICIALS (A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 & A-8).
39. It is alleged that RCS officials in conspiracy with the private persons had facilitated the approval and forwarding of the list of bogus members to DDA for allotment of land.
40. It was also revealed that the Society address at Jhandewallan Extension falls under the jurisdiction of Asstt. Registrar (Central Zone) and there is no record on file to show that Society had submitted application qua change of address from Central Zone to South Zone.
41. That the false inspection report dated 03.03.2003 was prepared by Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3), Insp. GR II, without visiting at the Society office address i.e. 128 Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi, whereas no Society ever existed at the said address.
42. That Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6), the then dealing assistant, and Sh. J.S. Sharma (A-4), the then Asstt. Registrar, South, had not conducted verification of the original records of the Society properly and were instrumental in reconstruction of the main file on the basis of false/forged/bogus documents of the Society.
CBI Case No. 218/19 11 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
43. That accused Sh. J.S.Sharma (A-4) in conspiracy with others made recommendations to get the list approved and treat the Society as 'List' not 'Yet approved Category' and endorsed the false Notings of Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6), the false inspection report of Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3), and false Audit report submitted by Sh. P.K. Thirwani (A-8) for the period 1973- 2002 despite knowing well that it could not have been prepared for more than three years without specific orders from the Registrar and without visiting the registered office of the Society.
44. That Sh. Narayan Diwakar (A-5), the then Registrar, RCS allowed re-construction of the main file and deliberately did not lodge any complaint with the Police nor initiated any Inquiry about the disappearance of original records in the office of RCS.
45. That Sh. Narayan Diwakar without following any due procedure in connivance with the other RCS officials and private persons approved the list of 120 members, which was irregular and illegal, for onward transmission to DDA.
CASE AGAINST ACCUSED ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL (A-7).
46. It is alleged that accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7), Secretary of the Society, was in control of the Society since March, 2003 and it was in his knowledge that many members were bogus in the list of 120 members approved by the RCS and it was in violation of Section 24(2) of DCS Rules, 1973. He enlisted more than 150 members subsequently.
- He also produced the record of the Society before Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3) and signed the false/bogus Inspection CBI Case No. 218/19 12 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) report dated 03.03.2003 so prepared by Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3), Grade II Inspector, RCS.
CASE AGAINST ACCUSED ROOP RAO ( A-9).
47. The allegations against accused Roop Rao (A-9) are that he representing himself as the President of the Society had submitted the first application dated 10.01.2003 for approval of the list of members and forwarding it to DDA. He also submitted the false/forged documents of the Society to the Office of RCS. His signatures on the various false and forged documents have been confirmed by the Government Examiner vide his GEQD report.
48. Thus, on the basis of the evidence so collected, it is the case of prosecution that the above mentioned accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy with common object for approval of the List of the members of the Society for onward transmission to DDA to seek land at concessional rates on priority basis for developing Group Housing Society, and thus they all have committed the offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 420/471/511 IPC & Section 15 r/w 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988.
49. Sanction for prosecution of the public servants/ accused Sh. J.S. Sharma (A-4, the then Asstt. Registrar) ; Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3, the then Grade II Inspector) ; Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6, the then Dealing Assistant) and Sh. P.K. Thirwani (A-8, the then Auditor in the office of RCS), was duly taken from the competent Authority.
50. In so far as accused Narain Diwakar (A-5, the then CBI Case No. 218/19 13 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Registrar) is concerned, he had already retired, and therefore, no Sanction in terms of Section 197 Cr. P.C. and/or Section 19 of the P.C. Act was taken qua him.
51. After completion of the investigation, the present charge sheet was prepared and presented before the Predecessor Court for the trial of all the accused persons named above. Cognizance of the offences was taken and they all were summoned and compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was made accordingly.
52. Vide detailed order dated 28.02.2011, on the point of charges, the learned predecessor of this court opined that prima- facie there are sufficient grounds to frame charges against all the accused persons as mentioned underneath :-
i) For the offences punishable u/s 120-B IPC r/w Section 420 & 471 IPC r/w Section 468 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988, against all the nine (09) accused persons.
ii) For the substantive offence punishable u/s 420 r/w Section 511 and 471 IPC r/w Section 468 IPC against the accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) and Roop Rao Mohad (A-
9).
iii) For the offences punishable under Section 15 r/w Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, against the accused persons namely Niranjan Singh (A-3), Jitender Singh (A-4), Narain Diwakar (A-5), Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) and P.K. Thirwani (A-8).
53. Accordingly, separate charges for the aforesaid CBI Case No. 218/19 14 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) offences were framed against the accused persons, to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
54. Accused Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3) and Sh. Jitender Sharma (A-4) had expired during the course of the trial therefore the judicial proceedings against them stands abated accordingly.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
55. Prosecution in support of its case has examined 88 witnesses and relevant testimony of the said witnesses is noted hereunder.
56. PW-1 Sh. Shiv Shankar Gupta deposed that he was office Incharge in M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd ; he became member of Navyug CGHS in the year 1976, which was formed by the employees of his company. He paid Rs.110/- towards the membership.
- Witness deposed that land was allotted to the Society at Paschim Puri near Pritam Pura in the year 1976-1977 but due to paucity of funds the possession of the land was not taken by the Society.
- He stated that Application Form Mark PW1/A, is not the same Application Form and the signatures thereon at point A are not his signatures. He further stated that the affidavit Mark PW1/B was not prepared, signed or submitted by him to the Society and the address on the application and affidavit is not his residential address.
- He deposed that his membership number is shown at Sl.No. 44 dated 02.04.1971 whereas, he joined M/s Jayshree CBI Case No. 218/19 15 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Tea & Industries Ltd in the year 1975 and became its member subsequent thereto.
- In the cross-examination witness stated that they did not take any action when Navyug CGHS had become defunct, nor when a person from the office situated at Old Secretariat Delhi through his staff members informed that the Society is going to be liquidated, but he did not meet personally any official from RCS Office.
- He stated that he never resigned from the aforesaid Society and still consider himself as its member.
57. PW-2 Sh. Tara Chand Choradia deposed that he was employed as Vice President of M/s Jayshree Chemicals and Fertilizers, a Unit of M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd ; he became member of Navyug CGHS in the year 1971-1972, when it was formed by the employees of his company. He paid Rs. 110/- towards the membership.
- Witness deposed that the land was allotted to the Society in the year 1976 approximately but due to paucity of funds the possession of the land was not taken by the Society. A request for extension of time was also made since most of its members were transferred from one Unit to Other and the required funds could not be collected, and the strength of the members was also reduced to below 50.
- Witness stated that Application Form Mark PW2/A, in his name does not bear his signatures thereon at point A. He further stated that the affidavit and Receipt/Certificate Mark PW2/B also does not bears his signatures. He failed to CBI Case No. 218/19 16 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) identify the signatures of Sh. Roop Rao (A-9) at point Q-99 on the aforesaid letter.
- He deposed that his membership number was 8 and took it on 02.04.1971 ; whereas his income is wrongly shown as 1100/- which in-fact was Rs. 1400/- to Rs.1600/- per month at that time.
- He stated that on the Minutes of Management Committee at page(s) 722 to 723 (Mark PW2/C) ; dated 30.08.1984 at page no. 274 (Mark PW2/D) ; dated 07.12.1976 Page no.725 (Mark PW2/E) ; dated 02.04.1971 page no.726 & 727 (Mark PW2/F), all part of D-5 ; and Minutes dated 29.02.1984 page no.942-943 (Mark PW2/G) part of D-6, his signatures thereto at different points (X & Y) are not his genuine signatures and have been forged by some one.
- He identified the signatures of the then Secretary Sh. B.K. Goyal on a letter dated 19.04.1972 Ex PW2/H, vide which request to DDA was made for the allotment of land to the Society.
- He stated that vide letter dated 16.11.1976 Ex PW2/J, the DDA had asked the Societies to deposit a sum of Rs. 5000/- to be treated as an earnest money at the time of allotment of land, and the land to the Society would be allotted in Paschim Puri and Pitam Pura under Group Housing Projects.
- He also forwarded the demand draft number 26545 dated 28.12.1976 for a sum of Rs.5000/- drawn in favour of DDA alongwith an application seeking allotment of land and list of members of the Society as it was on the said date vide CBI Case No. 218/19 17 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) letter dated 28.12.1976, and identified his signatures on the letter, on the application and also on the list of the members, which are exhibited as Exh. PW2/K, PW2/L and PW2/M respectively.
- He deposed that membership of the Society was confined to the employees of M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd ; land was allotted by the DDA, but the Society could not arrange necessary funds, thereafter it became dormant.
- Witness identified his signatures on a letter dated 31.01.1978 (D-9) regarding allotment of land to the Society Ex PW2/N ; on a letter dated 01.03.1978 regarding deposit of Rs. 5000/- against allotment of land ExPW2/P ; on a letter dated 06.07.1979 addressed to Sh. M.L. Ahuja, Office of RCS ; on a letter dated 26.07.1981 again regarding allotment of land ( D-9 Page no. 34), and on other letters at page no. 12, 14, 21, 22 & 25 and exhibited as PW2/S-1 to PW2/S-5, (all part of D-9).
- Despite opportunity, witness was not cross examined by any accused.
58. PW-3 Sh. Arun Sardar deposed that membership of the Society was taken by him.
- This witness was declared hostile and was cross- examined by the learned PP for CBI.
- In the cross-examination PW-3 stated that accused Anna Wankhede (A-2), who was working in DDA at that time approached him to become a member of the Society, however, he declined due to financial reasons.
CBI Case No. 218/19 18 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
- He has stated that A-2 Anna Wankhede had taken his signatures on 2-3 papers, possibly could be the membership form, but he never paid any membership fee nor received any receipt, nor was ever its Treasurer, nor had he ever contested the election of the Society.
- He deposed that the signatures in his name appearing in the meeting of the Management Committee dated 15.02.2003 at point Q-171 (Election held on 29.12.2002 at page no. 955 D-6)) Marked as PW3/A ; on Minutes dated 17.11.2002 at page no. 954 of D-6 at point X ; and on an affidavit Ex. PW3/C (page no. 432 of D-5), are not his genuine signatures.
- He failed to identify the signatures of accused Roop Rao (A-9) and Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7), who were shown as President and Secretary respectively in the Minutes of Meeting Marked as PW3/B, and denied having ever known them.
- He stated that though A-2 had met him couple of times but he never took the membership of the Navyug CGHS. Witness was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C wherein he has stated about taking of the membership of the Society and knowing accused Roop Rao and Anil Kumar Aggarwal.
- PW-3 Sh. Arun Sardar admitted that accused Anna Wankhede (A-2) had introduced him to accused Srichand (A-1), who was living in Mayur Vihar and dealing in the work of Cooperative Group Housing Societies.
- He denied having attended any meeting of the CBI Case No. 218/19 19 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Society, or participated into the Elections or being elected as its Treasurer, and further denied all the signatures appended on the documents/Minutes of Meeting of the Society in his name showing him as Treasurer Ex PW3/X-1 to PW3/X-3, PW3/X-4, PW3/X-5 (nomination form of Treasurer), PW3/X-6, PW3/X-7, PW3/X-8, PW3/X-9, PW3/X-10 (Application Form).
- In the cross-examination on behalf of accused A-2 he stated that the documents shown to him in the Court during his examination are not the ones on which A-2 had taken his signatures.
59. PW-4 Sh.Om Parkash Kedia deposed that he was employed as Vice President/Tea Marketing of M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd ; he became member of Navyug CGHS in the year 1971-1972, when it was formed by the employees of his company. He paid Rs.110/- towards the membership.
- He stated that alongwith him Sh. T.C. Choradia ( PW-2), Sh. P.K. Aggarwal, Sh. R.S. Aggarwal, Sh. B.K. Goyal and Sh. B.S. Buthoria had also taken its membership ; and became its office bearers with Sh. B.C. Biyani, Sh. M.P. Mohta, Sh. P.G. Shah and Sh. P.K. Aggarwal, the other promoter members of the Society.
- Witness deposed that land was offered to the Society in mid-seventies but due to paucity of funds the possession of the land was not taken. A request for extension of time was also made, funds could not be arranged as the members had shifted to different locations/stations, and the Society became defunct and went in liquidation.
CBI Case No. 218/19 20 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
- Witness stated that Application Form dated 02.04.1971 Ex PW4/A, in his name does not bear his signatures thereon at point A.
- He deposed that he never resigned from the Society and the signatures on the resignation letter/Receipt dated 02.01.2003 at point A, Ex PW4/B are his forged signatures.
- He did not identify the signatures of Sh. Roop Rao (A-9) at point B on Ex PW4/A & at Q-96 of Ex PW4/B by stating that he had never heard the name of such person nor any such person was ever the employee of the Company or the member of the Society.
- He stated that in the Proceeding register of the Society at Serial no. 5 his name is correctly mentioned whereas his father's name is wrong, but he never signed any such proceedings register Ex PW4/C ; denied having attended or signing any meeting/proceedings allegedly shown on 02.04.1971 of the Promoter members, and the meeting shown on 29.12.2002 Ex PW4/D.
- He stated that registered address of the Society was Lal Dwara Building, Faiz Road and not 128, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi.
- Witness was cross examined by accused Sh. Roop Rao, A-9.
60. PW-5 Sh. Samar Rajan Dev deposed that he was working with M/s Jayshree Tea Ltd and became member of Navyug CGHS in the year 1979.
CBI Case No. 218/19 21 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
- He denied his signatures at point A on the Application Form dated 02.12.1976 exhibited as Ex PW5/A ; at point A & B on an affidavit dated 09.01.2003 exhibited as Ex PW5/B ; on a letter dated 15.07.1971 Ex PW5/C allegedly attested by accused Roop Rao (A-9) and at serial no. 49 in the list of Promoter members Ex PW5/D.
- He stated that he took the membership of the Society at the initiative of Sh. T.C. Choradia (PW-2) and Sh. B.K.Goyal who were his colleagues in the Company.
- Witness was cross examined by A-9. He did not identify the signatures appended in the name of accused Roop Rao (A-9) nor the accused A-9, present in the court stating that he had never met him earlier at any point of time.
61. PW-6 Sh. Subhash Chander Lath deposed that earlier he was working as Head Cashier with M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd having its Office at Lal Dwara Building, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, and became member of Navyug CGHS somewhere in between the year 1975-1985.
- He denied his signatures on the membership Application Form Ex PW6/A ; affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW6/B ; Minutes of General Body Meeting dated 20.12.1991 Ex PW6/C dated 29.12.02 Ex PW6/D ; and on the list of members dated 31.03.2002 Ex PW6/E wherein his name was shown at serial no. 32 in lieu of payment of Rs.110/-.
- He was cross-examined by accused Roop Rao (A-
9) only, wherein he stated that he had never resigned from the membership of Navyug CGHS and is still its member ; did not CBI Case No. 218/19 22 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) attend any meeting, and stated that he cannot say anything about the persons who might have forged his signatures.
62. PW-7 Sh. Rajender Prasad Murarka deposed that he was working as Dy. Executive (Taxation) with M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd in the year 1975, and became member of Navyug CGHS which was formed by the employees of the aforesaid company. He paid Rs. 110/- as a membership fee.
- He denied his signatures on the membership Application Form Ex PW7/A and affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW7/B, both in his name, and stated that some one must have forged these signatures.
He was not cross examined by any one.
63. PW-8 Smt. Satbir Kaur deposed that she became member of Navyug CGHS in the year 2003 through brother of her friend Ms. Polly, who also introduced her to accused Anil Aggarwal (A-7) who was living in DDA Flats Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. She had paid a sum of Rs. 110/- as its membership fee.
- She identified her signatures on the application form, copy of Ration Card and on the original copy of receipt, exhibited as ExPW8/A, Ex PW8/B and Ex PW8/C respectively.
- She deposed that on the request of A-7 she had introduced 10-15 members in the aforesaid Society, had collected their share money of Rs. 110/-, got their membership application signed by them, and handed over the said documents to Anil Aggarwal (A-7), who also informed her that she has been appointed as Treasurer of the Society and he (A-7) was its CBI Case No. 218/19 23 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Secretary.
- She stated that she did not know Ms. Rachna, shown as a President of the Society, and never attended any meeting of the Society, which used to function from the residence of accused Anil Aggarwal (A-7).
- After seeing the Original Share Certificates issued to the members she admitted her signatures on the certificates bearing numbers :-
.15115 in the name of Ms. Anita Gupta Ex. PW8/E .15136 in the name of Sh. Jagmohan Ex PW8/H .15133 in the name of Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh Ex PW8/J .15110 in the name of Sh. Ashwani Bakshi Ex PW8/K .15131 in the name of Sh. Bijender Singh Ex PW8/L .9383 in the name of Sh. Nitin Gupta Ex PW8/Q .15124 in the name of Ms. Santosh Bagai Ex PW8/S .15126 in the name of Sh. Ranbir Singh Ex PW8/T .15134 in the name of Ms. Daljeet Kaur Ex PW8/W . 15109 in the name of Sh. Bhupinder Singh Ex PW8/X .15137 in the name of Ms. Mukta Ex PW8/Y. .15129 in the name of Ms. Sonia Sanger Ex PW8/Z .15132 in the name of Sh. Raj Kumar Ex PW8/Z.7 . 9351 in the name of Sh. Amit Sharma Ex PW8/Z.8 .15107 in the name of Sh.Sanjay Mehta Ex PW8/Z.9.
- She stated that she signed these certificates at the CBI Case No. 218/19 24 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) residence of accused Anil Aggarwal (A-7).
- While denied her signatures on the certificates bearing numbers :-
.15101 in the name of Sh. Manoj Kumar Ex PW8/D .15144 in the name of Sh. Amrit Lal Kansal Ex PW8/F .9379 in the name of Ms. Manju Kucchal Ex PW8/G .9397 in the name of Sh. Praveen Kumar Ex PW8/M .9391 in the name of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Ex PW8/N .9359 in the name of Sh. Ajay Bansal Ex PW8/P .9384 in the name of Sh. Rajiv Goyal Ex PW8/R. .9399 in the name of Ms. Ranjeet Kaur Ex PW8/U. .15113 in the name of Sh. Jaswinder Pal Singh Ex PW8/V. .15116 in the name of Sh. Gurpreet Singh Ex PW8/Z.1 .9352 in the name of Ms. Kanchan Saluja Ex PW8/Z.2 .9396 in the name of Ms. Sudesh Gulati Ex PW8/Z.3 .9394 in the name of Ms.Kiran Rani Ex PW8/Z.4 .9380 in the name of Sh. Amrit Pal Skingh Ex PW8/Z.5 .9360 in the name of Sh. Bijander Kumar Ex PW8/Z.6
- She identified her signatures at point A, signatures of Ms. Rachna at point B, and of accused Anil Aggarwal at point C, on the account opening form bearing account No. 54045 Punjab National Bank, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in the name of Navyug CGHS Ex PW8/Z-10, which was opened on the introduction of M/s Diamond Foundation.
CBI Case No. 218/19 25 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
- She also identified her signatures on the documents accompanied therewith i.e.:-
. draft resolution passed by the Society Ex PW8/Z-11 .
. specimen signatures card Ex PW8/Z-12.
. declaration to that effecting Ex PW8/Z-13 . copy of Resolution Ex PW8/Z-14, . list of members of the Society Ex PW8/Z-15 . attested copies of by-laws of Society Ex PW8/Z-16, . registration certificate of Society Ex PW8/Z-17 . photographs of herself, Ms. Rachna and Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal affixed on Account Opening Form Ex PW8/Z-12
- She further identified her signatures on the affidavit, Form-60, Verification Certificate and the photographs affixed thereto on the exhibits i.e. Ex PW8/Z-18, Ex PW8/Z-19, Ex PW8/Z-20 respectively.
- She stated that she had never visited the Bank and her signatures were obtained by accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7), and correctly identified accused A-7 during her examination in the Court.
64. PW-9 Sh. Girdhari Lal Mahensaria deposed that he had worked as Accounts Officer with M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd, Lal Dwara Building, Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi and resigned in the year 1981.
- The employees of aforesaid company formed a group housing Society in the name of Navyug Cooperative CBI Case No. 218/19 26 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Group Housing Society, and Sh. T.C. Choradia, Sh. P.K. Aggarwal, Sh B.K. Goyal, Sh. B.S. Bhutoria and Sh. R.S. Aggarwal were office bearer of the Society.
- In the year 1970, land was offered to the Society by DDA, however, despite extension of time, the funds to meet out the cost of the said land was not deposited and Society became defunct.
- Witness stated that application for allotment of land addressed to DDA bears the signatures of the then Secretary of Navyug CGHS Ex PW2/L (D-9 page 7 & 8) and list of members of the Society as on 28.12.1976 was also forwarded to the DDA, and his name is appearing at serial no.15 in the said list.
- He denied his signatures on the membership Application Form Ex PW9/A (D-5, page 707-C), at point Q- 1081 & Q-1082 on affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW9/B ( D-5, page 528-C), at serial no. 20 Ex PW6/D (D-4 page 218 C) and serial no. 15 Ex PW6/C (D-4 page 213-C) of General Body Meetings purportedly held on 29.12.2002.
- He stated that some one must have forged his signatures appearing on these documents.
- Witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
65. PW-10 Smt. Kiran Rani deposed that she became member of Navyug CGHS somewhere in January-February 2005 through Mr. Anil Aggarwal (A-7), a known of her sister Smt. CBI Case No. 218/19 27 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Sudesh Gulati, and paid Rs.110/- as membership fee to Mr. Anil Aggarwal.
- She identified her photograph at point X and signatures at point A on the affidavit Ex PW10/A (D-7 page no.
71), photograph at point X and signatures appearing at point A on Verification Certificate ExPW10/B (D-7,page no.72) and signatures on Form 16 at point A Ex PW10/C (D-7,page no.73)
- She further deposed that she handed over Share Certificate Ex PW8/Z.4 issued to her by the Society to the CBI and it was seized vide memo Ex PW10/D. She identified her signatures on the said certificate at point B.
- She stated that particulars of the form, affidavit and Form 16 were filled by her in her own handwriting.
- She was not cross examined by any accused despite opportunity.
66. PW-11 Sh. Hari Lal Kanodia deposed that he was employed as Accountant in M/s Jayshree Timber Product, a Unit of M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. The employees of company formed a group of housing Society in the name of Navyug Cooperative Group Housing Society.
- That Sh. T.C. Choradia (PW-2), Sh. P.K. Aggarwal, Sh. R.S. Aggarwal, Sh. B.K. Goyal and Sh. B.S. Buthoria were the office bearers of Navyug CGHS at that time.
- He became member of Navyug CGHS in the year 1971, however, he denied his signatures appearing on membership Application Form Ex PW11/A (D-5 page no.
CBI Case No. 218/19 28 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) 705C) , affidavit Ex PW11/B (D-5 page no.526-C) at point A & B, and at serial no.22 Ex PW6/D (D-4 page 218 C) General Body Meetings purportedly held on 29.12.2002.
- He stated that he never resigned from the membership of Society and application for allotment of land addressed to DDA bears the signatures of the then Secretary of Navyug CGHS already exhibited as Ex PW2/L (D-9 page 7 & 8) ; and list of members of the Society as on 28.12.1976 Ex PW2/M was also forwarded to the DDA, and his name is appearing at serial no. 17 in the said list Ex PW2/M.
- He specifically deposed that some one must have forged his signatures appearing on these documents ; he was not able to identify the signatures of official at Point Q-1044, Q- 1045, Q-1046 and Q-1047.
- Witness was not cross examined by the accused persons.
67. PW-12 Sh. Prem Chand Bector deposed that he was employed as Salesman in M/s Jayshree Timber Product, a Unit of M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. The employees of company formed a group of housing Society in the name of Navyug Cooperative Group Housing Society. Sh. T.C. Choradia (PW-2), Sh. P.K. Aggarwal, Sh. R.S. Aggarwal, Sh. B.K. Goyal and Sh. B.S. Buthoria were the office bearers of Navyug CGHS at that time.
- He became member of Navyug CGHS in the year 1976, however, he denied his signatures appearing on membership application form Ex PW12/A (D-5 page no. 691-C) CBI Case No. 218/19 29 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) at point A, affidavit Ex PW12/B (D-5 page no.512-C) at point A & B, and at serial no.32 Ex PW6/D (D-4 page 218 C) General Body Meetings purportedly held on 29.12.2002.
- He stated that he never resigned from the membership of Society, and application for allotment of land addressed to DDA bears the signatures of the then Secretary of Navyug CGHS already exhibited as Ex PW2/L (D-9 page 7 & 8) ; and list of members of the Society as on 28.12.1976 was also forwarded to the DDA with his name appearing at serial no.31in the said list ExPW2/M.
- He deposed that some one must have forged his signatures appearing on these documents. He did not identify the signatures at Point Q-1044, Q-1045, Q-1046 and Q-1047.
- Witness was not cross examined by the accused persons.
68. PW-13 Smt. Daljet Kaur deposed that she became member of Navyug CGHS through Ms. Satbir Kaur in the year 2005 and deposited Rs.110/- as membership fee ; she identified her signatures at point A on the Affidavit Ex PW13/A and on the Form no. 60 under Income Tax Act Ex PW13/B.
- that the Share Certificate of her membership Ex PW8/W was taken into possession by the IO vide memo Ex PW13/C, and she identified her signatures on it. No meeting of the Society was ever attended by her at any time.
- Witness was not cross examined by any accused.
69. PW-14 Sh. Yashbir Singh deposed that earlier he CBI Case No. 218/19 30 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) was employed with M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd, and the employees of company had formed a group of housing Society in the name of Navyug Cooperative Group Housing Society. Sh. T.C. Choradia (PW-2), Sh. P.K. Aggarwal, Sh. R.S. Aggarwal, Sh. B.K. Goyal and Sh. B.S. Buthoria were the office bearers of Navyug CGHS at that time.
- He became member of Navyug CGHS in the year 1975-1976, however, he denied his signatures appearing on membership application form Ex PW14/A (D-5 page no. 687-C) and on affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW14/B (D-5 page no.508- C), at point A.
- He stated that he never resigned from the membership of Society.
- Witness was cross-examined by accused Roop Rao(A-9) only.
70. PW-15 Sh. P. Ganpati Raman deposed that earlier he was employed with M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. He became member of Navyug CGHS in the year 1974-1975, however, he denied his signatures appearing on membership application form Ex PW15/A (D-5 page no. 676-C) and on an affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW15/B (D-5 page no.497-C), at point A.
- He stated that he never resigned from the membership of Society.
- Witness was cross examined by accused Roop Rao (A-9) only.
CBI Case No. 218/19 31 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
71. PW-16 Sh.P.C. Ramchandran deposed that earlier he was posted with M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd.
- He became member of Navyug CGHS alongwith other employees of the company, however, he denied his signatures appearing on membership application form Ex PW16/A (D-5 page no. 671-C) and on affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW16/B, at point A.
- He stated that he never resigned from the membership of Society.
- Witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
72. PW-17 Sh. Nawal Kishore Singhania deposed that earlier he was posted with M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd.
- He became member of Navyug CGHS alongwith other employees of the company, however, he also denied his signatures appearing on membership application form Ex PW17/A (D-5 page no. 693-C) and on affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW17/B, at point A.
- He stated that he never resigned from the membership of Society.
Witness was cross-examined by accused Roop Rao (A-9) only.
73. PW-18 Sh. Ashutosh Dey deposed that earlier he was posted with M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd.
- In the year 1971, he became member of Navyug CGHS which was a group housing Society formed by the staff members of the aforesaid company. At that time he had given an CBI Case No. 218/19 32 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) affidavit as well as an application for becoming member and deposited Rs.110/- as membership Fee.
- He denied his signatures appearing at point A & B on affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW18/A (D-5, page no. 505-C) and also on the membership application form Ex PW18/B (D-5 page no. 684).
- He also stated that he had never resigned from the membership of Society.
Witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
74. PW-19 Sh. Dev Dutt deposed that he never became member of Navyug CGHS. He stated that signatures appearing at point A & B on the membership application Ex PW19/A (D-5 Vol. II, page 616) are not his signatures. He also stated that the affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW19/B in his name is not signed by him, and can not say as to who had signed the same.
Witness was cross-examined by accused Anna Wankhede (A-2) and Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) only.
75. PW-20 Sh. Ashok Kumar Dey deposed that he was working with M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd and in the year 1971, he became member of Navyug CGHS alongwith other colleagues.
- Witness after seeing the application dated 02.12.1976 Ex PW20/A ( D-5, Vol. II, page 672 ) in his name stated that the signatures appearing on it at point A are not his signatures, and that he had never submitted any affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW20/B (D-5, page no. 493) for becoming CBI Case No. 218/19 33 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) member of the Society.
- He too stated that he had never resigned from the membership of the Society.
Witness was cross-examined by accused Anna Wankhede A-2 and Anil Kumar Aggarwal A-7 only.
76. PW-21 Sh. Radhey Shyam Aggarwal deposed that he was working with M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd and the employees of company formed a group of housing Society in the name of Navyug Cooperative Group Housing Society.
- That Sh. B.C. Biyani, Sh. N.P. Mohta and Sh. P.G. Shah were the office bearers of Navyug CGHS at that time.
- He stated that he became member of Navyug CGHS in the year 1971 ; that the signatures appearing at point A on membership application form dated 02.04.1971 Ex.PW21/A (D-5 Vol. II, page no.296) and also at point A ( Q-1079 & Q- 1080) on the affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW21/B (D-5 page no.527) are not his signatures.
- He stated that he never resigned from the membership of Society.
Witness was cross-examined by accused Anna Wankhede (A-2) and Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7).
77. PW-22 Sh. Ranbir Singh deposed that he retired as Section Officer from Northern Railway, Delhi. The membership of the Navyug CGHS was not taken by him.
- Witness after seeing the membership application form Ex PW22/A (D-5 Vol.II, page 613) and affidavit dated CBI Case No. 218/19 34 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) 09.01.2003 Ex. PW22/B (D-5, Vol. II page 434) stated that signatures appearing on these two documents are not his signatures.
Witness was cross-examined by accused Anna Wankhede (A-2) only.
78. PW-23 Sh. Ranjeet Pershad Dutta deposed that he was posted with M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. He alongwith other colleagues became member of Navyug CGHS, a Society formed by the employees of aforesaid company, paid Rs. 110/- as membership fee, and a Share Certificate Ex PW23/A was issued to him. He produced and proved on record copy of the Fee receipt Ex PW23/B.
- Witness after seeing the affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW23/C (D-5, Vol. II page no. 509) and the application for becoming member of Society dated 02.12.1976 Ex PW23/D (D-5 Vol. II, page 688 ) stated that the signatures appearing on these documents are not his signatures.
- He also stated that the receipt No. 34 dated 10.12.1976 showing the deposit of Rs. 110/- as membership fee Ex PW23/E is not the receipt which was issued to him by the Society.
Witness was cross-examined by accused Roop Rao A-9 only.
79. PW-24 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary deposed that he became member of Samrat Ashoka CGHS in the year 1982 through Sh. Prem Parkash, a family friend.
CBI Case No. 218/19 35 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
- That Sh. Prem Prakash informed him in the year 1987-88 that the Samrat Ashoka CGHS had become defunct and asked him to sign some papers, and accordingly he had signed on some papers and got refund of Rs. 250/- from Ashoka CGHS.
- He identified his signatures appearing on the affidavit Ex PW24/A (D-5, Vol. II, page 350) tendered by him alongwith his application for becoming member of Ashoka CGHS.
- After seeing the affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW24/B (D-5 Vol II, page no. 444 ) and Membership application Form of Navyug CGHS Ex PW-24/C ( D.5 Vol. II page 623/C) he stated that signatures appearing on these documents are not his signatures.
Witness was cross-examined by accused P.K. Thirwani (A-8) and Roop Rao (A-9) only.
80. PW-25 Sh. Arun Kumar Ojha deposed that his father Late Sh. Tarkeshwar Nath Oja expired on 20.09.1993 and placed on record copy of Death Certificate Mark PW25/A.
- After seeing the membership application form Ex PW25/B (D-5 Vol.II, page 692-C), affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW25/C in the name of his father, witnesses stated that the signatures appearing on these documents are not that of his father.
Witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
81. PW-26 Sh.Vijay Mehra deposed that he became member of Samrat Ashoka CGHS in the year 1984 through Sh.
CBI Case No. 218/19 36 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Manmohan Arora and deposited Rs.110/- as membership fees, and identified his signatures at point A on the affidavit Ex PW26/A (D-5 Vol. II page 356).
- After seeing the affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW26/B (D-5 Vol II, page no. 449 ) and Membership application Form of Navyug CGHS Ex PW-26/C ( D.5 Vol. II page 628/C), he stated that signatures appearing on these documents are not his signatures and the membership of Navyug CGHS was never taken by him ; he never received any receipt Ex PW26/D qua membership and cannot say as to who has used his name.
Witness was cross-examined by accused Roop Rao (A-9) only.
82. PW-27 Sh. Harkirat Singh deposed that he became member of Samrat Ashoka CGHS about more than 20 years ago, but never became the member of Navyug CGHS, and identified his signatures at point A on the affidavit Ex PW27/A (D-5 Vol. II page 353) submitted to the Samrat Ashoka CGHS.
- After seeing the affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW27/B (D-5 Vol II, page no. 446/C ) and Membership Application Form of Navyug CGHS Ex PW-27/C ( D.5 Vol. II page 625/C), he stated that signatures appearing on these documents are not his signatures ; he never received any receipt no. 907 dated 30.08.1984 Ex PW26/D qua membership of Navyug CGHS and cannot say as to who has used his name.
Witness was cross-examined by accused Roop Rao (A-9) only.
CBI Case No. 218/19 37 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
83. PW-28 Sh. Manohar Lal Ahuja deposed that he remained posted in the Office of RCS, parliament Street in different capacities ; and after seeing the order dated 20.03.1979 passed by Sh. Ashok Bassi, the then Deputy Registrar, RCS Office Delhi, he identified the signatures of Sh. Ashok Bassi at point A.
- He stated that he was appointed as Liquidator of the Navyug CGHS vide order dated 20.03.1979, Ex PW28/A (D- 9 page 32). He stated that in terms of letter dt. 07.07.1979 (D-9) Ex PW2/8 the Society had requested for dropping the liquidation proceedings, and a copy of the same was also forwarded to DDA by the then Secretary.
- He further stated that the file containing liquidation order was not available in the department, however, the order vide which Ex PW28/A he was appointed as liquidator was available in the office (DDA), and which was produced by him before the IO.
Witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
84. PW-29 Sh. Mehar Chand Singhal deposed that in the year 2003 he was posted as Deputy Director Cooperative Societies & Group Housing Societies (CS & GHS).
- That in reference to the letter dated 23.01.2003 received from the Office of RCS, whereby query was raised to know the status of the Navyug CGHS, he replied the same vide letter dated 24.02.2003 Ex PW29/A (D-4, Vol. I) under his signatures after gathering information from the dealing person/custodian of the department.
CBI Case No. 218/19 38 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
- He stated that vide the said letter he informed the RCS Office that the Societies having registration number below Regn. no. 582 were not provided by the RCS Office, and sought copy of the list of the Societies recommended for allotment of land, if any, available with the department for the records of the DDA.
Witness was cross-examined by accused Srichand (A-1), Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) and Roop Rao Mohad (A-9).
85. PW-30 Sh. Krishan Gopal Kashyap deposed that he had worked with DDA and identified the file No. F4(59)/72/CS(D-9) pertaining to the Navyug CGHS and seizure memo dated 07.11.2006 vide which Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, the then LDC, had handed over the aforesaid file to CBI for investigation. He identified the signatures of Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma at point A on the Seizure memo Ex PW30/A.
- Witness further deposed that a letter dated 01.04.1977 was issued to the Navyug CGHS by DDA qua offer of allotment of land measuring 1.06 acres in Paschim Puri, Delhi and identified the same vide Ex PW30/B (D-9, page 10).
Witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
86. PW-31 Sh. Manohar Lal s/o Sh. Babu Lal deposed that he became member of Samrat Ashoka CGHS about 30 years ago through one Sh. Hem Chand and had paid Rs.100/- towards membership of said Society, and never became member of any other Society.
- After seeing the attested copy of affidavit in his CBI Case No. 218/19 39 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) name submitted for becoming member of Ashoka CGHS Ex PW31/A (D-5, Vol. II, page 357/C), he identified his signatures on the same at point A.
- He deposed that the copy of application dated 20.08.1984 ExPW31/B ( D-4 Vol. II, page 629 ) and the affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW31/C ( D-4 Vol. II, page 450 ) for becoming member of Navyug CGHS were not submitted by him. He denied the signatures appearing on these documents to be his genuine signatures.
- He stated that on receipt of a letter from the office of RCS Ex PW31/D (D-7, page 345), he had submitted his affidavit Ex PW31/E (D-7 page 346 & 347 ) after affixing his photographs on first page at point B alongwith Verification Certificate Ex PW31/F, copy of identity card of Gazetted Officer Mark PW 31/G who attested Ex PW31/F with attested copy of PAN Card Ex PW31/H and Voter ID card Ex PW31/1.
Witness was cross examined by accused A-4 only.
87. PW-32 Sh. Todar Mal deposed that he became member of Samrat Ashoka CGHS in the year 1984 or so through one Sh. Hem Chand, and had paid Rs.300/- towards membership of said Society, and never became member of any other Society.
- After seeing the attested copy of affidavit in his name for becoming member of Ashoka CGHS Ex PW32/A (D-5, Vol. II, page 376/C) he identified his signatures on the same at point A.
- He deposed that the copy of application dated CBI Case No. 218/19 40 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) 20.08.1984 ExPW32/B ( D-5 Vol. II, page 647 ) and the affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW32/C ( D-5 Vol. II, page 468 ) for becoming member of Navyug CGHS were not submitted by him. He stated that the signatures appearing on these documents are not his signatures.
- He stated that receipt no. 75 dated 30.08.1984 Ex PW32/D ( D-5, Vol. II Page 550/C ) qua membership of Navyug CGHS was never received by him.
Witness was cross-examined by accused A-4 only.
88. PW-33 Sh. Pratap Singh deposed that he became member of Samrat Ashoka CGHS in the year 1984 or so, and had paid Rs.350/- towards membership of said Society, and never became member of any other Society.
- After seeing the attested copy of affidavit in his name for becoming member of Ashoka CGHS Ex PW33/A (D-5, Vol. II, page 383/C) he identified his signatures on the same at point A.
- He deposed that the copy of application dated 20.08.1984 ExPW33/B (D-5 Vol. II, page 654/C) alongwith the affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW33/C (D-5 Vol. II, page 475) for becoming member of Navyug CGHS were not submitted by him. He stated that the signatures appearing on these documents are not his signatures.
- He stated that receipt qua membership of Navyug CGHS was never received by him.
Witness was cross-examined by accused A-4 only.
CBI Case No. 218/19 41 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
89. PW-34 Sh. Nand Kishore deposed that he alongwith his wife Smt. Sundari Devi, his father late Sh. Bishambar Dayal and nephew became member of Samrat Ashoka CGHS in the year about 1980-1981 through his cousin Sh. Hem Chand, and they never became member of any other Society.
- After seeing the attested copies of affidavits dated 16.08.1984 in his name, in the name of his wife and deceased father, for becoming member of Ashoka CGHS Ex PW34/A, Ex PW34/B & Ex PW34/C (D-5, Vol. II, page 368/C, 371/C &
369) he stated that the signatures on the same are not their signatures.
- That the copy of application dated 20.08.1984 ExPW34/D ( D-5 Vol. II, page 639/C ) in his name ; application dated 20.08.1984 ExPW34/E ( D-5 Vol. II, page 640/C ) in the name of his father and application dated 20.08.1984 Ex PW34/F ( D-5 Vol. II, page 642/C ) in the name of his wife Smt. Sundari Devi Kaim, for becoming member of Navyug CGHS were not submitted by them and the signatures appearing on these applications are not their signatures.
- He stated that the copy of affidavit dated 09.01.2003 ExPW34/G ( D-5 Vol. II, page 460 ) in his name ; affidavit dated 09.01.2003 ExPW34/H ( D-5 Vol. II, page 461 ) in the name of his father and affidavit dated 09.01.2003 ExPW34/I ( D-5 Vol. II, page 463 ) in the name of his wife Smt. Sundari Devi Kaim, were not submitted by them and the signatures appearing on these applications are not their signatures. Someone has forged the same.
CBI Case No. 218/19 42 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
- He stated that receipt bearing no.83 in his name ; receipt bearing no. 80 in the name of his wife and receipt bearing no. 82 in the name of his deceased father, all dated 30.08.1984 Ex PW34/J, Ex PW34/K & Ex PW34/L, were never received by them.
Witness was cross-examined by accused namely J.S. Sharma (A-4) and Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) only.
90. PW-35 Sh. Kailash Chand Kaim deposed that he became member of Samrat Ashoka CGHS about 25-26 years ago through his cousin Sh. Hem Chand and had paid Rs.110/- towards membership of said Society, and never became member of any other Society.
- After seeing the attested copy of affidavit in his name for becoming member of Ashoka CGHS Ex PW35/A (D-5, Vol. II, page 361/C) he identified his signatures on the same at point A.
- He deposed that the copy of application dated 20.08.1984 ExPW35/B (D-5 Vol. II, page 638/C) and the affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW35/C (D-5 Vol. II, page 459) for becoming member of Navyug CGHS were not submitted by him. He stated that the signatures appearing on these documents are not his signatures.
- He stated that Ex PW34/D i.e. receipt bearing no. 84 dated 30.08.1984 whereby Rs.110/- was deposited qua membership of Navyug CGHS was never received by him.
Witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
CBI Case No. 218/19 43 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
91. PW-36 Smt. Santosh Bagai deposed that she had taken the membership of Navyug CGHS in the year 2003-2004 through Sh. Paramvir Singh, paid Rs. 110/- towards membership to Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7), and he (A-7) personally collected the membership form from her office.
- She stated that she never visited the office of Navyug CGHS ; do not know where the office was situated ; never participated in the meetings or election of the said Society, nor received any demand notice or receipt for deposit of Rs.100/-.
-That the Certificate Ex PW8/S was given by her to the CBI during investigation and it was seized vide production cum taking over memo dated 16.12.2005 Ex PW36/A (D-40) by the IO. She identified her signatures appearing at point A on affidavit dated 17.01.2005 Ex PW36/B.
- She also identified Anil Kumar Aggarwal and Sh. Paramvir Singh and also their photographs at Point A and B affixed on their respective affidavits Ex PW36/C & Ex PW36/D ( D-7 page no. 2 & 4 ).
Witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
92. PW-37 Sh. Sachin Khosla deposed that he became member of Navyug CGHS through Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7), correctly identified, in the year 2003 and paid Rs. 110/- as membership fees.
- He identified his signatures on affidavit dated 05.04.2003 ExPW37/A (D-5, page 125) at point A, and on CBI Case No. 218/19 44 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) another affidavit dated 01.02.2005 Ex PW37/B (D-7 page 117) accompanied with Form No. 60 Ex PW37/C.
- Witness stated that he handed over the Receipt regarding deposit of Rs.110/- Ex PW37/D (D-26) to the IO, which was seized by him vide memo Ex PW37/E.
- He identified the handwriting of his father and his signatures on membership application form dated 02.02.2003 Ex PW37/F (D-5 page 590).
The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.
93. PW-38 Sh. Aayam Khanna deposed that he became member of Navyug CGHS through Sh.Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-
7) in the year 2003 at the instance of his father, paid Rs.110/- and handed over the same to his father for processing with the Society. He stated that additionally Rs. 25,000/- was also paid to the Society by cheque.
- Witness identified his photograph at point A and signatures at point B on the affidavit dated 07.01.2005 Ex PW38/A (D-7 page 58) ; identified his photograph at point A signatures at point B on the Verification Certificate Ex PW38/B (D-7 page 59).
- Witness had resigned from the Society in the year 2005 ; received Rs.25,000/- through cheque ; did not participate in any meeting or elections, and did not know where the office of the Society was situated.
- Witness was not cross-examined by accused.
94. PW-39 Sh. Rajesh Sharma deposed that CBI Case No. 218/19 45 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) membership of the Navyug was taken by him on the advice of his friend Sh. Anil Khanna who provided him the phone number of accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) ; he contacted him and some papers were signed by him and delivered to the employee of Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) alongwith a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- and cash amount of Rs. 110/-.
- He stated that in the year 2005 he was passing through a bad phase, Society was not getting allotment and hence he resigned from the membership of the Society, and refund of Rs. 25,000/- was received by him.
- He identified his photograph at point B and signatures at point A on the affidavit dated 05.04.2005 Ex PW 39/A (D-7 page 269) accompanied with a Verification Certificate marked as Mark PW39/B bearing his signatures at point A.
- He identified the application written & signed by him addressed to RCS office Ex PW39/C ; also identified the photograph of accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal(A-7) affixed at point A on the affidavit Ex PW 36/C shown to him by the IO.
Witness was also declared hostile.
95. PW-40 Smt. Anita Gupta deposed that she is sister of accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal ; membership of the Navyug CGHS was taken by her through her brother and she deposited Rs.110/- as membership fee.
- The Share Certificate Ex PW8/E qua membership was issued to her which she had handed over to the IO during investigation and seized vide memo Ex PW40/A. She identified CBI Case No. 218/19 46 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) her signatures on the same at point C and signatures of his brother Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) at Point B.
- She also identified her photograph at point B and signatures at point A on affidavit dated 19.04.2005 Ex PW40/B (D-7 page 358). She also stated that a letter Ex PW40/C was written to RCS on the asking of his brother and identified her signatures appearing on it.
Witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
96. PW-41 Sh. Om Parkash Kataria deposed that he became member of Navyug CGHS through Sh. Anil Kumar Aggawal (A-7), Chartered Accountant, in the year 2003 ; paid Rs.1.25 lacs by way of Cheque and Rs.1,1110/- in cash to the representative of Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) ; he received a letter dated 03.11.2003 Ex PW41/A in respect of allotment of land from DDA through Sh. Aggarwal (A-7) and identified his signatures on the same.
- He identified the signatures of Sh. Aggarwal on receipt of Rs.1.25 lacs Ex PW41/B and his signatures on affidavit dated 24.01.2005 Ex PW41/C (D-7, page 122) and verification certificate Ex PW41/D.
- Witness stated that no notice qua demand of money or participation in the meeting or election was received by him. A sum of Rs. 1.26 lacs was returned to him by way of cheque by Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal.
Witness was not cross examined.
97. PW-42 Sh. Jagmohan Singh deposed that in the CBI Case No. 218/19 47 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) month of January/February 2005, membership of Navyug CGHS was taken by him through his friend Sh. Harvinder Singh who had introduced him to Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7).
- He paid Rs.110/- for membership fees and received a Share Certificate Ex PW8/H, which was handed over to CBI and seized vide memo Ex PW42/C (D-31).
- Witness identified his photograph and signatures on the affidavit dated 19.04.2005 Ex PW42/A (D-7 page 327) and application form Ex PW42/B.
- He stated that he did not receive any letter/Notice from the Society for joining meeting, elections or any other progress including demand of money.
The witness was also declared hostile by the learned PP.
98. PW-43 Ms. Manju Kuchhal deposed that she became member of Navyug CGHS through Sh. Anil Aggarwal ( her Jija Ji ) and paid Rs. 110/- as membership fee to Sh. Anil Aggarwal (A-7) ; identified her signatures on the Production Memo EX PW43/A (D-30) vide which her Share Certificate already Ex W8/G was seized by th IO.
- She identified her letter dated 15.04.2005 ExPW43/B (D-238) written to RCS regarding submission of affidavit Ex PW43/C under her signatures at point A.
- She stated that she did not receive any letter/Notice from the Society for joining the meetings or the elections proceedings ; as per her understanding that the office of the CBI Case No. 218/19 48 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Society was at the residence of Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7).
Witness was not cross-examined.
99. PW-44 Sh. Nitin Gupta deposed that he became member of Navyug CGHS through his cousin Sh. Ajay Bansal and handed over Rs. 110/- as membership fee to Mr. Bansal for depositing the same with Sh. Anil Aggarwal (A-7), his Fufaji, correctly identified.
- He identified his signatures on the Production Memo EX PW44/A (D-38) vide which his Share Certificate Ex W8/Q was seized by the IO, and the affidavit dated 14.01.2005 Ex PW44/B (D-7, page -54) under his signatures at point A.
- He stated that he did not receive any Letter/Notice from the Society for joining meetings or the election proceedings, and the office of the Society was at the residence of Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7).
Witness was declared hostile.
100. PW-45 Sh. Rajiv Goyal deposed that he became member of Navyug CGHS through his cousin Sh. Ajay Bansal and handed over Rs. 110/- as membership fee to Mr. Bansal for depositing the same with Sh. Anil Aggarwal (A-7), his relative, correctly identified ;
- He identified his signatures on the Production Memo EX PW45/A (D-39) vide which his Share Certificate Ex PW8/R was seized by the IO, and identified his affidavit dated 14.01.2005 Ex PW45/B (D-7, page 56-57) and his signatures at point A. CBI Case No. 218/19 49 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
- He stated that he did not receive any Letter/Notice from the Society for joining meetings or the election proceedings, and was not aware where the office of the Society was located, but stated that he collected his Share Certificate from the residence of Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7).
Witness was not cross examined.
101. PW-46 Sh. Ajay Bansal deposed that he became member of Navyug in the year 2003 through Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal, his Jija Ji, paid Rs. 110/- as membership fees ; also got inducted Sh. Manish Aggarwal, Sh. Rajiv Goyal, Sh. Parveen Kumar and Sh. Nitin and 2-3 other persons as members of the Society.
- He identified his signatures on the Production Memo EX PW46/A (D-37) vide which his Share Certificate Ex PW8/P was seized by the IO and the affidavit dated 14.01.2005 Ex PW46/B (D-7, page 27-28) under his signatures at point A.
- He stated that he did not receive any Letter/Notice from the Society for joining meetings or the election proceedings, and that the Office of the Society was being run from the residence of Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7).
Witness was not cross examined.
102. PW-47 Smt. Sudesh Gulati deposed that She became member of Navyug CGHS through Sh. Anil Aggarwal (A-7) who had acquaintance with her husband ; paid Rs. 100/- or Rs. 110/- as membership fee to Sh. Anil Aggarwal (A-7).
- She identified her signatures at point A & A-1 and CBI Case No. 218/19 50 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) her photograph affixed at point B on affidavit Ex PW47/A ( Page 76/A, D-7) ; at point A and her photograph affixed at point B on Verification Certificate Ex PW47/B ( Page 77, D-7), and her signatures at point A on the Declaration Form Ex PW47/C ( Page 78, D-7).
- She stated that the Share Certificate Ex PW8/Z-3 was handed over by her and seized by the CBI vide memo Ex PW47/D. Witness was not cross examined.
103. PW-48 Sh. Kamaljeet Singh deposed that membership of Navyug CGHS was taken by him through his neighbour Ms. Satbir Kaur in the year 2005 and paid Rs.110/- as membership fee ; he identified his photograph and signatures on the Affidavit dated 01.02.2005 at point A Ex PW48/A (D-7, page no.152).
-Witness also identified his signatures on the Form no. 60 under Income Tax Act Ex PW48/B (D-7, page no.154) and deposed that the particulars of the same were filled by Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW-8) .
- He further deposed that he had handed over the Share Certificate of the Society Ex PW8/J to the IO vide Production-cum-Taking Over Memo dated 12.12.2005 Ex. as PW 48/C (D-49) , and it also bears his signatures at point A.
-Witness stated that he had attended only one meeting of Navyug CGHS alongwith Ms. Satbir Kaur, and that as per his knowledge the office of Navyug CGHS was functioning CBI Case No. 218/19 51 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) from Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
Witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
104. PW-49 Smt. Ranjit Kaur deposed that membership of Navyug CGHS was taken by her through her neighbour Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW-8) in the year 2005 and paid Rs.110/- as membership fee ; she identified her photograph and signatures on the Affidavit dated 24.01.2005 at point A Ex PW49/A (D-7, page no.130).
- Witness also identified her signatures on the Form no. 60 under Income Tax Act Ex PW49/B (D-7, page no.132) and deposed that she had only singed the Form -60 , prior to handing it over to Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW-8).
- She stated that she handed over the Share Certificate of the Society Ex PW8/U to the IO vide Production
-cum-Taking Over Memo dated 19.12.2005 Ex PW 49/C (D-43), and it also bears his signatures at point A.
- Witness deposed that she did not attend any meeting of Navyug CGHS, and as per her knowledge the office of Navyug CGHS was functioning from Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
Witness was not cross examined by any accused.
105. PW-50 Sh. Jasvinder Pal Singh deposed that membership of Navyug CGHS was taken by him through Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW-8), and had paid Rs.110/- as membership fee.
- He identified his photograph and signatures on the Application dated 13.04.2005 at point A Ex PW50/A (D-7, page no.301) and on the Affidavit dated 13.04.2005 at point A Ex CBI Case No. 218/19 52 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) PW50/B (D-7, page no.302).
- Witness also identified his signatures on the Form no. 60 under Income Tax Act Ex PW50/C (D-7, page no.304) and deposed that the particulars of the same were filled by Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW-8).
- He further stated that he had handed over the Share Certificate of the Society Ex PW8/V to the IO vide Production- cum-Taking Over Memo dated 19.12.2005 Ex PW 50/D (D-44), and it also bears his signatures at point A.
- Witness specifically deposed that he had attended only one meeting of Navyug CGHS and that too alongwith Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW-8), and as per his knowledge the office of Navyug CGHS was functioning from Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
Witness was not cross- examined by any accused.
106. PW-51 Sh. B.A. Coutinho, a Retired IAS Officer, deposed that during the period December, 2006 to 16.01.2008 he was working as Joint Secretary, Incharge of Union Territory Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs, and accorded sanction to prosecute accused Sh. Jitender Singh Sharma(A-3, since deceased), the then Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi. Witness identified his signatures and stamp on the order dated 30.03.2007, Ex PW51/A.
- The witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused Sh. Jitender Singh Sharma (A-3, since deceased) and he on specific questions deposed that prior to finalizing, approving and signing the draft sanction order, he had discussed the matter CBI Case No. 218/19 53 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) with his Under Secretary.
- He stated that before granting the Sanction he had gone through the relevant DCS Act and Rules. He admitted that President of India is the appointing authority for an officer of DANICS, but since the power was delegated to him therefore he was competent to accord Sanction to prosecute accused Jitender Singh Sharma (A-3, since deceased).
107. PW-52 Sh. Gurpreet Singh deposed that membership of Navyug CGHS was taken by him through his neighbour Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW-8) in the year 2005 and had paid Rs.110/- as membership fee ; he identified his photograph and signatures on the Affidavit dated 17.01.2005 at point A Ex PW52/A (D-7, page no.95-96).
- Witness also identified his signatures on the Form no. 60 under Income Tax Act Ex PW52/B (D-7, page no.97) and stated that the particulars of the same were filled by Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW-8).
- He further deposed that he handed over the Share Certificate of the Society to the IO vide Production-cum-Taking Over Memo dated 28.12.2005 Ex PW 52/C (D-49), and it bears his signatures at point A.
- Witness deposed that he had never attended any meeting of Navyug CGHS, and as per his knowledge the office of Navyug CGHS was functioning from Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
Witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
107. PW-53 Smt. Sonia Sanger deposed that CBI Case No. 218/19 54 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) membership of Navyug CGHS was taken by her through her neighbour Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW8) in the year 2005 and she had paid Rs.110/- as membership fee
- She identified her photograph and signatures on the Affidavit dated 17.01.2005 at point A Ex PW53/A (D-7, page no.149-150).
- Witness also identified her signatures on the Form no. 60 under Income Tax Act Ex PW53/B (D-7, page no.151) and deposed that the particulars of the same were filled by Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW-8).
- She further deposed that she had handed over the Share Certificate of the Society (Ex PW8/Z) to the IO vide Production-cum-Taking Over Memo dated 28.12.2005 Ex PW 53/C (D-48), and it bears her signatures at point A.
- Witness also deposed that she had never attended any meeting of Navyug CGHS and as per her knowledge the office of Navyug CGHS was functioning from Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
Witness was not cross examined by any accused.
108. PW-54 Sh. Bhupinder Singh also deposed that membership of Navyug CGHS was taken by him through his neighbour Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW-8) in the year 2004 and had paid Rs.110/-as membership fee.
- He identified his photograph at point X and signatures on the Affidavit dated 17.01.2005 at point A Ex PW54/A (D-7, page no.137-138).
CBI Case No. 218/19 55 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
- Witness also identified his signatures on the Form no. 60 under Income Tax Act Ex PW54/B (D-7, page no.139) and deposed that the particulars of the same were filled by Ms. Satbir Kaur.
- He further deposed that he handed over the Share Certificate of the Society (Ex PW8/X) to the IO vide Production
-cum-Taking over memo dated 28.12.2005 Ex PW 54/C (D-46), it bears his signatures at point A.
- Witness deposed that he had never attended any meeting of Navyug CGHS and as per his knowledge the office of Navyug CGHS was functioning from Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
Witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
109. PW-55 Sh. Sanjiv Mehta deposed that membership of Navyug CGHS was taken by him through his neighbour Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW-8) in the year 2005 and had paid Rs.110/- as membership fee.
- He identified his photograph at point X and signatures on the Affidavit dated 17.01.2005 at point A Ex PW55/A (D-7, page no.92-93).
- Witness also identified his signatures on the Form no. 60 under Income Tax Act Ex PW55/B (D-7, page no.94) and deposed that the particulars of the same were filled up by Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW-8).
- He further deposed that he handed over the Share Certificate of the Society (Ex PW8/Z9) to the IO vide Production-cum-Taking over memo dated 28.12.2005 Ex PW CBI Case No. 218/19 56 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) 53/C (D-57), it bears his signatures at point A.
- Witness deposed that he had never attended any meeting of Navyug CGHS and as per his knowledge the office of Navyug CGHS was functioning from Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
- Except accused Roop Rao ( A-9) witness was not cross-examined by any accused, and during cross-examination he admitted the suggestion that he was not aware as to what was recorded in the affidavit Ex PW55/A and Form 60 Ex PW55/B.
110. PW-56 Sh. Prem Kumar Mantry deposed that while working with Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd he became member of Navyug CGHS in the year 1971, formed by the employees of his company, and at that time Mr. Goyal was one of the office bearer of Navyug CGHS.
- Witness deposed that application dated 02.04.1971 Ex PW56/A, (D-5 Vol. II page 703/C) is not the same application which he had submitted at the time of taking its membership and the signatures thereon at point A is not his signatures.
- He further stated that the affidavit Ex PW56/B (D- 5 Vol. II page 524/C) was not prepared, signed or submitted by him to the Society ; the address on the same is not his residential address however, other particulars are correct.
- Witness deposed that he had not resigned from the membership of the Society.
Despite opportunity given to the accused persons, the witness was not cross examined by anyone.
111. PW-57 Sh. Ashok Bakshi deposed that in the year CBI Case No. 218/19 57 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) 1977-1979 he was working as DR in the office of RCS, Government of Delhi, and during his tenure he passed the order dt. 20.03.1979 for Liquidation in respect of Navyug CGHS, which is kept in file Ex PW-30/C (D-9 at page no. 31).
- Witness deposed that vide order Ex PW28/A he had appointed Sh. M.L. Ahuja as Liquidator of Navyug CGHS and identified his signatures at point A ; and that copy of the same was sent to the concerned persons as well as to the DDA.
Witness was cross-examined only by accused A-4 and A-6, and during his cross-examination he re-affirmed the facts as stated by him in terms of his examination-in-chief.
112. PW-58 Sh. Ved Parkash Khanna deposed that since his birth he is residing at 128 Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi ; this address was never let out to any one and Navyug Cooperative Society never functioned from his residential address ; that no meeting of any society ever took place at his above address and he had also not given permission or consent to use his address for the official work.
- He stated that no officer/official from the office of Registrar Cooperative Housing Society or any other government official visited his address for any verification.
- He deposed that he did not know Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) but identified accused Anna Wankhade (A-2), who had met him in the DDA Office and helped him in filling up the application form for allotment of DDA .
- Witness after seeing the attested copies of Minutes CBI Case No. 218/19 58 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) of Meeting Proceedings dated 29.12.2002 ; 30.12.2002 and 17.11.2002 exhibited as Ex PW4/D, Ex PW3/X-2 & Ex PW3/X- 4, and Mark PW3/A (D-6 Vol. II) deposed that no such meeting of the society ever took place at his address.
- He also deposed that Minutes of proceedings dated 29.12.2002 & 15.02.2003 Ex PW6/D & Ex PW58/A ( D-4 Vol. I), Audit report running from page no. 15/C to 211/C Ex PW58/B never took place at his address.
- Witness stated that Sh. Niranjan Singh, Grade II Inspecting Officer (A-3 now expired) never visited the abovesaid address on 02.03.2023, nor Sh. Anil Kumar Agarwal (A-7) was present at his premises on the said date or otherwise.
Witness was cross examined by accused A-2, A-8.
113. PW-59 Sh. Rajinder Kumar deposed that he became member of Samrat Ashoka CGHS in the year 1985, had paid Rs. 100/- towards membership of said Society, but was not able to recollect if he had ever become member of any other Society.
- After seeing the Membership application Form of Navyug CGHS Ex PW-59/A (page no. 665/C of D.5 Vol. II), receipt of fees Ex PW59/B (page no. 556/C of D-5 Vol II ) and affidavit dated 19.01.2003 Ex PW59/C ( page no. 486/C of D-5 Vol II ) in his name denied his signatures appearing on the same at point A, and stated that he had not deposited any fees in favour of Navyug CGHS.
Witness was not cross-examined by any witness CBI Case No. 218/19 59 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) despite opportunity granted to them.
114. PW-60 Sh. Narain Singh deposed that he never became member of the Navyug CGHS ; no application was given by him to become member ; after seeing the application form Ex PW60/A (D-5, page 622/C), affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW60/B (D-5 page 443/C), he denied his signatures appearing on these documents.
Witness was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
115. PW-61 Sh. Jai Parkash deposed that in the year 1984-1985 he became member of a Group Housing Society through his neighbour Sh. Jai Narain ; he was not aware as to where the office of the Society located, nor any meeting of the Society was attended by him.
- He identified his signatures on the Membership application form of Navyug CGHS Ex PW61/A (D-5 Vol. page no. 627/C) and stated that particulars of the same were not filled by him, and the name of his wife is incorrectly mentioned on it.
- He denied executing the affidavit Ex PW61/B (D-5 Vol. II page 448/C) in favour of Society and the signatures appearing on it to be his own.
Witness was cross-examined only by accused Roop Rao A-9).
116. PW-62 Sh. Amit Sharma deposed that membership of Navyug CGHS was taken by him on the asking of his father Sh. Ashok Sharma ; he identified his photograph at point B and signatures on the Affidavit at point A ExPW62/A and verification CBI Case No. 218/19 60 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) certificate Ex PW62/B.
- Witness also identified his signatures on the Form No. 60 under Income Tax Act Ex PW62/C, but was not able to recall to whom it was given. He deposited only Rs. 100/- for membership.
Witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
117. PW-63 Sh. Bijander Kumar deposed that membership of Navyug CGHS was taken by him through Sh. Ajay Bansal in the year 2003 ; he tendered his affidavit and certificate for verification and signed the same ; he identified his photograph at point B, and signatures on the Affidavit and verification certificate at point A Ex PW63/A ( D-7, page no. 29 & 30 ) and Ex PW63/B.
- Witness also identified his signatures on the Form no. 60 under Income Tax Act Ex PW63/C, and stated that he had not attended any meeting of the Society and nor was aware where the registered office of the Society was located.
Witness was not cross-examined by any accused.
118. PW-64 Sh. Narender Kumar appeared to depose on behalf of his brother, who was hospitalized on failure of his both kidneys, and his deceased father who had expired in the year 1992.
- Witness after seeing the Affidavits executed in the name of his brother Sh. Mahender Kumar Ex PW64/A ( D-5 page 464-C), application form of membership of the Society Ex PW64/B ( D-5 Vol. II, Page 643/C) and application form CBI Case No. 218/19 61 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) exhibited as PW34/B in the name of his deceased father, identified their respective signatures on the said documents.
The witness was not cross-examined despite opportunity given to the accused persons.
119. PW-65 Sh. Ravi Robinson deposed that he is commercial typist and used to work at Old Court Complex, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
- He stated that Sh. Anna Wankhede (A-2) availed his services for typing of the affidavits and paid him Rs.2/- for typing of each affidavit.
- After seeing the affidavits in the name of Sh. B.S. Bhuteria Ex PW65/A ; Sh. R.C. Maheshwari Ex PW65/B ; Sh. G.L. Mahensaria Ex PW9/B, Sh. R.S. Aggarwal Ex PW21/B, Sh. H.L. Kanodia Ex PW11/B, Sh. S.P. Khedwal Ex PW65/C Sh. P.K. Mantri EX PW56/B, Sh. B.C. Biyani Ex PW65/D, Sh. N.P. Mehta Ex PW65/E, Sh. A.R. Dalmia Ex PW65/F ; Sh. Ranjeet Kumar Ex PW65/F.1, Sh. M.M. Dey Ex PW65/F-2, Sh. P.K. Badjate Ex PW65/F-3, Sh. Shanker Tiwari Ex PW65/F-4, Sh. Banwari Lal Banka Ex PW65/F-5, Sh. Atma Ram Kankani Ex PW65/F-5, Sh. Naval Kishore Singhania Ex PW17/B, Sh. Takeshwar Nath Ojha Ex PW25/C, Sh. Prem Chand Victor Ex PW12/B, Sh. Subhash Chand Lath Ex PW6/B, Sh. Rajender Prasad Burata Ex PW7/B, Sh. Ranjeet Kumar Dutta Ex PW23/C, Sh. Yashbir Singh ex PW14/B, Sh. Raj Kumar Khandaria Ex PW65/F.7, Sh. Dwijen Kumar Kanwakar Ex PW65/F.8, Sh. Ashutosh Dey Ex PW18/A, Sh. Ram Dev Mishra Ex PW65/F.9, Sh. Umesh Chand Mishra ExPW65/F.10, Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain CBI Case No. 218/19 62 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Ex PW65/F.11, Sh. Tapan Kumar Vishwas Ex PW65/F.12, Sh. Radhey Mohan Gupta Ex PW65/F.13, Sh. Shiv Shanker Gupta Ex PW1/B, Sh. Gopal Dass Sinha Ex PW65/F.14, Sh. Parmeshwar Ganpat Raman Ex PW15/B, Sh. Y.Lahoti Ex PW65/F.15, Sh. Sita Ram Sharma Ex PW65/F.16, Sh. Samar Ranjan Dey Ex PW5/B, Sh. Ashok Kumar Dey Ex PW20/B Sh. P.C. Ramachandran Ex PW16/B, Sh. Santosh Kalra Ex PW65/F.17, Sh./MsKiran Dhingra Ex PW65/F.18, Sh./Ms. Dev Kumari Ex PW65/F.19, Sh. A. Kurnakaran Ex PW65/F.20, Sh. Surinder Pal Singh Ex PW65/F.21, Sh. Rajender Kumar Ex PW59/C, Sh. Prem Chand Ex PW65/F.22, Sh. Bal Kishan Ex PW65/F.23, Sh. Dev Rishi Sharma Ex PW65/F.24, Sh Amrit Lal ExPW65/F.25, Dr. Shish Ram Cjhand Ex PW65/F.26, Sh. nathu Lal Tanwar Ex PW65/F.27, Sh. Sher Singh Ex PW65/F.28, Sh. Parkash Chand Ex PW65/F.29, Sh. Raj Kumar Ex PW65/F.30, Sh. Umrao Singh Ex PW65/F.31, Sh. Pratap Singh Ex PW33/C, Sh. M.Soundra Kumar Ex PW65/F.32, Sh. Hem Chand Ex PW65/F.33, Sh. Mahavir Ex PW65/F.38, Ms. Raksha Arora Ex PW65/F.39, Sh. Prayag Dass Ex PW65/F.40, Sh. Mahender Kumar Ex PW64/A, Ms. Sundri Devi Kanri Ex PW65/F.41,Sh. Vishamber Dayal Ex PW34/H, Sh. Nand Kishore Ex PW34/G, Sh. Kailash Karim Ex PW35/C, Sh. Nain Singh Ex PW65/F.42, Sh. Naina Ram Koli Ex PW65/F.43, Ms. Harinder Kaur Ex PW65/F.44, Sh. Anupam Seth Ex PW65/F.45, Sh. Raj Kishore Kapoor Ex PW65/F.46, Sh. Joginder Singh Ex PW65/F.47, Sh. Surya Singh Ex PW65/F.48, Ms. Rani Devi Ex PW65/F.49, Sh. Manohar Lal Ex PW31/C, Sh. Vijay Mehra Ex PW26/B, Sh Jai Parkash Ex PW61/B, Sh. Vijay Kumar Ex PW65/F.50, Sh.
CBI Case No. 218/19 63 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Harkirat Singh Ex PW27/B, Sh. Duli Chand Ex PW65/F.51, Sh. Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary Ex PW24/B, Sh. Narain Singh Ex PW60/B, Sh. Sheela Sharma Ex PW65/F.52, Sh. Baldev Kishan Sood Ex.PW65/F.53, Sh. Leela Singh Ex PW65/F.54, Ms. Krishna Bajaj Ex PW65/F.55, Sh. Dev Dutt Ex PW19/B, Ms. Tara Devi Ex PW65/F.57, Ms. Kavita Ex PW65/F.58, Sh. Ranbir Singh Ex PW22/B, all these affidavits were brought by accused Sh. Anna Wankhede and he had identified typed the same.
- He correctly identified accused Sh. Anna Wankhede (A-2) in the court.
Witness was cross-examined by learned defence counsel on behalf of accused Sh. Anna Wankhede (A-2), remaining accused did not cross examine him.
120. PW-66 Sh. Mohinder Singh deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted as SDM Head Quarters, Shamnath Marg ; he sent the letter Ex PW66/A alongwith attested copies of the Register Ex PW66/B deposited by Sh. P.R. Bhatia, Stamp Vendor, under his signatures and seal at point A to the Investigating Officer.
In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused Anna Wankehde (A-2) and Sh. J.S. Sharma (A-4), witness deposed that he has no personal knowledge of any facts of the case or to whom the stamp papers were sold by sh. P.R. Bhatia, Stamp Vendor.
121. PW-67 Sh.Mangej Singh Shekhawat deposed that he was employed with Jayshree Tea Industries Ltd since 1869-70 and remained in employment for about 20 years ; he became CBI Case No. 218/19 64 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) member of Navyug CGHS in or around 1970 ; and vide his letter dated 15.08.2006 Ex PW67/A he sent his reply in response to letter received from CBI.
- He further deposed that for becoming member of the Society he had deposited Rs. 100/-, and produced the receipt of the same Ex PW67/B, receipt of earnest money of Rs. 125/- dated 27.12.1976 Ex PW67/C and Share Certificate Ex PW67/D.
- Witness identified his signatures at point A and B on the affidavit dated 01.04.1971 Ex PW67/E (D-22, page 4).
Witness was cross-examined only on behalf of accused A-2 and A-4.
122. PW-68 Sh. Shambu Prasad Khedwal deposed that he also was the employee of Jayshree Tea Industries Ltd ; became member of Navyug CGHS in 1971 ; and vide his letter dated 18.08.2006 Ex PW68/A he sent his reply in response to letter received from CBI Ex PW68/D.
- He denied his signatures on the copy of the affidavit sent by the CBI to him vide his endorsement Ex PW68/B, and on seeing the original affidavit Ex. PW68/C (D-5 Vol 525/C), he re-affirmed that the signatures appearing on it are not his signatures.
- Witness stated that he had paid Rs. 100/- as membership fee, produced the copy of the Share Certificate Ex PW68/C, and he had resigned from the membership of Navyug CGHS.
CBI Case No. 218/19 65 of 146
CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
Only accused J.S. Sharma A-4 availed the
opportunity to cross examine the witness.
123. PW-69 Sh. M.P.Sharma deposed that he remained posted as Assistant Register ( South Zone ) in the office of RCS from April 2006 to September 2007 ; vide letter dated 11.08.2006 (D-20) Ex PW69/A he forwarded the list of members Ex PW69/B of Navyug CGHS ltd to CBI under his signatures to CBI. Copies of letters dated 27.03.2003 and 24.03.2003 Ex PW69/C & Ex PW69/D was also sent to the IO.
Despite opportunity witness was not cross- examined.
124. PW-70 Sh. Prem Parkash deposed that he was founder member of Samrat Ashoka CGHS Ltd, registered with 120 members in the year 1982 vide registration number 1407 (GH) ; he remained Secretary of Samrat Ashoka CGHS Ltd till 1990 ; the land was allotted to his Society by DDA ; after construction, the Flats were allotted to its 105 members who were residing there.
- He deposed that since very inception he was looking after the affairs of the Society as Secretary of the Society ; knows every member of the Society ; identified the list of members prepared by him and his signatures on the same along with seal on each page Ex PW70/A collectively (D-11 page 3 to 10, running into 8 pages ).
- The witness also identified his signatures on the Registration copy of Samrat Ashoka CGHS Ex PW70/B (D-11), covering letter of approved list issued by the office of RCS Ex CBI Case No. 218/19 66 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) PW70/C (D-11), production cum receipt memo dated 13.04.2006 regarding handing over of documents vide Ex PW70/D (D-11).
- After seeing the list of members of Navyug CGHS already Ex PW3/X-1 (D-6) and list of Samrat Ashoka CGHS already Ex PW70/A, approved by the RCS Office on 09.08.1985, he deposed that the names of the persons, who are already members of his Society mentioned from Serial No. 52 to 109 in Ex PW70/A has been also shown as members in the list Ex PW3/X-1 of Navyug Society.
- He stated that he has no idea how the names of his members were shown in the list of Navyug CGHS.
- Witness specifically deposed that accused Srichand (A-1) was office bearer of Samrat Ashoka CGHS being its member, however, his name is not appearing in the list Ex PW70/A as he joined the Society in the year 1996, and remained as President of Samrat Ashoka CGHS after 1996 for about 4-5 years ; Smt. Saroj, wife of A-1 Srichand was also member of the Society, and they both resigned from the Society subsequently.
Witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused A-1, A-2 and A-9.
125. PW-71 Ram Narayan Yadav deposed that in the year 2003 being a Government Official, he retired from the post of Head Clerk from RCS Office and due to lost of vision unable to identify the documents/official records. After observations, witness was discharged.
126. PW-72 Sh. Parveen Kumar Gupta deposed that in CBI Case No. 218/19 67 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) the year 1995, he became member of Samrat Ashoka Enclave CGHS and remained its Executive Member, President and Secretary at different times. He provided certain documents as required by the CBI vide his correspondence dated 25.07.2006 (D-11) Ex PW72/A.
- He stated that one Sh. Anil Aggarwal was also member of his Society i.e. Samrat Ashoka Enclave CGHS, but he never met him.
Witness was cross-examined by accused A-1 and A-7 only.
127. PW-73 Sh. Ranbir Singh deposed that in the year 2005, he became member of Navyug CGHS through one Paramveer, and paid Rs.110/- to Sh. Anil Aggarwal to become member of the Society.
- He identified his photograph affixed at point B and signatures at points A on the affidavit dated 17.01.2005 (D-7, page 109) Ex PW73/A.
- Witness also identified his signatures on the Form no. 60 under Income Tax Act Ex PW73/A-1 (D-7, page no.97) and deposed that the particulars of the same were filled by Ms. Satbir Kaur (PW-8).
- He further deposed that he handed over the Share Certificate of the Society to the CBI after taking it from Sh. Anil Aggarwal (A-7) vide Production memo Ex PW 73/B (D-41), it bears his signatures at point.
- Witness specifically deposed that he never attended CBI Case No. 218/19 68 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) any meeting of Navyug CGHS and nor any notice to attend the same was received by him, and he was not aware from where the office of the Society Navyug CGHS was functioning.
Witness was cross-examined by accused A-7 & A-9 only.
128. PW-74 Sh. Anupam Seth deposed that he is jeweller by profession and became the member of Ashoka Society through his father in the year 1980 and never became the member of Navyug CGHS.
- After seeing the membership application form dated 20.08.1984 of Navyug CGHS Ex PW74/A ( D-5 page no. 634 ) stated that the particulars appearing on it are incorrect, he was married in the year 1988 and denied the signatures appearing on it.
- He stated that he never deposited Rs. 110/- as membership fee with the Navyug CGHS and affidavits Ex PW 65/F) and Ex PW74/C (D-5 page 363C) was not tendered by him to the Society under his signatures.
Witness was not cross-examined by any witness.
129. PW-75 Sh. Amrit Pal Singh deposed that he became member of Navyug CGHS through his relative Sh. Bhupinder Singh and deposited Rs.110/- as membership fee of the Society.
- He deposed that letter dated 07.04.2005 Ex PW75/A (D-7 page 225) sent by him to the RCS Office alongwith affidavit Ex PW75/B bears his signatures at point A. CBI Case No. 218/19 69 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
- He identified his signatures on the Production- cum-Taking Over Memo dated 28.12.2005 Ex PW75/C (D-53) vide which the Share Certificate in his name pertaining to the Navyug CGHS was handed over to the IO.
- He stated that he never attended any meeting of the Society ; was not aware from where the Society was functioning, and he never resigned from membership of the Society.
Witness was cross-examined by accused Roop Rao (A-9) only.
130. PW-76 Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain deposed that he worked with Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd in the year 1974-1977 and became member of Navyug Society floated by the employees of his company.
- Witness deposed that application dated 02.12.1976 in his name Ex PW76/A, (D-5 Vol. II page 681/C) is not the same application and the signatures thereon at point A are not his signatures. He further stated that the affidavit Ex PW65/F.11 (D- 5 Vol. II page 502/C) was not signed by him.
- Witness specifically deposed that he had not resigned from the membership of the Society.
Despite opportunity given to the accused persons, the witness was not cross-examined by anyone except accused A-9. The witness reiterated that the application Ex PW76/A is not the same which he had given while taking the membership of Navyug CGHS.
131. PW-77 Sh. Handu Baa, deposed that he had CBI Case No. 218/19 70 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) worked as Assistant Registrar RCS Office from March 2006 to 31.07.2009, and he proved on record the signatures of Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, the then Assistant Registrar, on a letter dated 11.04.2007 Ex PW77/A (D-63) addressed to Sh. C.S. Parkash Narayan, CBI, Delhi vide which a copy of list of nine Zone indicating the jurisdiction was handed over to CBI.
132. PW-78 Sh. Ramesh Narayanaswami the then Chief Secretary, Govt of NCT of Delhi, from 31.05.2006 to 30.11.2007 proved on record the Sanction orders, all dated 21.03.2007 vide which Sanction to prosecute the three officials / accused Sh. P.K. Thirwani (A-8), Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3) (since expired ) and Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) was accorded by him in the present case exhibited as Ex PW78/A, Ex. PW78/B and Ex PW78/C respectively.
Witness was cross-examined by the accused A-3, A-6 and A-8.
133. PW-79 Sh. Shyamal Majumdar deposed that he was posted as Inspector in Economic Offences Wing in the year 2006. He visited Calcutta on the directions of the S.P. concerned and recorded statements of three persons namely Sh. Ranjeet Pd. Datta, Madan Mohan Dey and Sh. Ashutosh Dey, and handed over the same to the IO of the case.
Despite opportunity witness was not cross-examined by any one.
134. PW-80 Sh. C.S. Prakash Narayan is Investigating Officer of the case who had carried out the investigation, after it was entrusted to him by the S.P. concerned from the previous IO CBI Case No. 218/19 71 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) SI Anupam Mathur. He recorded statement of most of the witnesses and collected relevant documents of the case from various authorities/departments.
- He had also taken specimen signatures of accused Roop Rao, Srichand and Anil Kumar Aggarwal in the presence of independent witnesses namely Sh. V.M. Baghi, Ompal Singh and Sh. Yashpal Singh.
- He proved on record number of documents and the files concerning the affairs of the Society which were seized by him during the investigation of the present case.
He was cross-examined at length by the accused persons which is discussed in detail underneath during analysis/discussion.
135. PW-81 Sh. Anupam Mathur deposed that in the year 2005 he was posted as Sub Inspector in EOW and had carried out the preliminary enquiry in the present case.
- He stated that he visited the registered address of Navyug CGHS which was mentioned in the record but no office was found functioning there.
- That he examined the President of the Society namely Sh. Roop Rao (A-9), who informed that he had signed the documents of the Society on the asking of co-accused Srichand (A-1 ) and Anna Wankhede (A-2).
- That he visited the office of the RCS and examined the related file of Navyug CGHS wherein he came to know that the original file of the Society was misplaced and the file was CBI Case No. 218/19 72 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) reconstructed on the basis of the documents provided by the Office bearer of the Society.
- The RCS Office files were seized vide seizure memo dated 11.08.005 and exhibited as Ex PW81/A which were handed over to him by Sh.L.R. Bali A.R. (South).
- Some of the files (D-4, D-5, D-6, D-7 & D-8 ) seized by him were already exhibited as Ex PW80/B, Ex PW80/C, Ex PW80/D, Ex PW80/E & Ex PW8/F.
- He further deposed that on the basis of his preliminary enquiry report an FIR in the present case was registered. Investigation of the case was handed over to IO Inspector C.S. Parkash Narayan, and accordingly, he handed over all the relevant documents of the case seized by him to the IO vide handing over/taking over memo dated 08.10.2005 Ex PW80/A. Witness was cross-examined by the accused persons mainly on the facts that PE was conducted without the permission of the Court, and which he denied rightly so as no permission of the Court is required to conduct PE ; that he had submitted a false report and had not examined accused Roop Rao during the enquiry.
136. PW-82 Sh. Yashpal Singh, was posted as Tehsildar, Kapashera at the relevant time and was a witness to taking of specimen signatures/handwriting of accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) and proved his specimen signatures sheet (10 in number) from S-105 to S-114 and exhibited as Ex PW82/A collectively. He deposed that A-9 had given his specimen CBI Case No. 218/19 73 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) signatures voluntarily.
Witness was cross-examined by accused A-9 mainly to give suggestions to deny the facts deposed by him.
137. PW-83 Sh. Om Pal deposed that he was posted as Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India, Kashmere Gate, Delhi at the relevant time and was a witness to the taking of specimen signatures/handwriting of accused Srichand (A-1), and proved the specimen signatures sheet (10 in number ) from S-105 to S- 114 and exhibited as Ex PW83/A collectively. He deposed that A-1 had given his specimen signatures voluntarily in his presence.
- He was also witness to the taking of specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Anna Wankhede (A-2) and proved the specimen sheets (20 in number ) from S-84 to S-104 and exhibited as Ex PW83/B collectively. He deposed that A-2 had given his specimen signatures voluntarily in his presence.
Witness was cross-examined by accused A-1 & A-2. In cross-examination he stated that though he was not personally acquainted with the handwriting of accused A-1 and A-2 but denied the suggestion that accused persons had not given their specimen signatures in his presence or that the specimen signatures sheet were signed by him lateron at the instance of CBI.
138. PW-84 Sh. Vishwamitra Bhagi deposed that he was posted as Administrative Officer, RCS Office, Delhi at the relevant time and witnesseth the taking of specimen signatures/handwriting of accused Roop Rao (A-9), and proved CBI Case No. 218/19 74 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) the specimen signatures sheet (7 in number ) from S-115 to S- 121, exhibited as Ex PW84/A collectively. He deposed that A-9 had given his specimen signatures voluntarily in his presence.
He was cross-examined by accused A-9 wherein he reiterated the fact that accused Roop Rao had given the aforesaid signatures in his presence.
- He failed to identify accused Roop Rao during the court proceedings citing long lapse of time, but he denied that the Ex PW84/A (colly.) are not the specimen signatures of accused Roop Rao or that he had not given the said specimen signatures in his presence.
- PW-84 was again called for cross-examination pursuant to the order dated 15.10.2018, wherein he even failed to recollect the name of the accused for whose specimen signatures/ handwriting he was called by the CBI to give witness.
139. PW-85 Smt. Kanchan Saluja deposed that she had taken the membership of the Navyug Society through her sister Smt. Sudesh Gulati. Paid a sum of Rs.110/- and a receipt accordingly was handed over to her.
- The original Share Certificate exhibited as PW8/Z- 2, bearing her signatures, issued by the Society was handed over by her to the CBI Officials during investigation of the case.
- She proved on record Original Affidavit, Verification Certificate and Form 60 I.T.A in her name, bearing her signatures exhibited as Ex PW85/A to Ex PW85/C respectively.
CBI Case No. 218/19 75 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
- She identified her photograph on the verification certificate but she denied that her sister Smt. Sudesh Gulati was office bearer of the society. She was having no knowledge regarding the persons who were running the affairs of the Society or as to who had delivered the aforesaid Share Certificates to her.
- PW-85 was declared hostile at the request of prosecution and was cross-examined by the learned PP accordingly, wherein she admitted the fact that she had stated to the CBI that the Share Certificate exhibited as Ex PW8/Z 2 was delivered to her by accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal and that her sister had facilitated her membership through him (A-7).
Witness was cross-examined by A-7.
140. PW-86 Sh. Avanish Kumar deposed that he knew Sh. P.R. Bhatia and was working as a Sub-Vendor under his licence was selling the Stamp papers. That he worked under Mr. Bhatia from year 2002 to 2006. He maintained register of the Stamp Papers sold by him and after its completion the same were deposited to the office of Collector Stamps.
- After seeing the attested copies of the page dated 06.01.2003 of the Register, he deposed that the said page is of the Register maintained by him and it bears the entries in his handwriting. That in terms of the entries he had sold the Stamp papers from Serial No. 150800 to 150824 to Navyug CGHS and said Stamp Papers were purchased by accused A-2 from him.
- He identified the accused A-2 in the Court as well as his signatures appended against the entires on the aforesaid page of the Register Ex PW86/A and Ex PW86/B. CBI Case No. 218/19 76 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Witness was cross-examined by A-2. In the cross- examination he stated that he may have sold lacs of Stamp papers; remembers the names of the persons who used to purchase Stamp papers in bulk and not the ones who used to purchase it once/twice occasionally.
- He stated that he does not have license in his name for Sale of Stamp papers. He failed to identify the signatures at various points (B to T), at page no.5 and 6 of his register but denied the suggestion that he had not sold the stamp papers to A-2.
- He admitted that he had appeared as a witness in about 15-20 cases and had seen accused A-2 in the court earlier also.
141. PW-87 Sh. Vakil Chand Jain deposed that he was posted as Assistant Registrar in the Office of Registrar Societies from 15.11.2005 upto his retirement on 31.03.2006, and a letter was received by him from CBI requiring some documents related to the Navyug CGHS, accordingly vide letter dated 17.03.2006 Ex PW80/K he forwarded the requisitioned record Ex PW80/L collectively to the CBI.
Despite opportunity witness was not cross- examined.
142. PW-88 Sh. S.C. Gupta Government Examiner deposed that the documents related to this case were received in the office of GEQD, Hydrabad on 27.11.2006 forwarded by CBI, EOW, New Delhi vide their letter dated 25.11.2006 ; that after examining the said documents report was prepared by Mr. R.B. CBI Case No. 218/19 77 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Bhosle, the then AGEQD and thereafter he again independently examined the said documents in order to verify the report prepared by Mr. R.B. Bhosle.
- He identified the signatures of Mr. Bhosle on the said report exhibited as Ex. PW88/A ; he stated to have verified the said report/opinion independently, and then forwarded to the CBI vide letter dated 02.02.2007 Ex PW80/Z-10.
During his cross-examination he denied the suggestions that the report Ex PW88/A is not supported by any reasons for opinion.
- He admitted that he had not prepared his own detailed reasons in support of his opinion and analysis, and the opinion report Ex PW88/A does not describe the methodology adopted in examination and comparison of documents.
143. After closure of the prosecution evidence separate statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded accordingly.
144. Brief of Statement of accused persons recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
145. Accused Srichand A-1 in his statement denied the allegations of prosecution and feigned ignorance about the deposition of witnesses ; and/or stated that he did not know any thing ; has no personal knowledge about the case of the prosecution and was never associated with the affairs of the Society.
- He stated that he was the member of Samrat CBI Case No. 218/19 78 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Ashoka CGHS and remained its office bearer for sometime, however, the records of the said Society never remained with him, and lateron he resigned from the membership of the said Society.
- He stated that he has no personal knowledge about the case of the prosecution and was never associated with the affairs of the Navyug CGHS Society.
- With respect to GEQD opinion, he stated that the writings on S-84 to S-104 are manipulated one and does not pertains to him ; the opinion is biased, unscientific, baseless, false, not supported with any reasons and cannot be relied upon and prepared at the behest of CBI.
- He further stated that investigation is biased and misleading ; he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case ; no witness has deposed against him ; nothing incriminating has come on record against him and preferred to lead defence evidence.
146. Accused Anna Wankhede (A-2) denied the case of prosecution and stated that he has no knowledge about the history of the Society or about it affairs ; the investigation has been biased and false ; and the document Ex PW83/B (Colly) is manipulated one, does not pertained to him, and he never purchased any Stamp papers in the name of any person as stated by the witnesses.
- He disputed the GEQD opinion and stated that it is a false document, not supported with any reasons ; prepared without any scientific examination of the documents ; the final CBI Case No. 218/19 79 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) report was prepared by the GEQD on the asking of CBI, and is totally biased and unreliable one.
- He stated that no witness has deposed against him ; he was not the beneficiary, no flat was ever allotted to him in the Society ; nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession ; he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
He did not prefer to lead defence evidence.
147. Accused Niranjan Singh (A-3) and Jitender Sharma (A-4) had expired during trial of the case, and the proceedings stood abated against them.
148. Accused Narain Diwakar (A-5) stated that he had no association with the affairs of the Society nor had any personal knowledge about the same.
- He pleaded his innocence and submitted that this is a false case against him, and the investigation is biased and no witness has deposed against him.
- He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of assumption and presumptions only ; that he dealt with the files in the discharge of his official duties without any personal interest or gain.
- The membership is prerogative of Society as per the different provisions of DCS Act and Rules and it was the duty and responsibility of the Management Committee of the Society to furnish true and correct information.
- He further stated that as per the CBI manual, CBI Case No. 218/19 80 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C to prosecute him was not taken, and for want of Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C relief of dropping of proceedings be granted to him.
He did not prefer to lead defence evidence.
149. Accused Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) denied the case of prosecution and stated that it is a false and baseless case ; no witness has deposed against him and the investigation is totally misleading and based on assumption and presumption.
- He stated that he acted in the discharge of his official duties ; no evidence of any personal gain against him has come on record and the allegations against him are vague, and thereby prayed for acquittal.
Accused preferred not to lead defence evidence.
150. Accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) stated that he became member of the Navyug CGHS Ltd on 10.02.2003 and was informed that he has been co-opted as Secretary in the management Committee of the Navyug Society.
- He denied the signatures appearing on the minutes dated 17.11.2002 and stated that it does not relates to him ; he has no knowledge about it because at that time neither he was Member nor the Executive Member of the Society.
- He stated that Smt. Kiran Rani, Smt. Daljeet Kaur, Smt. Santosh Bagai, Sh. Sachin Khosla, Sh. Aayam Khanna, Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Anita Gupta, Sh. Om Parkash Kataria, Sh. Jagmohan Singh, Ms. Manju Kuchhal, Sh. Nitin Gupta, Sh Rajiv Goyal, Sh. Ajay Bansal, Smt. Sudesh Gulati, Sh. Kamaljeet CBI Case No. 218/19 81 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Singh, Smt. Ranjit Kaur, Sh. Jasvinder Pal Singh, Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Smt. Sonia Sanger, Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Sh. Sanjiv Mehta, Sh. Amit Sharma, Sh. Bijander Kumar, Sh. Ranbir Singh, Sh. Amrit Pal Singh, Sh. Kanchan Saluja , had become member of Navyug CGHS through him, and paid membership fee of Rs. 110/- as per the norms mentioned in the Bylaws of Cooperative Societies.
- He stated that no material evidence has been placed against him on record to show him as a Conspirator or otherwise involved in the present case in any illegal manner, and prayed for his acquittal.
Accused did not prefer to lead defence evidence.
151. Accused P.K.Thirwani (A-7) denied the allegations of prosecution and submitted that it is a false case ; he has not committed any crime ; falsely implicated by the CBI without any evidence ; there is no demand of any pecuniary advantage ; he had not violated any provisions of the DCS Act & Rules and the present case is just to swell statistics.
- He further stated that none of the witness has deposed against him except the IO, who has done the partial investigation with malafide and biased intention to implicate him and has made false statement against him in support of his case.
- He stated that from 13.05.2000 to 29.09.004, he remained as Departmental Auditor in the Audit Branch of the RCS Office and his duties were to conduct the audit of various Societies like CGHS, Thrift and Credit Society, Handloom Society, Transport Society and Store ( Cooperative ) etc. CBI Case No. 218/19 82 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
- That the audit of the present case was assigned to him by Sh. J.S. Sharma the then AR ( Audit ) and he conducted the audit of the Society on the basis of records of the Society.
- He stated that he was not in collusion with and had submitted the audit report raising number of objections thereto; that if any deficiency was found in the audit report, he must have mentioned the same thereto; and it was the duty of the concerned Zone to take necessary steps for getting necessary compliances made from the Society, or to get the objections raised in the audit report removed, before sending the list to the Policy Branch of RCS for onward transmission to DDA.
- That he has no role to send the list to the DDA for allotment of land.
- This is a false case based on wrong interpretation of provisions amounting to abuse of process of law ; no complaint of any aggrieved person or loss to the government was raised and there is no violation of DCS Act and Rules ; there is no evidence of demand of any pecuniary advantage and nothing was recovered in his house search.
He did not prefer to lead defence evidence.
152. Accused Roop Rao (A-9) denied the case of prosecution ; pleaded his innocence and submitted that IO has falsely implicated him as an accused.
- That he never prepared or made or created any kind of documents or any kind of report with respect to Navyug CGHS ; he never attended any kind of meeting or election of CBI Case No. 218/19 83 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Navyug CGHS ; never contested any elections with respect to the Navyug CGHS , and never ever portrayed himself as President of Navyug CGHS , and nothing was recovered in his search .
He did not prefer to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE : -
153. Accused Srichand (A-1), Sh. J.S. Sharma (A-4, since deceased) and P.K. Thirwani (A-7) have lead defence evidence and examined witnesses in support of their defence.
154. Accused P.K. Thirwani (A-7) in support of his defence has examined Sh.V.G.Nair as DW-1. The witness produced the file bearing No. 7(A)/20/2007/DOV pertaining to sanction of accused P.K. Thirwani, Sh. Niranjan Singh ( now expired ) and Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht.
Despite opportunity witness was not cross-examined by the prosecution.
155. DW-2 Sh. Tanuj Behnot, Assistant Registrar (Policy) produced the records in respect of Information supplied to Sh. Dalip Bhattacharya and proved the same as Ex DW2/A (colly) five pages.
Witness was not cross-examined by the learned PP despite opportunity.
156. Sh. Syed Faizal Huda, Forensic Expert, was examined by A-1 Srichand. He deposed that he has experience of more than nine years and has prepared more than 1400 reports.
- He compared the questioned writings marked as Q- 172 with the comparative writings on the specimen sheets CBI Case No. 218/19 84 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) marked as S-84 to S-104 related to accused Srichand, and after carefully and exhaustive examination of these documents with the help of latest gadgets namely Portable Microscope and applying the scientific principles of comparison, prepared and proved his report as Ex DW-3/A, whereby it was opined that Q- 172 and S-84 to S-104 are not written/signed by one and the same person.
- He also prepared certificate u/s 65 B in this regard and proved the same as Ex DW3/B ; DVD containing the soft copies of the questioned as well as comparative writings taken from court record exhibited as ExDW3/C and the enlarged photographs as Ex DW3/D. FINAL ARGUMENTS :
157. A lengthy arguments have been addressed by learned PP for CBI as well as by all the learned defence counsels for the respective accused persons, number of judgments have also been cited at bar in support of their respective claims and the same have been dealt with at the time of appreciation of evidence underneath in the judgement.
158. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have meticulously gone through the evidence recorded in the matter as well as the documents proved on record.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS :
159. So, the first thing to consider is the Status of documents/records of the Society, whether they are forged and CBI Case No. 218/19 85 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) fabricated, and whether the list of the Society was approved on the basis of said false documents.
160. There are primarily three set of witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove that the records were forged and manipulated by the accused persons, which can be classified as under : -
161. First is the set of witnesses (I) - PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9, PW-11, PW-12, PW-14, PW-15, PW-
16, PW-17, PW-18, PW-20, PW-21 & PW-23 who all were the employees of M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd, a unit of Birla Group of Companies with office in Lal Dwara Building, Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi, and were the Promoter/Original members who had formed the Navyugh CGHS in the year 1971.
162. They all have deposed to the fact that they had become member(s) of the Society, some of them were promoter members, but they all denied having ever resigned from its membership, or having attended any GBM, or any other proceedings of the Society, which purportedly are shown in the records of the Society in their names.
163. The witnesses further denied the signatures appearing on the membership form respectively in their names, and deposed that they had never tendered any Resignation, Affidavit(s)/receipts and the Proceeding Register produced on record, allegedly in their name(s) are false and fabricated records.
164. They also denied their signatures appended on the affidavits, resignations and receipts etc which are part of Ex D-5, D-6, D-9.
CBI Case No. 218/19 86 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
165. Second set of witnesses (II) - PW-24, PW-26, PW- 27, PW-31, PW-32, PW-33, PW-34 and PW-35, they all testified to the fact that though they had taken the membership of Ashoka CGHS but were never ever the members of the Navyug CGHS, their details and other particulars appears to have been used by someone to manufacture the records of Navyug CGHS.
166. During cross-examination the witnesses reiterated the fact that they had not taken the membership of Navyug CGHS at any point of time.
167. PW-31 though admitted that he had filed an affidavit alongwith his particulars in response to the correspondence received from the office of RCS concerning CGHS but clarified that it was filed under confusion ( about the name of the Society) about his membership in Ashoka CGHS.
168. PW-31 denied the execution of affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW31/C ( D-4 Vol. II, page 450 submitted alongwith application ExPW31/B ( D-4 Vol. II, page 629 ) for becoming the member of the Navyug CGHS.
169. He also denied having attended any meeting of Navyug CGHS or any other proceedings allegedly undertaken on behalf of the Society in question ; where-ever his presence was marked/reflected as such.
170. Similarly PW-19, PW-22 and PW-25 (IIIrd Set) have also denied having ever taken the membership of the Navyug CGHS or executed any affidavit or tendering any resignation for that matter. They all denied their signatures appended on the documents so fabricated in their names respectively.
CBI Case No. 218/19 87 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
171. These three witnesses were also not cross-examined by the learned defence counsels, except a single question to PW-22 wherein he denied having received any letter from the office of RCS, despite being given opportunities, reflecting that the records of the Society in their names/by using their personal details have been manufactured falsely.
172. Herein testimony of PW-25 and PW-64 may also be noted to substantiate the falsity of the records.
173. PW-25 Sh. Arun Kumar Ojha deposed that his father Late Sh. Tarkeshwar Nath Ojha, who was the Promoter member had expired on 20.09.1993 and he placed on record copy of his Death Certificate Mark PW25/A.
174. After seeing the membership application form Ex PW25/B (D-5 Vol.II, page 692-C), affidavit dated 09.01.2003 Ex PW25/C in the name of his father, witnesses denied the signatures appearing on these documents to be that of his father.
175. PW-64 also denied the signatures appended on the application form and the affidavit purportedly in the name of his father Late Sh. Bishambar Dayal, another promoter member of Navyug CGHS.
176. He further testified that his father had expired in the year 1992, and the affidavit executed in his name thereafter is a false and forged document.
177. Testimony of these two witnesses PW-25 & PW-64 points to the fact that since the original/Promoter members had already expired in the years 1990-1993, therefore, there was no CBI Case No. 218/19 88 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) question of, nor any possibility of, them executing any document subsequent thereto, which per-se reflects the falsity of the records of the Society.
178. The cross-examination of the aforementioned witnesses was mainly confined to give suggestions about the genuineness of their signatures or about some of their details being incorrectly mentioned in the Application Forms, Affidavits, Resignation letters and other documents.
179. Defence has also not led any evidence thereafter to contradict the stand taken by the witnesses, or to prove the fact that signatures appended on the documents are genuine signatures of the respective witnesses. No expert was examined to controvert their deposition to that extent.
180. PW-3 Sh. Arun Sardar was also examined by prosecution. He deposed to the fact that the signatures in his name appearing in the meeting of the Management Committee dated 15.02.2003 at point Q-171 (Election held on 29.12.2002 at page no. 955 D-6)) marked as PW3/A ; on Minutes dated 17.11.2002 at page no. 954 of D-6 at point X ; and on an affidavit Ex. PW3/C ( page no. 432 of D-5), are not his genuine signatures, and that he never participated in any such Elections, nor was he member of the Society.
181. But PW-3 Sh. Arun Sardar was continuously changing his stand regarding the facts deposed by him during his examination. He was also declared hostile by the prosecution. Thereby, not much veracity can be attached to his deposition.
182. Be that as it may be, it is evident from the testimony CBI Case No. 218/19 89 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) of the witnesses discussed above that the original members of the Society who had never ever tendered their resignation were shown to have resigned from its membership ; members who never took its membership were also shown to be its members without their consent and knowledge ; some other false members were shown the members of the society by using the personal details of some unknown persons.
183. So, appreciating these facts and the testimonies of the witnesses noted above, I must say that the prosecution has successfully proved the fact that the records of the Society were manipulated, the documents furnished before the RCS Office were forged and fabricated, prepared and presented only for the purpose of seeking approval of the list of the Society, with the ulterior motive to claim priority to get the land allotted from DDA.
184. The entire exercise was carried out in a well planned manner to fabricate the records of the Society concerned registered in the year 1971, to claim approval of list of 120 members and priority in seeking allotment of land from the DDA, pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court wherein the Hon'ble High Court had directed the RCS Office to laid down the criteria of seniority of the Society as per the date of their registration for the purpose of allotment of land by DDA, further reflects the involvement of number of persons and the factum of existence of the conspiracy.
185. The next question that now arises for consideration is whether the accused persons were part of the conspiracy CBI Case No. 218/19 90 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) pursuant to which the documents of the Society were forged and fabricated, false resignations were accepted, freeze list was approved and sent to DDA with the object to seek land at concessional rates on priority basis, and their individual roles thereto.
186. Before I proceed further, it would be useful to discuss the relevant provisions of the Conspiracy and the governing principles thereto. Same are reproduced as under :-
(i) 120A IPC . Section 120-A IPC defines Criminal Conspiracy which reads as under: - 120-A. Definition of Criminal Conspiracy- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done-
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy :
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation:- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that CBI Case No. 218/19 91 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) object.�
(ii) Section 120B IPC Punishment for criminal conspiracy:
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years or upward, shall where no express provision is made in this code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner, as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months or fine or both.
187. It is clear from the above noted definition of "criminal conspiracy" that the three essential elements of offence of conspiracy are:-
i) criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished ;
ii) a plan or scheme embodying means to
accomplish that object;
CBI Case No. 218/19 92 of 146
CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
iii) an agreement or understanding between two
or more of the accused persons whereby they become definitely committed to co-operate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means.
188. Thus, the gist of offence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to break the law. The agreement may be express or implied, or in-part express and in-part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by accomplishment of its object or by abandonment or frustration.
189. It must be noted that the Conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and as such direct evidence is seldom available. Similarly, agreement of conspiracy can also be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both.
190. It is not necessary that the prosecution has to bring on record express proof of the agreement so entered, the acts and the conduct of the parties appreciated in correct prospective go a long way to infer and establish the existence of conspiracy.
191. Since the Proof of a criminal conspiracy by direct evidence is not easy to get and probably for this reason Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted. It reads as under:-
"10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design :-
CBI Case No. 218/19 93 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
192. The law expounded by the Superior Courts on the subject and its governing principle may now be referred to have better understanding of the facts of the case and the evidence so produced on record.
193. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Poply Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003, SC 2748 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that :
"the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120-B read with the proviso to CBI Case No. 218/19 94 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) sub section (2) of Section 120-A, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120-B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. The provisions, in such a situation, do not require that each and every person who is a party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfillment of the object of conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established, the act would fall within the trapping of the provisions contained in Section 120-B.".
(Emphasis supplied)
194. In another landmark judgment on the aspect of conspiracy, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has succinctly summarized the applicable principles on the said subject, after re-visiting the entire case law, in a case titled as Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Versus State, 2009 (163) DLT 658, observed as under: -
.......134. After survey of the case law on the point, following legal principles pertaining to the law of conspiracy can be conveniently culled-out:-
A. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement. There CBI Case No. 218/19 95 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) has thus to be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy. (See the decision of Supreme Court reported as State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253).
B. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co- participators in the main object of the conspiracy.
It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators.
In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not CBI Case No. 218/19 96 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. But then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of many others who may have diverse role to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role. (See the decisions of Supreme Court reported as Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2433 and State v. Nalini, (Supra)] C. It is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement, which is the graham of the crime of conspiracy.
D. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts, and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy. Since a conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, it would quite often happen that there is no evidence of any express agreement between the conspirators to do or cause to be done the illegal act. For an offence under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. The offence can be only proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to CBI Case No. 218/19 97 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) prove actual meeting of conspirators. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design is sufficient. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct of accused persons constitute relevant material to prove charge of conspiracy. (See the decisions of Supreme Court reported as Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 439; Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1062; and Kehar Singh v. State AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1883) E. A conspiracy is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. So long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is complete as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing of the moment. It does not end with the making of the agreement. It will continue so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry into effect the design. Its continuance is a threat to the Society against which it was aimed at and would be dealt with as soon as that jurisdiction can properly claim the power to do so. The conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same effect as in India, when part of the acts, pursuant to the agreement are agreed to be finalized or done, attempted or even frustrated and vice versa.
F. Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the acts done by one are admissible against the co conspirators. In short, the section can be analyzed as follows:-
CBI Case No. 218/19 98 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) (1)There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other; (3) anything said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) it would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 81 of 183 entered the conspiracy or after he left it; and (5) it can only be used against a co-conspirator and not in his favour. (See the decision of Supreme Court reported as Sardar Sardul Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 747.) Here it is pertinent to refer to a classic judgment of three Hon'ble Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 682 (known as 2nd Caveeshar case) in which his lordship Honble Sh. Justice Subba Rao, had already spoken for the bench analysed the ingredients of Section 10 as culled out above in the judgment of our Hon�ble High Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra), which amounts to repetition, if quoted again.
It would be profitable to draw reliance from yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the same strength (Three Hon'ble Judges) in Nalini case (supra) relied upon by the defence, which reads It is not that immediately the object of conspiracy is achieved, Section 10 becomes inapplicable. For example principle like that of res gestae as contained in Section 6 of the Evidence Act will continue to apply. (Para 582). Therefore, the res gestae i.e. the acts, circumstances and the statements that are incidental to the principal fact of a litigated CBI Case No. 218/19 99 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) matter and are admissible in evidence in view of their relevant association with that fact, cannot be ignored since the same become relevant in view of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
195. It may also be noted that mere agreement to commit a conspiracy is a punishable offence.
196. So, essentially, in case of criminal conspiracy the court has to infer certain facts and circumstances to arrive at its conclusion of existence of conspiracy and the involvement of the persons so conspiring from their acts and attending circumstances.
197. With these fundamental and governing principles of law relating to conspiracy in mind, I proceed to examine the case of each accused qua his involvement, if any, in the conspiracy and other offences in terms of the charges so framed against them.
I. Taking first the case of Srichand (A-1), Anna Wankhede (A-2) and Roop Rao (A-9).
198. The primary allegations against these three accused persons A-1, A-2 and A-9 are that they entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons including the officials of RCS office with an object to seek approval of the list of the defunct Navyug Cooperative Group Housing Society on the basis of false and fabricated records.
199. From the records and the evidence so produced it is apparent that the Society in question was registered on 15.07.1971 with the office of RCS under the name of "Nayug CGHS" with 20 founder members, and subsequently the CBI Case No. 218/19 100 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) membership was increased to 51 in December, 1976.
200. The land at Paschimpuri, Delhi was allotted to the Society in the year 1976-1977, and option was given to accept the land by depositing 25% of the cost of the land.
201. Since the Society failed to pay the requisite cost due to financial constrains, possession of the land was not taken, and thereafter vide order dated 20.03.1979 passed by Sh. Ashok Bakshi, the then Dy. Registrar, it was put under liquidation and Sh. M.L. Ahuja was appointed as Official Liquidator.
202. It is the case of the prosecution that these accused persons (A-1), (A-2) and (A-3) were instrumental in initiating the entire process to seek approval of the list of members of the Society on the basis of forged and fabricated records, which they successfully did so, but the land could not be alloted as the illegalities of their acts had surfaced and the investigating agency had taken up the matter for investigation accordingly.
Role of accused Srichand (A-1)
203. Allegations against him are that he was the mastermind in getting the list of fake members of the Society approved from the RCS ; that he was the President/Vice- President of Samrat Ashoka CGHS during 1996 to 2004 and thereby had inducted 58 members of the said Samrat Ashoka Society as fake members into Navyug CGHS.
204. It is also alleged that he had written some false Minutes of Meetings in the Proceeding Register of the Society to complete the records.
CBI Case No. 218/19 101 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
205. To prove the aforesaid allegations, prosecution has examined PW-24 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary ; PW-26 Sh. Vijay Mehra ; PW-27 Sh. Harkirat Singh ; PW-31 Sh. Manohar Lal ; PW-32 Sh. Todar Mal ; PW-33 Sh. Pratap Singh ; PW-34 Sh. Nand Kishore ; PW-35 Sh. Kailash Chand Kaim ; PW-59 Sh. Rajinder Kumar ; PW-70 Sh. Prem Parkash and PW-74 Sh. Anupam Seth, in support of their case against A-1.
206. The testimonies of these witnesses as noted above only proves the fact that the said members were inducted in the Navyug CGHS without their knowledge, without their consent, by manufacturing the requisite documents in their names.
207. The said witnesses mentioned in category (II) earlier and examined by the prosecution simply proves a fact that the personal details of these witnesses were misused by showing them as members of Navyug CGHS Society, and not the fact how and by whom the records of the Society were provided or who had misused them, or who was the custodian of the same at the relevant point of time. There is no evidence on record in that regard nor any witness has deposed to the said facts.
208. It nowhere proves the fact that this entire exercise was carried out by A-1 either himself or in connivance with co- accused persons including A-2 and A-9. Aforesaid witnesses have not deposed anything incriminating as such against accused persons.
209. Sh. Prem Prakash (PW-70), who was the Secretary of the Ashoka CGHS till 1990, though to some extent proves a fact that Srichand (A-1) was a member of the said Society CBI Case No. 218/19 102 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) (Ashoka CGHS), and further testified that he (A-1) was its President from the year 1996 to 2004.
210. The testimony of PW-70 reflects to the fact that the records of Samrat Ashoka CGHS were accessible to Srichand (A-1) as he was the President of the said Society till 2004. But it in no way reflects that the records of Ashoka CGHS and details of its members were misused by A-1, or that he was the only person who had the custody of the aforesaid records, or that besides him (A-1) no other person had access to the records of the said Society during the relevant time.
211. Infact, PW-70 himself conceded, during his cross- examination, the fact that the Office of Samrat Ashoka CGHS was situated at House No. 316, Paryatan Vihar, which belonged to Mr. & Mrs. Kusum, who were the executive members of the Society, and the records of the said Society were kept in the said office of the Society.
212. He further stated that he had handed over the records of the Society to the subsequent office bearers of the Society, but he failed to remember or disclose their names.
213. And, in such circumstances, when PW-70 had handed over the records to the subsequent office bearers of the Society, I failed to comprehend, how and in what manner, and from where, he handed over the documents/records of the Samrat Ashoka CGHS in terms of Ex PW70/D (D-11) to the Investigating officer.
214. Moreover, in terms of his further cross-examination, PW-70 stated that he had not seen Sh. P.K. Gupta, the then CBI Case No. 218/19 103 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) President of the Society (Ashoka CGHS) in the year 2006, signing and writing, nor is there anything on record to show that PW-70 was part of the Management of the said Society at that point of time.
215. Pertinently, it can also be seen in his cross- examination that he denied altogether having handed over any document to the CBI as the 'Secretary' of the Ashoka CGHS or otherwise.
216. So, his testimony qua handing over the relevant records of Ashoka CGHS to the investigating officer does not inspire confidence, nor does it reflects even taken on its face value anything incriminating against accused Srichand (A-1).
217. Further, the report/opinion of GEQD expert PW88/A is also of no assistance to the case of prosecution against accused Srichand (A-1) for the reasons that :-
- That positive opinion against A-1 is only a 'Single Signature' and that also on a 'photocopy' of the document, wherein the original has not been produced before the expert for analysis.
- Moreover, the opinion/report qua A-1 is a conditional one, wherein GEQD expert has himself expressed that it is "subject to the condition that it is the true reproduction of the original."
- Further, GEQD expert who has given the opinion/report has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to him.
- And, more importantly, the report/opinion is not supported with the 'reasons for opinion' .
218. So, in totality of the facts not much evidentiary value can be assigned to the opinion/report exhibited as Ex PW88/A qua accused (A-1).
CBI Case No. 218/19 104 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
219. No doubt the records of the Society are false and fabricated but there is nothing on record to reflect that it was done by the A-1 himself or by someone at his behest. There is nothing on record to demonstrate the fact that accused Srichand (A-1) was part of the conspiracy or had forged and fabricated any document in that regard.
220. Accordingly, accused Srichand (A-1) is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
ROLE OF ACCUSED ANNA WANKHEDE (A-2)
221. Allegations against accused A-2 are that he in connivance with A-1 & A-9 had procured the Stamp Papers and was instrumental in preparing the bogus affidavits in the name of fictitious/fake members of the Society amongst some other documents, and thereby was part of the conspiracy vide which forged documents of the Society were prepared to seek allotment of land from DDA.
222. Charges under 'Conspiracy' only, in terms of Section 120-B r/w 420 and 471 r/w 468 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, were accordingly framed against him.
223. In support, prosecution has primarily relied upon three witnesses namely PW-65 Sh. Ravi Robinson ; PW-66 Sh. Mohinder Singh, the then SDM, and PW-86 Sh. Avanish Kumar, to show that A-2 was part of the conspiracy and had acted in furtherance thereof.
224. PW-66 Sh. Mohinder Singh, the then SDM proved CBI Case No. 218/19 105 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) the copy of the letter received from the CBI and the fact that attested copies of the register deposited by Sh. R.P. Bhatia, Stamp Vendor were compared with the original register and handed over to CBI officials. He also identified his signatures and official stamp on the said copies.
225. The testimony of Sh. Mohinder Singh simply proves a fact that the copies of the register of Stamp Vendor Sh. R.P. Bhatia were handed over to the CBI officials and nothing more than that.
226. PW-65 Sh. Ravi Robinson deposed that he had typed the stamp papers brought by Sh. Anna Wankhede (A-2) and charged Rs.2/- as typing fee.
227. He testified that he typed the details of the deponent/ executant, reflecting them as members of the Navyug CGHS, on the instructions of accused Anna Wankhede (A-2) ; and identified accused Anna Wankhede (A-2) as well as the said Stamp Papers, which were exhibited accordingly during his examination in Court.
228. Interestingly, in the cross-examination, he states that as a typist he might have typed number of documents, may be running into lacs ; that he was not able to re-collect the contents of the documents so typed by him. He admitted that he did not maintain the record of the documents typed by him on a particular day.
229. He stated that all the 32-40 typist in the Old Court Complex, Parliament Street were receiving and typing similar type of work i.e. documentation of Affidavits.
CBI Case No. 218/19 106 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
230. He admitted that the affidavits shown to him were not having his signatures or initial ; nor was he having any document to show the payments, if any, received for his typing work ; nor to show that these stamp papers were purchased by A-2 before him for typing in the spaces.
231. He was evasive regarding the name of the persons in whose name they were typed or the dates on which the said documents were typed by him.
232. Further, all the aforesaid Stamp Papers in terms of testimony of PW-65 were not proved on record. How and from where, and which Stamp vendor, the said Stamp Papers were purchased, there is absolutely no connecting evidence on those aspects.
233. Nothing has been produced to show, nor it appears to be the case of the prosecution, that the handwriting and the signatures on the Stamp papers are that of accused Anna Wankhede (A-2).
234. The questions as to who had signed or affixed the signatures as the executant on the said Stamp Papers, or from where it were procured/purchased, or why all the stamp papers were not sent for CFSL analysis, if at all, also remained un- answered. There is also no evidence in that regard on record.
235. PW-86 Sh. Avanish Kumar, who was working as assistant/sub-vendor of Sh.P.R. Bhatia, authorized Licence holder of Stamp papers at the relevant time, throws light on the fact that the Stamp papers from serial no.150800 to 150824 in the name of Navyug CGHS were sold by him to Sh. Anna Wankhede (A-2).
CBI Case No. 218/19 107 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
236. He identified his own handwriting in the original register so maintained and the entries effected thereto as well as the signatures of Anna Wankhede (A-2) appended corresponding to that in Ex PW86/A and Ex PW86/B. He also identified the accused Anna Wankhede (A-2), in the court during his examination.
237. In his cross-examination, he conceded the fact that he does not recollect the names of the persons who used to purchase one or two Stamp papers occasionally. He stated that he remembered the name of persons who used to purchase the stamp papers in bulk from him, and he denied the suggestion of not having sold any Stamp papers to Anna Wankhede (A-2) or his signatures appended thereto.
238. In his further cross-examination, PW-86 admitted that he did not have licenece in his name for the Sale of Stamp Papers and the fact that the original register was shown to him only during his examination in the Court.
239. Significantly, except the signatures of accused Anna Wankhede, and that too initials only, he failed to identify the signature of other purchaser at point B,C,D,E.F, G.H. I.J, K,L, M, N. O,. P. Q, R, S & T. The said initials/signatures of A-2 has also not been sent for analysis by the IO. Why and for what reasons, there is no answer to that.
240. The Stamp papers sold by PW-86 Sh. Avanish Kumar are not the same one on which the details were allegedly typed by PW-65 Sh. Ravi Robinson. The details in the said Stamp papers from serial no.150800-150824 purchased from CBI Case No. 218/19 108 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) PW-86 are filled in hand, and there is no material to suggest that it was in the hand of accused Anna Wankhede (A-2).
241. The evidence of both these witnesses PW-65 & PW- 86 is of similar nature regarding sale of Stamp papers and some typing work done thereto and appears to be of a weak nature, and it would not be justifiable to convict accused (A-2) solely on the basis of their testimonies, without it being corroborated by some other independent or other substantial evidence in that regard.
242. Further, learned PP has also relied upon the testimony of PW-58 Sh. Ved Parkash, to state that A-2 was known to him (Sh. Ved Parkash ) and he (A-2) has misused his address to show it as the registered address of the Society, but his testimony is sketchy and does not prove the fact that Society was not functioning from the said address.
243. To note - PW-58 stated that since his birth he is residing at 128 Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi ; this address was never let out to any one and Navyug Cooperative Society never functioned from his residential address ; that no officer/official from the office of Registrar Cooperative Housing Society or any other government official visited at his address for any verification.
244. He deposed that he did not know Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) but identified accused Anna Wankhade (A-2), who met him in the DDA Office and helped him in filling up the application form for allotment of DDA Land ; that no meeting ever took place at his above address and he had also not given permission or consent to use his address for their official work.
CBI Case No. 218/19 109 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
245. But interestingly during cross-examination there appears great inconsistencies in his statement wherein he was also confronted by the defence with his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the IO during the investigation of the case, which primarily reflects that he was not in the occupation of first floor, nor of the second floor of the said house ; he was not even aware about the persons residing at the said floors or their work/occupation.
246. His cross-examination also reflects that he was residing at Bombay in between 1991-2002 as he was in the profession of shooting / making films, and he shifted to Delhi in the year 2002 after the demise of his father. He also admitted that he had no prior acquaintance with Anna Wankhede (A-2) had only a chance meeting once with him in the DDA office.
247. From the testimony of PW-58, as noted above, it appears that he was not the permanent resident or to say occupant of the aforesaid House No.128, Vinoba Puri, Delhi, nor was he having any personal knowledge about its occupants and their professional work/functions etc.
248. Thus, this witness does not prove any fact to demonstrate that office of Navyug CGHS was not functioning from the said address ; or it was not the registered office address of th Society, nor to say that any meeting or any proceedings of Society had ever taken place at the given address at any point of time.
249. In so far as the testimony of PW-58 is concerned, it is of no assistance to the case of prosecution especially against CBI Case No. 218/19 110 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) accused A-2, Anna Wankhede.
250. Nextly, PW-3 Sh.Arun Sardar also stated that he had signed some papers including some printed-papers or prescribed forms at the instance of accused Anna Wankhede (A-2) and also that accused Anna Wankhede had also introduced him to accused Srichand who was dealing in Society work. But during his cross- examination, on behalf of A-2, he admitted that the documents shown to him were not those documents on which he had signed at the request of accused A-2.
251. As noted above, PW-3 was declared hostile by the prosecution, and has continuously taken conflicting stands during his deposition. His testimony is not trustworthy, nor it assist the case of prosecution in any manner as nothing incriminating was deposed by him against accused Anna Wankhede A-2 .
252. Further, it is settled position of law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and as such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. All the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap in the chain of evidence.
253. A useful reference be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P. & Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79 ) wherein it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests :-
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought CBI Case No. 218/19 111 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
254. I may say that few bits here and few bits there can be of no help to the case of prosecution. And, in the case at hand prosecution has also failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances to lead to any positive inference qua the guilt of accused A-2 to demonstrate that he was part of the conspiracy. Thereby accused Anna Wankhede (A-2) is entitled to be given benefit of doubt.
ROLE OF ACCUSED ROOP RAO (A-9)
255. The allegations against the accused Roop Rao (A-9) is that he acted as a self-style President of the Society and submitted an application for approval of the list of the members of the Society for onward transmission to the DDA for allotment of land ; and that in said process he had signed on various documents on behalf of the Society as its office-bearer purportedly as a President, and thereby accused Roop Rao (A-9) CBI Case No. 218/19 112 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) was instrumental in manufacturing the false records of the Society.
256. Strong reliance is placed by the Prosecution on the report/opinion of GEQD expert Sh. S.C. Gupta examined as PW- 88, in terms of the positive opinion/report furnished thereto.
257. This is the only piece of evidence against the accused Roop Rao (A-9) in the present case.
258. Additionally, it was also contended by learned PP that during final arguments accused Roop Rao (A-9) himself admitted that he had signed the questioned documents upon being asked by co-accused Anna Wankhede (A-1) and Srichand (A-2).
259. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused A-9 contradicts and submits that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the GEQD report as Mr. S.C. Gupta (PW-88) himself admitted to the fact that he was not an handwriting expert ; and that he had only verified the handwriting report prepared /authored by Mr. Bhosle ; and that Mr. Bhosle, the actual examiner of the disputed material/exhibits has not been examined in the court, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said report/opinion exhibited as Ex PW88/A. It remains 'Not Proved' and cannot be read in evidence against accused Roop Rao ( A-9).
260. It is submitted that even otherwise evidence of an hand writing expert is a weak type of evidence and the courts generally do not consider it a 'conclusive' proof, and therefore it would not be safe to rely on it without it being corroborated by any independent and reliable evidence.
CBI Case No. 218/19 113 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
261. It was argued that the main perpetrators of the case crime Ms. Rachna Gangulay, who was acting as the President of the Society and Ms. Satbir Kaur who was acting as the Treasurer in the year 2003, in terms of the charge-sheet, and had signed on number of documents of the society including the Audit report 13.05.2003 prepared by Jr. Auditor Sh. R.N.Yadav, have not been put to trial for the reasons best known to the investigating officer; and that surprisingly, Ms. Satbir Kaur has been sent as a Prosecution witness despite the fact that her role appears to be much more than that of other accused facing trial here.
262. It is further submitted that none of the prosecution witness has stated anything incriminating against the accused A- 9; they have not even mentioned his name anywhere in their entire deposition; that A-9 is himself victim of the circumstances, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case to give favour to other persons whom the Investigating Officer has left scot-free.
263. It is urged that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused A-9 had ever portrayed himself as President of the Society before any official or authority ; and/or had submitted the alleged documents including the attested copy of resignation certificate, documents pertaining to latest Election/AGM, Audit Report & Bylaws of the Society amongst others to any official; or that it was Sh. Roop Rao (A-9) who had actually submitted the application for approval of the list or even had appeared before the RCS Officials at any point of time.
CBI Case No. 218/19 114 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
264. Coming to the question of evidentiary value of the hand writing/GEQD expert.
265. The law on the said aspect is no more res-integra. Question of Law on this count is well established. In fact, the authorities relied upon by the defence counsels as well as the prosecution are no different on the point of law governing the evidentiary value of the GEQD expert.
266. To cull out the basic and the governing principles concerning an expert opinion, its admissibility and evidentiary value, it is stated that there is no hard and fast rule which has crystallized into a rule of law to state that an expert opinion is a weak type of evidence and can not be acted upon or considered without its substantial corroboration, or that it can only be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, or that conviction can not be predicated solely on the basis even if it inspire confidence and suffers from no ambiguity. Contrary is only a rule of caution. (Profitable reference be made to :- Murari Lal Vs. State of UP 1980 AIR 531).
267. So, if the evidence of expert is clinching and trustworthy and, no prejudice or biased can be attributed to his testimony, I see no reason to disbelieve it or to state that it can not be acted upon without corroboration.
268. But, the credibility of such an expert witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of its conclusion. The report submitted by an expert does not go in evidence automatically. He needs to be examined as a witness in CBI Case No. 218/19 115 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) the court and has to face the cross-examination, to measure upto the well accepted principles for judging the credibility of such an evidence.
269. As noted earlier, Mr. R.B. Bhosle Asst. GEQD, who had actually carried out the analysis of the questioned documents and had submitted the reports/opinion relied upon by the prosecution Ex PW88/A, for the reasons unknown, though amenable to the jurisdiction of the court, was neither cited nor summoned as a witness to give testimony and prove his opinion/report.
270. PW-88 Sh. S.C. Gupta simply identified the signatures of Mr. R.B. Bhosle, but the identification of signatures does not by itself proves the contents of the opinion of the said report nor does it vouch for its veracity.
271. Though PW-88 stated that the documents in question were again independently examined by him in order to verify the report by the Asst. GEQD Mr. R.B. Bhosle, but he admitted in his cross-examination the fact that he had not prepared any separate opinion and had only signed the opinion which was prepared by Mr. Bhosale, and the fact that the opinion/report exhibited as Ex. 88/A so prepared is not supported by any reasons for opinion.
272. Sh. S.C. Gupta (PW-88) admitted that the hand written/rough notes prepared by him, if any, have also not been produced before the court.
273. He further admitted that he had not prepared his own detail reasons in support of the aforesaid opinion. He admitted CBI Case No. 218/19 116 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) that the opinion/report does not describe the methodology adopted in the examination and comparison of the documents in the case.
274. The opinion of an expert, in order to pass the test of credibility and reliability, must be "reasoned" one. "Reason for opinion" may be contained in the opinion itself or may be prepared separately by the expert but these must be prepared simultaneously along with the opinion, and both the opinions as well as the "reasons" must be sent together to the investigating agency to lend credence to the report/opinion.
275. In the case at hand, neither the expert who had actually carried out the analysis of the questioned documents and prepared the 'opinion' thereafter has not been examined by the prosecution, nor the report/opinion is accompanied by any 'reasons for opinion'.
276. So, in the given circumstances not much weight-age can be given to the report/opinion exhibited as Ex PW88/A or to the deposition of PW-88 Sh. S.C. Gupta.
277. Nextly, qua the Admission on the part of Sh. Roop Rao (A-9).
"Admission" is defined in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act as under :-
"An admission is a statement, [oral or documentary or contained in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the CBI Case No. 218/19 117 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) circumstances, hereinafter mentioned."
278. There is an elementary difference between an Admission and a Confession.
279. Confession :- Generally speaking, an admission by the accused in a criminal case admitting his guilt is known as Confession. Whereas, an Admission is not conclusive proof of the matters admitted and is always rebuttable.
280. A Statement of accused will amount to a Confession, if it fulfills following two conditions :
(i) If he states that he committed the crime he is charged with, or
(ii) If he makes a statement by which he does not clearly admits the guilt yet from the statement some inference may be drawn that he might have committed the crime. (as per Lord Atkin J. in Pakala Narain Swami vs. King Emperor, AIR 1939 PC).
281. In the present case, Sh. Roop Rao (A-9), at initial stage of the case during arguments on his bail application, and thereafter subsequently now during the final arguments, stated that he had signed on some blank papers at the behest of co- accused Sh. Anna Wankhede (A-2), but in my considered opinion, this is not an admission of the fact that the questioned documents on which his signatures are allegedly appearing were actually signed by him, nor of the fact that these questioned documents so prepared are the very same blank-papers on which CBI Case No. 218/19 118 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) he had allegedly signed, nor does it in any manner reflects the 'Confession' of accused Roop Rao (A-9) to admit his guilt in terms of the forgery so committed in the case at hand.
282. At best, it can be said that A-9 is owning the signatures but conditional to the fact that it were on blank-sheets, and not the fact that he had signed the "Questioned Documents".
283. There is no specific admission of signing the questioned documents on behalf of the accused Roop Rao (A-9). His statement to that effect leaves number of assumptions and presumptions which remained to be established on record by the prosecution.
284. And besides the GEQD report and the alleged admission there is absolutely no incriminating material against accused Roop Rao, neither in the form of ocular evidence nor documentary.
285. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused Roop Rao (A-9) and thereby he is entitled to be acquitted of all the charges.
II CASE OF RCS OFFICIALS SH. NARAIN DIWAKAR, GOPAL SINGH BISHT AND THAT OF DECEASED ACCUSED NIRANJAN SINGH (A-3 SINCE DECEASED) AND SH. JITENDER SHARMA (A-4 SINCE DECEASED).
286. Accused Sh. Narain Diwakar (A-5) was the Registrar RCS who had approved and forwarded the list of members of the Society for onward transmission to DDA.
CBI Case No. 218/19 119 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
287. Accused Sh Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) was the dealing Assistant who had prepared the relevant Noting(s) of the RCS file concerning the reconstruction of the original file of Navyug CGHS ;
288. Accused Sh. Jitender Sharma (A-4, since deceased) was the Assistant Register (South) who had endorsed the note(s) prepared by Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6), wherein it was stated that the original documents of the Society have been checked and verified, and forwarded the list of the 120 members of the Society for approval, and then to DDA for allotment of land.
289. Accused Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3, since deceased) was working as Inspector Grade-II and had prepared the Inspection report of the records of the Society in terms of section 54 of DCS Act.
290. The allegations against all of them are almost similar to the fact that they all acted mala-fidely pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, and/or abused their position(s) as a public servant and thereafter recommended the list of the 120 members of Navyug CGHS for approval and allotment of land to the DDA on the basis of false and forged documents in connivance with private persons i.e., accused A-1, A-2, A-7 & A-9.
291. It is also alleged that none of them lodged any complaint or initiated any inquiry about the disappearance of the original file of the Society in question from the RCS office with the intent to facilitate the reconstruction of the file on false records.
292. In support of its case against RCS officials, CBI Case No. 218/19 120 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimonies of PW-28 Sh. M.L. Ahuja, PW-57 Sh. Ashok Bakshi and PW-69 Sh. M.P. Sharma alongwith the Notings ( file ) of RCS Office.
293. PW-28 Sh. Manohar Lal Ahuja simply deposed to the fact that he was appointed as a Liquidator of the Navyug CGHS vide order dated 20.03.1979, Ex PW28/A (D-9 page 32), after the Society was put under liquidation by Sh. Ashok Bakshi (PW 57), the then Deputy Registrar RCS.
294. He further stated that the file containing liquidation order was not available in the department, however, the order Ex.PW28/A vide which he was appointed as a liquidator was available in the office and he had produced the same before the IO during investigation.
294. Testimony of PW-57 Sh. Ashok Bakshi, the then DR in the office of RCS, is also supplementing the facts deposed by PW-28 that Navyug CGHS was put under liquidation vide the order dated 20.03.1979 exhibited as Ex.PW28/A passed by him, and that he had appointed Sh.M.L.Ahuja (PW-28) as its Liquidator, and copy of the same was sent to the concerned person as well as to the DDA accordingly.
295. It can be seen that the testimony of these two witnesses PW-28 and PW-58 does not in any way reflects any incriminating fact - material against accused Narain Diwakar (A-
5) or against Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) or for that matter against deceased accused Niranjan Singh (A-3) and Jitender Sharma (A-
4) ; nor simply by it, it shows their involvement into the case at hand, more the so, as admittedly the case of the prosecution is CBI Case No. 218/19 121 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) that original file of the Society from the office of RCS was misplaced and it was re-constructed on the basis of the documents supplied by the office bearer of the Society.
296. It is not even the case of the prosecution here that these accused persons had any role in the act of misplacing the original records / file of Navyug Society from the RCS Office, nor is there any investigation on this aspect.
297. Further, there appears to be no illegality or irregularity in the manner in which the file of the Navyug CGHS was reconstructed by the RCS officials.
298. In terms of the Notings of the RCS file page no 6/N, Sh. Niranjan Singh had submitted an Inspection Report dated 03.03.2003 under Section 54 of the DCS Act, wherein he had claimed that :-
- Navyug CGHS is/was functioning at 128 Vinoba Puri with total strength of 120 members.
- He met the then Secretary of the Society Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (accused No. A-7), who produced all the relevant records of the Society.
- As per records the Society had changed its earlier address from Jhandewallan to Vinoba Puri in terms of resolution passed by the Management Committee on 05.05.1991 and subsequently approved in GBM on 20.12.1991 ( photocopies of which were part of the said report).
- The membership register, proceeding register were found complete in all respects.
CBI Case No. 218/19 122 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
- Audit of the Society is/was pending since 01.07.1973, and that accounts are ready for audit for the remaining period till 31.03.2002.
- As per records last elections were conducted on 29.12.2002 in terms of DCS Act and Rules.
- The records was found in the safe custody of the then Secretary Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7).
299. It was accused Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3) who had submitted the alleged false report in terms of Section 54 of the DCS Act and claimed to have checked and verified the original records of the Society from its office bearers, accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7), the then Secretary.
300. Thereafter, a note in that regard was also prepared by dealing assistant Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6), and endorsed by Sh. Jitender Sharma AR(S) (A-2), mentioning the details of the report submitted by Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3).
301. The Note so prepared by A-6 further stated that the main file of the Society was not traceable in the Zone, and a circular dated 27.02.2003 was also thereafter issued to all the Branches/Zonal Offices/Officials including the DDA to know about its status/whereabouts but no positive information was received thereto.
302. In this factual background, a recommendation was thereafter approved by Sh. Jitendra Sharma (A-4) to seek all the relevant records from the Society itself for the re-construction of the file of RCS for further reference, and that if agreed the CBI Case No. 218/19 123 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Society may be treated as 'list not yet approved' and defunct' ( page 7/N Ex PW80/D, D-6).
303. Based on these recommendations and the report submitted by A-3, the Society was accordingly asked to submit the relevant documents ; and pursuant thereto, the records of the Society were submitted by the then alleged President Sh. Roop Rao (A-9) and the file was accordingly reconstructed in the RCS office.
304. The original records including the resignation of 12 members produced by the then President of the Society were verified and found in order by the dealing assistant Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) which was endorsed by Sh. Jitender Sharma (A-4) AR(S) accordingly.
305. In terms of the Notings (15/N) of the RCS, the President of the Society Sh. Roop Rao (A-9) had also allegedly filed an affidavit stating that "all the information and resignations submitted by the management committee are genuine and in case any of them found fake the whole responsibility of the same shall be vested upon the management of the Society and that management committee of the Society do hereby undertakes to be responsible to solve out the problems".
306. He had also sought condonation for the lapses in terms of the irregularities, if any, committed in the past.
307. Copy of all the relevant documents, be it minutes of meeting held on 17.11.2002, or GBM held on 29.12.2002, agenda notice issued to the members, copy of the nomination forms, amongst others were filed on record by the Society for CBI Case No. 218/19 124 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) consideration.
308. All the original records of the Society including that of the Elections of the Management Committee held on 29.11.2002 were verified and found in accordance with the DCS Act and Rules by accused Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6), from the records so submitted before it by the then President of the Society.
309. It is on the basis of reports / notes submitted by Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3 since deceased) and the Verification report given by dealing assistant Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) and Sh. Jitender Sharma (A-4 since deceased) that the file of the Society in the RCS office was re-constructed and approved, the list of the 120 members was recommended to DDA for allotment of land.
310. In this entire sequence of events no fault can be attributed to Sh. Narain Diwakar, the then Register RCS, who had simply approved the list so submitted before him on the basis of Noting(s) prepared by his subordinates.
311. Undisputably there is no evidence furnished before the court on the aspect of any undue advantage or pecuniary gain on his behalf, nor is there any investigation on these aspects.
312. The said act of approving and forwarding the list to DDA by itself can not be termed to be an illegal or an irregular act, nor can the dishonest intention or the malafides be attributed to accused Sh. Narain Diwakar (A-5) in absence of any other material against him.
CBI Case No. 218/19 125 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
313. The illegality or the fault, if any, lies with the act and conduct of the deceased accused Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3) who had initially submitted the alleged false report under Section 54 of the DCS Act, and which was the very basis on which subsequent proceedings/Notings were prepared by RCS Officials ; or may be that of accused Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6), who stated to have checked and verified the record from the originals so produced before him ; or may be that of accused Jitender Sharma (A-3) who had endorsed the said report and notings.
314. Accused Jitender Sharma (A-3) has already expired his role in detail is not discussed herein, and the role of accused Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) is discussed underneath.
Role of accused Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6)
315. He was the dealing assistance at the relevant time and had put various Notes claiming to have verified the records of the Society during its reconstruction with the RCS Office, and further recommended for approval of the list of the members of the Society.
316. It was argued by learned PP that accused Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) had deliberately put up a false Note stating to have verified the resignation of 12 members, subsequent enrollment of 12 members and the election proceedings of the Society held on 29.12.2002, and this was done intentionally to give benefit to the accused persons.
317. Out of 12 said founder members, prosecution have examined Sh. T.C.Choradia (PW-2), Sh. R.S.Aggarwal ( PW-21), CBI Case No. 218/19 126 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) who were the office bearer of the Society during 1970's and they have denied to have tender any resignations.
318. Similarly, Sh.O.P.Kedia (PW-4), Sh. M.S. Shekhawat (PW-67) and Sh.T.N.Ojha ( since deceased through his son examined as PW-25 ) other original members have also denied having resigned from the Society at any point of time, and their resignations are accepted in the GBM conducted on 09.01.2003.
319. But the testimonies of these witnesses do not point to the fact that accused Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) was himself involved into fabrication of the documents/resignations, or that the said false resignations of 12 original members were within the knowledge of A-6 and he had intentionally given a false statement stating to have checked and verified the original records. Their testimony simply proves a fact that the resignations were forged and fabricated, and not by whom it was done or who all were involved into it.
320. I have gone carefully to the Noting files and the photocopies of the records of the Society and the alleged resignation of its promoter members, as available on the RCS file.
321. It can be seen that the resignation of all the 12 Original members appears to have been produced before Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) the Dealing Assistant by the then President in terms of Noting at page 11/N.
322. The photocopies of the Resignation/Receipts and the Minutes of Meeting in which said Resignations were approved CBI Case No. 218/19 127 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) were also produced before the dealing assistant A-6.
323. The photocopies of election proceedings dated 29.12.2002 were also submitted before the RCS office by the then President of the Society, and consequently, as stated original record of the Society was also produced.
324. I would have found substance in the arguments of learned PP that Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) had put up a false note stating to have verified the original records and he be held accountable, had the prosecution produced the said original records before the Court for its perusal and appreciation.
325. There is nothing on record to show that there was any difference between the photocopies placed on record before the RCS Officials and the original records so produced by the Society for its verification, or for that matter the discrepancies in the original records, if any, thereto.
326. In fact, the investigating officer has thought it prudent, for the reasons best known to him, not to seize the original records of the Society from its original/promoter members or subsequent management, nor is there any investigation qua the status of original records of the Society, nor was it produced before the Court during trial for its perusal and appreciation of evidence to arrive at any conclusive finding regarding involvement of accused Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6) and the ambiguities thereto in the records.
327. In the given facts, Provisions of Section 40 of DCS Act, 1972 may also be usefully referred to, wherein it is stated that any register or list of members or shares kept by any CBI Case No. 218/19 128 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) cooperative Society shall be prima-facie evidence of
- (a) the date on which any person entered in such register or list became a member ;
- (b) the date on which any such person ceased to be a member.
328. The 12 new members inducted have also not denied having not taken the membership of the Society. There is no dispute to the said fact.
329. Simply to say, as was argued by the learned PP, that all the resignations were accepted on one single day or that the newly inducted members were also enrolled at one go, and it was thereby sufficient to create suspicion about the falsity or the forgery of the documents (Resignation(s), and hence A-6 intentionally gave a false report, is by itself no ground to raise any suspicion about the falsity/forgery of the said resignations or to say that the act of A-6 was a deliberate & dishonest act to give benefit to accused persons.
330. In view thereof, in absence of any other supporting material on record to show that A-6 was privy to the conspiracy to fabricate the records of the Society, or had any prior meeting with any of the so-called office bearers of the Society or any of the accused persons, or that he gained any undue advantage or any other monetary benefit, it would not be a safer proposition to convict him simply on the basis of the concerned Noting from Page No. 9/N to 16/N. THE ROLE OF ACCUSED P.K.THIRWANI (A-8) CBI Case No. 218/19 129 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
331. It is alleged that accused P.K. Thirwani (A-8) was the Auditor in the present case, and he dishonestly and fraudulently conducted the Audit of the Society from the period 01.07.1973 to 31.03.2002 without visiting the Office of the Society, which is clear cut violation of Rule 102 of DCS Rules, and thereby submitted a favourable Audit report to assist the accused persons.
332. PW-3 Sh. Arun Sardar was examined by the prosecution to show the falsity of the Audit report submitted by A-8, wherein PW-3 has denied having ever taken the membership of Navyug CGHS, or ever being elected its Treasurer, or attending any meeting of the Society, or ever contested any elections of Management at any point of time, whereas his signatures are appended at number of places in the Audit Report showing him as "Treasurer" of the Society.
333. PW-3 deposed that the signatures in his name appearing in the meeting of the Management Committee dated 15.02.2003 at point Q-171 (Election held on 29.12.2002 at page no. 955 D-6) marked as PW3/A ; on Minutes dated 17.11.2002 at page no. 954 of D-6 at point X ; and on an affidavit Ex. PW3/C ( page no. 432 of D-5), are not his genuine signatures.
334. He did not identify the signatures of accused Roop Rao (A-9) and Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) who were shown as President and Secretary respectively in the Minutes of Meeting marked as PW3/B, and also denied having known them at any point of time.
335. He further denied having attended any meeting of CBI Case No. 218/19 130 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) the Society, or participated into the Elections or being elected as its Treasurer, and also denied all the signatures appended on the documents/ Minutes of Meeting of the Society purportedly in his name showing him as 'Treasurer' exhibited as Ex PW3/X-1 to PW3/X-3, PW3/X-4, PW3/X-5 (nomination form of Treasurer), PW3/X-6, PW3/X-7, PW3/X-8, PW3/X-9, PW3/X-10 ( application form ).
336. As discussed in the earlier part, PW-3 was declared hostile by the prosecution and has continuously changed his stand during his examination in the court and his testimony does not inspire much confidence regarding the facts deposed by him.
337. The GEQD expert has also not furnished any positive/negative opinion regarding the signatures of PW-3 appended on the said documents. No opinion was expressed regarding the questioned signatures by the handwriting expert.
338. Further, signatures purportedly in the name of Sh. Roop Rao (as the President) and Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (as the Secretary) of the Society are also appearing on each and every page of the report, so submitted by accused P.K. Thirwani (A-8).
339. The Audit report Ex-PW58/B and his signatures are not disputed by accused Mr. Thirwani even otherwise.
340. The question that now arises for consideration is that :- whether the Audit report submitted by Mr. Thirwani is a false, and/or whether just because Mr. Thirwani did not visit the official address of the Society would make him a co-conspirator in the present case ?
CBI Case No. 218/19 131 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
341. In so far as, the Audit Report of the Society is concerned, the same was prepared as per the documents and other records of the Society furnished by the then management, in terms of the elected representatives, of the Society. The same office bearers of the Society had also allegedly submitted the records before the RCS officials when the file was reconstructed and processed accordingly, or at least their names were reflected thereto as the office bearers of the Society.
342. The report as submitted by Sh. PK Thirwani (A-8) was also pursuant to the directions passed by accused Jitender Sharma (A-4), the Asstt. Registrar (S) RCS, to get the audit of the Society done for the pending years i.e. 01.01.1973 to 31.03.2002 ; and which, as evident from the Audit report, has been prepared separately for each year indicating the Income and the Expenditure account at the end of each successive year.
343. The list of the members of the Society are also mentioned along with the balance-sheet as per ledger and bank statement of the concerned Society so furnished before him by the Management.
344. The statement of accounts of the Society for each year is duly furnished by the office bearers of the Society under their signatures. The audit of each year so conducted by accused (A-8) is also duly signed by its management, who were elected/nominated representatives of the Society in terms of its records.
345. Thereby no foul play can be noticed/attributed in the said Audit Report which appears to have been prepared as per the CBI Case No. 218/19 132 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) records submitted to the Auditor by the then Management of the Society.
346. Learned PP had argued that accused (A-8) had not visited the Registered Office of the Society alleged to be at Vinoba Puri, and that it was a false address in terms of the investigation carried out by the IO.
347. It is argued that if he (A-8) visited the said office, he would have come to know that no Society was functioning from there and the records of the Society were false ; and thereby, fabrication of the records carried out by co-accused persons would have been noticed and come to light, and that he (A-8) deliberately and intentionally submitted a false report.
348. I do not agree with the contentions of the learned PP. It is too hypothetical and assumptive, premised on number of variables infused with if's and but's, and does not lead to any inference that the Auditor was acting in connivance with co- accused persons. The arguments of the prosecution to that extent is based on surmises and conjectures.
349. The duties of the Auditor are to check the financial statements and viability of Society/Company or an Organization. He is not expected to don the hat of an investigating officer and embark upon investigative journey to find out the genuineness/ fakeness of the members of the Society ; more the so, when there was nothing suspicious in the records and the order was passed by the competent authority to audit the records of the Society for the given period.
350. Reliance of Rule 84 (5) of DCS Rule 1980 by the CBI Case No. 218/19 133 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) prosecution is also misplaced. It was contended by learned PP that in terms of the rule 84(5) so notified under the DCS Act, it was mandatory for an auditor to conduct the audit of the Society at its registered address, exception being the specific directions by the Registrar thereto.
351. The said rule noted. But at the same time, the prosecution has failed to highlight any Rule or Provision of the DCS Act to state if the Audit report is prepared without visiting the registered office it is a sham or a false document and liable to be rejected at threshold ; or to say, that it tantamount to an illegal act.
352. It may be an infraction of a rule but to bring it within the ambit of criminal act would be stretching it too far to be justified on legal principles.
353. Moreover, it can be seen from the Audit report Ex PW58/B that accused (A-8) has not only given correct factual position of the Society in terms of the documents so submitted to him, but had also given suggestions and necessary objections highlighting the short comings and irregularities qua non- compliance of DCS Act and Rules.
354. The Audit report Ex-PW58/B so submitted by A-8 can not be said to be de-hors the record of the Society and can not be termed as a 'false report' in terms of Section 464 of the IPC.
355. Substantive charges under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act were also framed against the accused P.K. Thirwani.
CBI Case No. 218/19 134 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
356. It may be noted that no evidence has been led by the prosecution to demonstrate that Mr. Thirwani had obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage either to himself or to any other person.
357. The Auditor was simply required to telly the accounts ledger books, bank statements, liabilities, expenditure, assets and other financial related issues of the Society.
358. In the given facts, simply because, at later point of time the forgery of the records of the Society was discovered, A-8 cannot be fastened with the criminal liability on the allegations of him not visiting the registered office of the Society, or to say, his acts were motivated by extraneous considerations, or to say that he was also part of the conspiracy vide which the records were fabricated and the list of the Society was approved.
359. His acts of not visiting the registered address of the Society has no relation with the offence of forgery of the records, nor has any bearing on the subsequent acts vide which the file of the Society was forwarded to DDA for allotment of land.
360. In light thereof accused Sh. P.K. Thirwani (A-8) is entitled to be acquitted of the charges pressed against him.
III. ROLE OF ACCUSED ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL ( A-7)
361. Allegations against accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant by profession, are that he was handling the affairs of the Navyug Society from March, 2003 onwards, and also of some other Societies which were controlled by Sh.
CBI Case No. 218/19 135 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) Srichand (A-1), after he took over its control from accused Srichand (A-1).
362. It is alleged that Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) was inducted as a member of the Society on 10.02.2003, and in violation of Rule 59(K) of DCS Rules 1973, he immediately co- opted as a Secretary in the Management Committee meeting held on 15.02.2.003.
363. That the Share Certificates dated 02.12.2005 issued to some members of the Society were under the signatures of Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) as 'Secretary' and Smt. Satbir Kaur (PW-8) as the 'Treasurer' of the Society ;
364. That Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) has also opened the bank account bearing number 49025 of the Society with Punjab National Bank, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi and maintained the same under his signatures.
365. It is stated that Smt. Satbir Kaur (PW-8), the then Treasurer, has testified to the fact that Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) introduced her as the 'Treasurer' of the Society without any election.
366. It is further stated that A-7 was having the custody of the false alleged original record of the Society, which he had provided to Sh. Niranjan Singh (A-3), Inspector Grade-II, under his signatures at the time of preparation of the Inspection Report u/s 54 of DCS Act, 1972 exhibited as Ex PW58/E, despite knowing that it was not a true record of the Society ; and on the basis of said record a false Inspection Report u/s 54 of DCS Act was prepared by Sh. Niranjan Singh Inspector Grade II, RCS CBI Case No. 218/19 136 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) (A-3 now deceased ) to give wings to the conspiracy.
367. That new members were inducted to the Society by accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) in and above the 'freeze list', who all have denied attending any meeting or election proceedings of the Society at any point of time, and therefore it is submitted by learned PP that he was instrumental in fabricating the records of the Society to achieve the object of the conspiracy.
368. Coming first to the question of alleged resignation of Promoter members and / or bogus members whose details were taken from the records of another Society known as 'Ashoka CGHS', as noted above in category no.(I) and (II), they simplicitor proves a fact that the records of the Society were false and fabricated, and nowhere points to the involvement of accused Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) or any other accused into the said fabrication or falsity of the records.
369. Reading their testimonies in entirety it no where reflects anything incriminating against accused A-7 qua the alleged forgery so committed thereto.
370. Accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) was not even the office bearer of the Society, in terms of the case so put up by the prosecution, when the forged resignations of 12 Promoter members were accepted at that time.
371. Further, there is absolutely no material on record to connect Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) with accused Srichand (A-1), from whom the prosecution claims that he took over the Society, or whether in fact they had ever met or even known to each other. Except the bald assertions the case of the prosecution CBI Case No. 218/19 137 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) is completely hollow in that regard.
372. Taking up next the arguments of learned PP, in terms of the statement of PW-36, PW-37, PW-38 to PW-47, PW-73 & PW-85, that he had inducted new members to the Society in furtherance of the conspiracy, but relevant to note is the fact that A-7 himself is not disputing the said fact of inducting the new member in the Society.
373. It is his defence that he was handling the affairs of the Society post-March-2003 and had inducted new members, but there was no illegality in it and all the applications and the affidavits of the members which were submitted by the said members were genuine and processed as per rules ; and prior to that, he had no knowledge about the records of the Society, if at all, they were manipulated or fabricated by any person.
374. Aforesaid witnesses have also not disputed the factum of their taking the membership of the Society through accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7).
375. Enrollment of new members to the Society above and over the freeze list cannot per se be said to be an illegal act.
376. During the arguments, a Circular dated 23.06.1996 issued by the RCS Office was also produced before the Court by the defence counsel in support of their submissions.
377. In terms of the said circular dated 23.06.1996 the minimum membership of a Society is prescribed that of 60 and maximum to the extent of 300, for the Group Housing Societies registered since 1983. Thereby, increasing the strength of the CBI Case No. 218/19 138 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) members of the Society herein i.e. above 120 members of freeze list, cannot by itself said to be an illegal act.
378. Further, the reliance of the prosecution on Rule 24(2) of the DCS Act, 1972, notified on 22.04.1997, is also of no assistance to their case.
In terms of Clause (2) Rule 24 :
"2. In case of vacancy in a housing society including group housing society where layout and building plans have been approved by the competent authority, the same shall be filled by the committee by notifying It in leading daily newspaper of Delhi in Hindi and English. In case the number of applications are more than the notified vacancies the membership shall be finalised through draw of lot in the presence of authorised representative of the Registrar."
379. In the present case undisputably the land was not allotted to the Society concerned and the question of approval of lay outs and building plans thereby does not arise, and the provisions of the said Section are not applicable to the case at hand.
380. The act of inducting new members to the Society in the anticipation of the allotment of land subsequently by the DDA, presumably shows, at the best, the 'Preparation' for accepting resignation of original members in future. Whether it would be a forged resignation(s) or the genuine ones, it is a hypothetical presumption based on surmises and conjunctures.
381. Ms. Satbir Kaur has been cited and thereafter CBI Case No. 218/19 139 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) examined as a Prosecution witness (PW-8), whereas her role somewhat appears to be on a similar footing to that of accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal. Besides that she seems to be an interested witness and unreliable witness.
382. She stated that she had also issued share certificates to the newly inducted members of the Society, many of whom had also taken their membership through her (PW-8).
383. PW-8 appears to be making a false statement regarding the Share Certificates, wherein she claimed during her examination in chief, as per her convenience to suit/favour her case, that she had issued Share Certificates allegedly under her signatures, while other Share Certificate which also appears to have been issued by her under her signatures are denied by her apparently to wriggle out of any criminal consequences.
384. Interestingly, during cross-examination she was confronted with the counterfoil of the Share Certificates she changed her version to admit the signatures, citing unconvincing reason that she was not wearing her spectacles and therefore was not able to see clearly.
385. In her cross-examination she admits that she had visited the bank alongwith Ms. Rachna Gangulay for the official work of the Society, in contradiction to her earlier stand that she was not aware if Ms. Rachna Gangulay was made the President of the Society and the fact that she had told the IO that she had met Ms. Rachna Gangulay at the house of accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7). Therefore the testimony of this witness does not appears to be worthy of credit.
CBI Case No. 218/19 140 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
386. Nextly, as already observed herein above, the GEQD report is of not much relevance in the given facts of the case as noted above.
387. But just for reference, it also otherwise supports the defence put up by accused A-8 that he had no knowledge about the falsity of the records or the audit report, if any, submitted to the RCS office and that someone else had forged his signatures thereto, wherein it has been opined by the expert that the disputed signatures purported in his name does not match with his specimen signatures in terms of Clause (iii) of the opinion Ex PW88/A, a report primarily relied upon by the prosecution itself.
388. The purported signatures of accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) on the audit reports appears to have been forged by someone else. But by whom ?
389. - There is no evidence in that regard. Certainly, not by any of the accused persons facing the trial herein, as no opinion was expressed by the GEQD Expert in that regard.
390. Further, it was stated that A-7 was operating the account bearing no. 49025 with Punjab National Bank of the Society as a Secretary, wherein cheques were issued and deposited relating to the members enrolled during the year 2003- 2005 and therefore, it was contended by the Prosecution that he was aware about the bogus list of 120 members of the Society, which shows that he was also part of the conspiracy so hatched.
391. I do not concur with the submissions so advanced by the learned PP.
CBI Case No. 218/19 141 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
392. The factum of the opening and operation of the bank account of the Society is not disputed by the accused and nor the fact of inducting the new members in the Society ( as noted earlier ).
393. But the fact remains, neither there are allegations nor is there any evidence for that matter to show that the account of the Society was operated in malafide and dishonest manner. There are no imputations of any illegality in the operation of the bank account of the Society.
394. Thus, in the light of my above discussion, accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) is also entitled to be acquitted of the charges, so framed.
FAULTY INVESTIGATION :-
395. Prejudices the case of the accused persons especially accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) and accused Roop Rao (A-9).
396. The IO seems to have completely botched up the investigation by carrying out it in a very unprofessional, callous and biased manner without making any efforts to bring forth the entire true facts of the case crime and/or the persons involved thereto or acquainted with the facts of the case.
397. With respect to Ms. Rachna Gangulay, the then President of the Society, there is absolutely no investigation whatsoever, even though her role appears to be much more than A-8 in the entire gamut of facts concerning the affairs of the Society post March, 2003.
CBI Case No. 218/19 142 of 146
CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
398. Next, neither the original records nor the
photocopies of the proceedings of the register post-march, 2003 have been seized by the IO to show the true picture of the affairs of the Society or the actual proceedings so carried out during that time despite the fact that the witnesses namely PW-8, 10, 36, 37, 39, PW-42 to PW-47, PW-73 and PW-85 deposed that they had taken membership through Sh Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7), and some of them (PW-73 and PW-85) produced the Share certificate on being handed over by A-7, while others ( PW-44 and PW-46 ) stated that office of the Society was run from his residence, a fact not denied by A-7 himself.
399. The original records of the Society were never seized, nor the said point was ever investigated by the IO, from its original members nor from its subsequent alleged office bearers. Why and for what reasons or explanation is forthcoming.
400. No efforts appears to have been made by the IO to trace the record to show the status of original records of the Society, or as to who actually was in the custody of the same, from the time of its inception i.e. from the year 1971 till the time the Society was allegedly functioning - when the case was registered in the year, 2005.
401. As noted above, Ms. Rachna Gangulay was President of the Society and had actively participated in managing the affairs of the Society post-March, 2003 in every sphere but no inquiries were made from her during investigations to bring forth the true facts about the persons involved into the CBI Case No. 218/19 143 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS) affairs of the Society, whereabout of its original records, if any, and whether they were into her custody, and about her own role into the case at hand.
402. Further, during cross-examination IO admitted to the fact that he never made inquiries from other members of the Management Committee namely Ms. Monica Sharma, Ms Usha Rani and Sh. Ramesh Kumar, who had also allegedly attended the meeting of the Society on 17.11.2002 and 05.01.2003 as its office bearers, regarding the meetings if they had taken place ; or who all had attended it being its office bearers, if at all ; or who was managing the affairs of the Society at the relevant time.
403. Their examination would have certainly given clear picture of all the persons involved into the fabrication of the records and / or said meetings of the Society.
404. There is absolutely no investigation on these aspects which I would say seriously prejudice the case of the accused persons qua their involvement and role into the case crime, and it fails to bring out true facts of the case at hand and other persons involved thereto before the court, and to appreciate the evidence so adduced by the prosecution.
Other arguments :
405. It was also argued by learned PP that the accused persons namely Srichand (A-1) and Anna Wankhede (A-2) have also been convicted in some other cases on the similar allegations regarding reviving of Group Housing Societies on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
CBI Case No. 218/19 144 of 146 CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
406. But I must state that each and every case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and decided on the basis of the evidence so adduced against the accused persons in each case. Holding a person guilty in one case does not lead to any inference that he has committed each and every subsequent offence of similar nature, in which he is made an accused, in absence of cogent evidence in that regard. It is a fundamental principal of criminal jurisprudence.
407. So far as question of Sanction to prosecute accused Narain Diwakar, in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C read with Section 19 of the P.C.Act, is required or not, the same is not gone into in view of the fact that he has been acquitted of all the charges framed against him as the prosecution has failed to prove any cogent evidence against him.
DECISION:-
408. Having regard to the above detailed discussion and the conclusion arrived at, the accused
(i) Accused Srichand (A-1), Anna Wankhede (A-2), Narain Diwakar (A-5), Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6), Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7), P.K. Thirwani (A-8) and Roop Rao (A-9) stands acquitted u/s 120-B r/w 420, 471 r/w Section 468 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d)of PC Act 1988.
(ii) Accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal (A-7) and accused Roop Rao (A-9) stands acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 420 r/w Section 511 IPC and Section 471 IPC r/w Section 468 IPC.
(iii) Accused Niranjan Singh (A-3) and Jitender Sharma
CBI Case No. 218/19 145 of 146
CBI vs. Srichand etc (Navyug CGHS)
(A-4) had expired during the trial and proceedings against them stands abated accordingly.
(iv) Accused Narain Diwakar (A-5), Gopal Singh Bisht (A-6), and P.K. Thirwani (A-8) stands acquitted u/s 15 r/w Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d)of PC Act 1988.
409. The bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled. Sureties are discharged.
Digitally signed by Announced in the open court on this 31st Day of October, 2023.
ANIL ANIL ANTIL
Date:
ANTIL 2023.11.03
11:43:59
(ANIL ANTIL)
+0530
SPL. JUDGE (PC ACT): CBI-15
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT
NEW DELHI/31.10.2023
CBI Case No. 218/19 146 of 146