Delhi District Court
Cc No.134/13 - Cbi vs . Mohd. Ahmed & Ors on 15 July, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-08 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CC No. : 134/2013
RC No. : SID 2006 E002
PS : CBI/EOU-VI/New Delhi
U/s : 120B r/w 465, 218 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
PC Act 1988 and substantive offences thereof.
Unique ID No. 02401R1087542008
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
1. Mohd. Ahmed
S/o Shri Ashfaq Ahmed,
R/o K-22C, LIG Flats, Sheikh Sarai Phase-II, New Delhi.
2. Sameer Mahajan
Director of M/s Mahakali Capital Investments Services
S/o Shri Subhash Chander Mahajan,
R/o 63-C, MIG Flats, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
3. Chander Mohan Mahajan (since deceased)
Director of M/s Mahakali Capital Investments Services
S/o Late Shri Puran Chand Mahajan,
R/o C-43, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
4. Gurinder Pal Singh
S/o Late Sardar Manohar Singh,
R/o 7/48, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi - 110026.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors
2
5. Arjminder Pal Singh
S/o Late Sardar Manohar Singh,
R/o 7/48, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi - 110026.
6. Manjeet Singh
S/o Sardar Satnam Singh
R/o 29/41, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi - 110026.
Date of FIR : 10.10.2006
Date of Institution : 13.08.2008
Arguments concluded on : 14.07.2014
Date of Judgement : 15.07.2014
JUDGEMENT
1. As per case of prosecution, a Preliminary Enquiry No. PE SID 2006 E 002 was registered in CBI on 10.05.06 against Shri Vijay Kadyan, the then Executive Engineer, West Zone, MCD, Rajouri Garden on the basis of directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 4582/2003 (Kalyan Sansthan Social Welfare Association Vs. Union of India & Others) relating to allegations of misconduct, as large number of unauthorized constructions took place in Municipal West Zone of MCD on account of nexus within hierarchy in Engineering Department, builders as well as their political bosses. The said enquiry was conducted by Shri S.K. Peshin and on the basis of findings during Preliminary Enquiry, FIR (Ex.PW30/A) u/s 120B, 193 IPC, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 was registered against Shri Vinod Kumar, AE, Shri A.P. Sharma, AE, Mohd. Ahmed, JE and owners of properties bearing no.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 3 J-117, Rajouri Garden, Z-6, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and A-5, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The case was further marked for investigation to Inspector K.S. Lohchab (PW30). It may be further observed at this stage itself that separate chargesheets were filed by CBI in respect of cases pertaining to J-117, Rajouri Garden (i.e present case bearing CC No.134/13) and A-5 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi (i.e. CC No.133/13). No other officer from MCD except Mohd. Ahmed, JE alongwith owners of the respective properties have been arrayed as accused in respective chargesheets though Shri Vinod Kumar, AE, Shri A.P. Sharma, AE were named in the FIR and the Preliminary Enquiry itself was registered against Shri Vijay Kadyan, EE, MCD, West Zone Rajouri Garden.
2. In brief, the contents of FIR which was registered on the basis of Preliminary Enquiry conducted by Shri S.K. Peshin may be noticed which forms the foundation of the investigation and chargesheet.
As per FIR, during course of enquiry it was revealed that Shri Vinod Kumar, the then AE, MCD West Zone in conspiracy with Shri A.P. Sharma, AE and Mohd. Ahmed, JE, MCD West Zone during the period from February 2003 to September 2004 abused their official position as public servants and caused pecuniary advantage either to themselves or to the owners of the properties by not taking any action for demolition in respect of unauthorized construction carried by the owners of property no. J-117, Rajouri Garden, Z-6, Rajouri Garden and A-5 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
It is further alleged in FIR with reference to present chargesheet CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 4 (CC No.134/13) that Vinod Kumar, AE on the basis of report dated 09.07.03 submitted by Mohd. Ahmed, JE ordered for the demolition of unauthorized construction carried out at J117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on 09.07.03 as per policy of the department on account of the failure on the part of the owner/builder of the said building to respond to the show cause notice dated 24.06.03 and demolition notice dated 01.07.03. However, in furtherance of the conspiracy Mohd. Ahmed, JE did not demolish the unauthorized construction at J117, Rajouri Garden on 10.07.03, 29.07.03 and 22.08.03 and submitted a false report as a token of having carried out partial demolition of the unauthorized construction in respect of room and mumty of a room at the third floor of the said property on 28.08.03 with assistance of police force. Further, this false report was submitted with a dishonest intention to save the said property from demolition. It was also revealed that on the said date, the demolition was carried out at J140 Rajouri Gardena and not at J117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Shri Vinod Kumar to whom the said report was marked, directed to "try again" but no demolition after 28.08.03 was carried out in the property.
It is further alleged in FIR with reference to CC No.133/13 that property no. A5 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi was booked under no. 65/03 on 10.02.03 by Mohd. Ahmed, JE for having carried deviation/excess coverage against the SBP at basement, GF, FF and SF in the rear. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued by Shri A.P. Sharma to the owner on 10.02.03 and he also approved issue of demolition order on the owner on 18.02.03. Enquiry further revealed that vide order CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 5 dated 26.02.03 based on the report of Mohd. Ahmed, JE the unauthorized construction was ordered to be demolished. However, in furtherance of the conspiracy between A.P. Sharma and Mohd. Ahmed with the purpose of causing pecuniary advantage either to themselves or to the owner of the said building i.e. A5 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, the said demolition in respect of unauthorized construction was not carried out on 03.05.03 on account of non availability of force. Enquiry further revealed that Mohd. Ahmed in furtherance of conspiracy fabricated records showing demolition with the help of the police force at the said property in respect of roof and SF in the rear set back and demolition of two partition walls with the help of police force and no bill for demolition charges was raised.
As such, the FIR was registered on the basis of aforesaid enquiry proceedings for commission of offences punishable under Section 120B, 193 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act 1988 against Vinod Kumar, AE, A.P. Sharma, AE and Mohd. Ahmed, JE.
The facts relating to Z6 Rajouri Garden in FIR are not being adverted to since the same are not relevant for the disposal of chargesheets investigated in respect of J117 Rajouri Garden and A5 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
3. In the aforesaid background, on registration of RC (FIR) by CBI, the case was further investigated by PW30 Inspector K.S. Lohchab and chargesheet was filed u/s 173 Cr.P.C.
In nutshell, the case of prosecution on investigation, is that, accused Mohd. Ahmed (A-1) while acting in the capacity of a public CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 6 servant and functioning as Junior Engineer (Bldgs.) in the office of Executive Engineers (Bldgs.) West Zone Area of Municipal Corporation of Delhi during the period 2003-04 was responsible and duty bound to demolish all the unauthorized constructions which came to his notice in the various wards of West Zone of MCD, Delhi, for which he had to obtain the orders of Assistant Engineer (Buldg.) Department after carrying out the various formalities by way of issuing show cause notices and demolition notices as stipulated u/s 343 and 344 of DMC Act, 1957. Further, in his capacity as Junior Engineer, West Zone, MCD, he was overall incharge of various construction activities falling within the jurisdiction of ward No. 124 of MCD, West Zone, which also included Rajouri Garden area.
It is alleged that residential property located at J-117, Rajouri Garden measuring about 313 Sq Yds, duly constructed upto FF was owned by Sh. Gurcharan Singh (PW28). The same was sold in three equal vertical portions to three different buyers namely accused Manjeet Singh (A-6); accused Gurinder Pal Singh (A-4) jointly with accused Arjminder Pal Singh (A-5) on 26.03.2003 and M/s Mahakali Capital Investment Services Pvt. Ltd (through its Director accused Sameer Mahajan (A-2) on 13.03.2003. It is further alleged that after sale, three portions were constructed upto second floor on aforesaid property.
It is further the case of prosecution that accused Gurinder Pal Singh (A-4) jointly with accused Arjminder Pal Singh (A-5) and M/s Mahakali Capital Investment Services Pvt. Ltd sold their two-third portions in the said property to Shri Nishipal Singh Bhatia on CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 7 29.08.2006 and 13.04.2004 respectively. The owner of remaining one third portion accused Manjeet Singh (A-6) sold his portion to Shri Mohan Lal Anand on 17.11.2003.
It is further alleged that the property was booked by Mohd. Ahmed, JE (MCD) vide FIR No. B/UC/WZ/03/370 on 24.06.03 (Ex.PW9/1) for unauthorized construction at GF, FF, SF and unauthorized construction of one room and mumty at third floor. A show cause notice dated 24.06.2003 u/s 344(1) & 343 DMC Act (Ex.PW9/2) was issued under signatures of Shri Vinod Kumar, AE to the owner/builder of the property no. J-117, Rajouri Garden and the same was served by way of affixation on 25.06.2003 by Sh. Mohd. Ahmed, JE (A-1). Since, no response to the aforesaid notice was received, a notice u/s 343 DMC Act dated 01.07.03 (Ex.PW9/5) was further served to the owner/builder of the property by way of affixation on 02.07.03 to demolish the unauthorized construction within a period of six days. The same was affixed by Mohd. Ahmed, JE on 02.07.03 in presence of baildar Ramesh and Balbir. Since no response was received to aforesaid notices, Mohd. Ahmed, JE (A-1) put up a note recommending for issuance of demolition order in respect of the construction carried without any sanctioned building plan, vide his note dated 9.7.2003 and the same was approved by Sh. Vinod Kumar, the then AE on 9.7.2003. The demolition order dated 09.07.03 (Ex.PW9/7) was accordingly passed.
It is further the case of prosecution that demolition action could not be taken in the property as per notings made by Mohd. Ahmed, JE which were endorsed by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE due to shortage of CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 8 time on 10.07.2003, 29.07.2003 and on 22.08.2003. Further, a demolition programme was fixed on 28.08.2003 in the area of Rajouri Garden in the monthly demolition programme for August, 2003 by Shri Vijay Kadyan, the then EE(B) MCD, West Zone, Rajouri Garden area and a request was made to police authorities for rendering police protection at the time of demolition. Thereafter, on 28.08.2003, Mohd. Ahmed, JE (A-1) visited Police Station Rajouri Garden for getting assistance of police force from the police station and accordingly a police party headed by ASI, Tara Chand, Head Ct. Rajbir Singh, Hd. Ct. Shri Narayan with subordinate staff was deputed to assist accused Mohd. Ahmed (A-1) in carrying out demolition of unauthorized properties propertied in, Rajouri Garden area of New Delhi.
It is alleged that Mohd. Ahmed, JE (A-1) had taken demolition action at J-140, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on 28.8.2003 but did not proceed to take demolition action at J-117, Rajouri Garden. It is further the case of prosecution that ASI Tarachand after returning from the spot, got recorded DD No.37B in the Daily Diary of PS Rajouri Garden, mentioning therein that demolition action had been carried out peacefully at J-140, Rajouri Garden on 28.8.2003. However, the DD entry 37B did not reflect that the demolition action had been carried at J-117, Rajouri Garden by Mohd. Ahmed, JE (A-1). As such, the case of prosecution is that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy hatched with the aforesaid owners of J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi [namely, M/s Mahakali Capital Investments Services Pvt Ltd {through its directors accused Sameer Mahajan (A-2) & accused CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 9 Chander Mohan Mahajan (A-3)}, accused Gurinder Pal Singh (A-4) jointly with accused Arjminder Pal Singh (A-5) and accused Manjeet Singh (A-6)] a false entry was made by Mohd. Ahmed, JE in the Unauthorized Construction file and Demolition Register reflecting to have carried partial demolition action at J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
It is further the case of prosecution that Shri Vinod Kumar, AE believing the report of accused Mohd. Ahmed (A-1) in good faith further endorsed on noting made by Mohd. Ahmed, JE to "try again"
under his signatures dated 28.08.03.
It is further alleged that Mohd. Ahmed, JE (A-1) did not receive the Unauthorized Construction file of J-117 Rajouri Garden on 28.08.03 as no entry was reflected in the File Movement Register. Further, there was no mention of the property having been demolished in the monthly Action Taken Report for the month of August 2003 which was sent to SE (Build), DC West Zone and DC Zone MCD Hqrs. by EE, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi though the report reflected that the unauthorized construction in J-140, Rajouri Garden had been carried out in the month of August, 2003. Also, no demolition charges are alleged to have been claimed from the owners of the said property since no entry was found in Demolition Charge Claim Register. Further, the Missalband Register maintained at MCD Office, Rajouri Garden did not carry remark that the property no. J-117, Rajouri Garden was partly demolished on 28.08.2003.
It is pertinent to observe that in the chargesheet, it has been CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 10 further observed by the Investigating Agency that evidence did not disclose any role on the part of Vinod Kumar, AE and it came to light that Vinod Kumar, AE at the time of issuing directions for making another attempt had believed in good faith the version of partial demolition put forward in the concerned UC file by Mohd. Ahmed, JE and as such no ulterior motives could be attached to him.
4. Charge was framed against the accused by the ld. Predecessor on 22.05.12 under Section 218 r/w 120B IPC; and 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 120B IPC r/w 465 IPC. Accused Mohd. Ahmed, JE was further charged for the substantive offences under Section 465, 218 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of PC Act, 1988. It may be noticed that accused Chander Mohan Mahajan who was one of the Directors of M/s Mahakali Capital Investments Services Pvt. Ltd., expired during the course of proceedings.
5. In support of its case prosecution examined 30 witnesses namely:
(i) PW1 Constable Kanwal Singh
(ii) PW2 Naresh Kumar
(iii) PW3 ASI Baljeet Singh
(iv) PW4 SI Tara Chand
(v) PW5 Ct. Satpal
(vi) PW6 HC Pappu Ram CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 11
(vii) PW7 ASI Srinarayan
(viii)PW8 HC Balvinder Singh
(ix) PW9 Moti Lal Sharma, OI(B), MCD
(x) PW10 Manoj Verma, MCD
(xi) PW11 Vikas Anand
(xii) PW12 Ashish Sharma, MCD
(xiii)PW13 Anil Kalra, MCD
(xiv)PW14 Mukhwant Singh, MCD
(xv) PW15 Yash Pal, Sub-Registrar Office (xvi) PW16 Naveen Garg, MCD (xvii) PW17 Gurcharan Singh Sachdeva, Architect (xviii)PW18 Bikramjit Singh, MCD (xix) PW19 Komal Prasad Sharma, MCD (xx) PW20 R.S. Madan, Sub-Registrar (xxi) PW21 Gaje Singh, MCD (xxii) PW22 Nand Kishore, MCD (xxiii) PW23 R.K. Joshi, OI(B), MCD (xxiv) PW24 Inder Pratap Singh Walia (xxv) PW25 HC Devi Sahay (xxvi) PW26 Sri Kishan (Retired SI) (xxvii) PW27 Gautam Chand, AE, MCD (xxviii)PW28 Gurcharan Singh (xxix) PW29 Ct. Lalit Kumar (xxx) PW30 DSP K.S. Lohchab (IO)
(a) PW30 DSP K.S. Lohchab stated that he was posted in CBI CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 12 EOU-VIII New Delhi during October 2006 as Inspector and the Preliminary Enquiry in this case was conducted on the basis of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) 4582/2003 Kalyan Sansthan Social Welfare Association vs. Union of India and Others. Further, the Preliminary Enquiry was conducted by Sh.
S.K. Peshin, the then DSP on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW30/A (D1) was registered. He further stated that vide present RC, property no.
J117 Rajouri Garden and property no. A5 Kirti Nagar were investigated and separate chargesheets have been filed in respect of both the properties.
He proved the following documents:
● Letter dated 17.10.06 (Ex.PW30/B2) (D2) to Dy. Commissioner West Zone MCD Rajouri Garden requesting therein for furnishing various documents which bears his signatures at point A. ● Production-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW23/A which bears his signatures at point B and signatures of R.K. Joshi at point A ● Letter dated 17.10.06 (Ex.PW30/C) (D4) to Vigilance Officer, MCD Town Hall, New Delhi for constituting a committee of Engineers for preparation of plan showing the present status of the buildings bearing no. A5 Kirti Nagar, J117 Rajouri Garden and Z6 Rajouri Garden ● Letter dated 20.04.07 (Ex.PW30/D) received from EE (B) (HQs), MCD Town Hall Delhi addressed to SP CBI EOU-VII New Delhi enclosing therewith existing building plan (Ex.PW17/1) of the CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 13 properties J117 and Z6 Rajouri Garden ● Letter dated 19.10.06 (Ex.PW30/E) to DCP West Zone, Delhi Police requesting for furnishing the certified copy of general diaries of various dates from PS Rajouri Garden and PS Kirti Nagar and also certified copy of Demolition Register maintained at PS Rajouri Garden and PS Kirti Nagar.
● Production-cum-seizure memo dated 02.02.07 (Ex.PW23/D) vide which he seized documents from Shri Rajender Kumar Joshi, OI(B), West Zone.
● Letter dated 29.01.07 (Ex.PW30/F) issued under the signatures of Shri S.K. Peshin, the then SP CBI EOU-VIII New Delhi to the Assessor and Collector, West Zone, MCD Rajouri Garden New Delhi vide which the house tax assessment filed in respect of the properties i.e. J117 Rajouri Garden, Z6 Rajouri Garden and A5 Kirti Nagar were requested to be furnished.
● Letter dated 27.02.07 (Ex.PW13/1) addressed to S.P. CBI EOU- VIII New Delhi was received from the Assessor and Collector, West Zone, MCD Rajouri Garden New Delhi vide which the house tax assessment filed in respect of the properties i.e. J117 Rajouri Garden, Z6 Rajouri Garden and A5 Kirti Nagar were furnished. ● Production-cum-seizure memo dated 06.12.06 (Ex.PW23/B) vide which he had seized documents from Rajender Kumar Joshi, OI(B), West Zone.
● Production-cum-receipt memo dated 05.03.07 (Ex.PW22/A) vide which he had seized documents produced by Nand Kishore, Head Clerk/ZI (A&C) West Zone, Delhi.
● Letter dated 01.06.07 (Ex.PW30/G) issued under the signatures of Shri S.K. Peshin, the then SP CBI EOU-VIII New Delhi to the CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 14 Executive Engineer (B) (HQs), MCD Town Hall, Delhi for furnishing the report of the technical committee in respect of the properties i.e. J117 Rajouri Garden, Z6 Rajouri Garden and A5 Kirti Nagar.
● Technical report vide letter dated 24.08.07 (Ex.PW18/1) by Executive Engineer enclosing therewith technical report in respect of J117 Rajouri Garden (Ex.PW18/2), Z6 Rajouri Garden (Ex.PW19/A) and A5 Kirti Nagar (Ex.PW19/B). ● Letter dated 13.07.07 (Ex.PW30/H) (D14) issued under the signatures of Shri S.K. Peshin, the then SP CBI EOU-VIII New Delhi to the Executive Engineer (B), MCD West Zone for furnishing the unauthorized construction files in respect of different properties.
● Production-cum-seizure memo dated 06.08.07 (Ex.PW23/E) (D15) vide which he had seized documents from Shri Rajender Kumar Joshi, OI(B), Wes Zone, MCD, New Delhi.
● Letter dated 17.08.07 (Ex.PW30/I) (D16) issued under the signatures of Shri S.K. Peshin, the then SP CBI EOU-VIII New Delhi to the Executive Engineer (B), MCD West Zone for furnishing the documents i.e. missalband register, Demolition Register, list of property in which Hon'ble High Court passed the orders for demolition along with date of orders which were passed during the period January, 2003 to 31.12.2004. ● Production-cum-seizure memo dated 13.09.07 (Ex.PW23/F) (D17) vide which he had seized documents from Shri Rajender Kumar Joshi, OI(B) West Zone, MCD New Delhi.
● He further stated that vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/F at Srl. No.1 a report dated 12.09.07 (Ex.PW23/F1) was also produced which CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 15 mentioned that no building plan was sanctioned in respect of J117 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
● Receipt memo dated 12.04.07 (Ex.PW30/J) whereby documents were handed over to Inspector Narender Mahto, CBI by R.K. Joshi, OI(B) West Zone Rajouri Garden, New Delhi which included UC files pertaining to 15 different properties mentioned therein, daily Demolition Register, missalband register for the periods specified therein, original attendance registers of JEs for the periods specified therein, action taken report for the periods specified therein and Demolition Charge Registers (photocopies) and log book of vehicles for the periods specified therein. ● Notice under section 91 Cr.P.C. dated 27.08.07 (Ex.PW30/K) (D18) issued to the Sub-Registrar Division-II, Janakpuri, New Delhi for production of certified copies of the sale deeds relating to the sale of the property J117, Rajouri Garden, Z6 Rajouri Garden and A5 Kirti Nagar .
● Production-cum-receipt memo dated 07.09.07 (Ex.PW15/A) (D19) whereby he had seized documents on production by Shri Yash Pal, Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar-II, Janakpuri, New Delhi. ● Letter dated 07.09.07 (Ex.PW15/B) (D19-i) under the signatures of V.P. Jha, Sub-Registrar-II, Janakpuri thereby enclosing certified copies of sale deeds.
● Letter dated 26.06.08 (Ex.PW30/M) (D20) under the signatures of N.K. Prakash, Addl. Dy. Commissioner (HQs) addressed to SP CBI thereby enclosing monthly action taken report of August, 2003 and April 2004.
● Letter dated 08.10.07 (Mark PW27/B1 to B9) under the signatures of EE (B) West Zone thereby furnishing tenure of AEs, JEs and CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 16 OI(B).
● Letter dated 06.11.07 (Ex.PW30/N) issued under the signatures of Shri S.K. Peshin, SP CBI addressed to Dy. Commissioner, MCD, Building Department, West Zone Rajouri Garden to ascertain as to who was duty bound to initiate proceedings for launching of prosecution for violation of the provisions u/s 461 DMC Act and what was the role to be played by JE and AE.
● Fax messages (Mark PW30/P1 to P6) (D26) regarding detail of wards and attached colonies Rajouri Garden, West Zone, from MCD West Zone marked to him by Shri S.K. Peshin, the then SP. ● Letter dated 03.11.06 (Ex.PW30/Q) (D27) under the signatures of Shri S.K. Peshin, the then SP CBI addressed to SE (B) Headquarter Town Hall Delhi, MCD, whereby files relating to sanction building plan in respect of Z6 Rajouri Garden, J117 Rajouri Garden and A105 Kirti Nagar were requested to be furnished and identified signatures of Shri S.K. Peshin at point A. He further stated that in response to the said letter, no file relating to sanctioned building plan pertaining to J117 Rajouri Garden was received. He also deposed that a report (Ex.PW23/F1) (D17-
i) from MCD West Zone Rajouri Garden was received in this regard informing therein that as per records, no building plan had been sanctioned in respect of J117 Rajouri Garden. ● Production-cum-seizure memo dated 05.03.07 (Ex.PW30/R) whereby he had seized documents from Shri R.K. Joshi, OI(B), West Zone, Rajouri Garden MCD.
● Production-cum-seizure memo dated 06.03.07 (Ex.PW25/A) (D29) whereby he had seized documents produced by Ct. Devi Sahai, 445, West PS Rajouri Garden.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 17 ● Production-cum-seizure memo dated 06.03.07 (Ex.PW29/A) (D30) vide which he had seized documents produced by Ct. Lalit Kumar, 1019, West, PS Rajouri Garden.
● Notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW20/C) (D31) issued to Sub-Registrar- I, Sub District-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi whereby certified true copy of sale deed executed by M/s DLF Universal Ltd. through its representative Sh. A.L. Bhatia in the favour of Smt. Kusum Verma in respect of plot no. 117 Block J, measuring 311 sq. yards, Rajouri Garden, Delhi and certified true copy of sale deed executed by Smt Kusum Verma in favour of Sh. Gurcharan Singh in respect of plot no.117 Block No.J meausring 311 sq. yards Rajouri Garden, Delhi were requested to be produced. He further stated that in response to this notice, letter dated 18.09.07 (Ex.PW20/A) (D32) was received by him under the signatures of Sh. R.S. Madan, Sub- Registrar-I along with certified true copy of sale deed executed by Sh. K.L. Bhatia in favour of Smt. Kusum Verma. Further, in respect of sale deed executed by Smt. Kusum Verma in favour of Gurcharan Singh in respect of J117 Rajouri Garden it was informed that the same was not traceable.
● He also stated that he had seized photocopy of letter no. D/170/EE (B)/HQ/2007 dated 1.3.07 of Supdt. Engineer (B) HQs addressed to Sh. G.S. Sachdeva, Architect produced by Gurcharan Singh Sachdeva vide production-cum-receipt memo dated 27.08.07 (Ex.PW17/2) (D33) which bears his signatures at point D. ● Letter dated 06.03.07 (Ex.PW30/S) (D34) to SHO PS Rajouri Garden whereby original rojnamchas and Demolition Register containing the entires mentioned in the letter were requested to be kept in safe custody and to produce the same whenever required CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 18 during the investigation and trial of the case. Further, letter dated 22.12.06 under the signatures of Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi (Ex.PW30/T) (D35) was received by him along with copies of DD entry and Demolition Register of PS Rajouri Garden.
He further stated that request was also made to supply the details of proceedings of prosecution launched by MCD West Zone for the year 2003-2004 and identified signatures of Shri S.K. Peshin at point A on Ex.PW30/N. He also deposed that letter dated 14.01.08 (Ex.PW30/O) (D35) under the signatures of Dy. Commissioner West Zone addressed to Sh. S.K. Peshin, the then SP CBI EOU-VIII, New Delhi was received thereby intimating that it was the duty and function of the area JE(B) concerned to initiate prosecution action if he finds that any provision of the DMC Act has been violated. It was also intimated in the aforesaid letter that prosecution may be undertaken under sections of the DMC Act such as section 332, 347 etc. Further, section 461 of the DMC Act, was a general section for prosecuting a person violating the provisions of the DMC Act, and should be read with other sections of DMC Act that were being violated. He further stated that list of the prosecution action decided CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 19 by the Hon'ble Court from 1.1.03 to 31.12.04 (Ex.PW30/O1 to O3) was also enclosed therewith.
He also stated that letter dated 08.07.08 (Ex.PW30/V) was issued under the signatures of Sh. S.K. Peshin, the then SP, CBI EOU-
VI New Delhi addressed to Registrar of Companies, Punjab, HP and Chandigarh whereby certified copy of Memorandum and Articles of Association of Mahakali Capital Investment Services Pvt. Ltd., certified copy of certificate of incorporation and certified copies of form 32 submitted by the company after registration of company with regard to change in the Director of Company were requested to be produced which bears signatures of Shri S.K. Peshin, the SP CBI at point A. Further, in response to same, a letter dated 10.07.08 (Ex.PW30/W) issued under the signatures of Assistant Official Liquidator addressed to Registrar of Company Jalandhar was received in the office, which was marked to him by the then SP Sh. S.K. Peshin whose signatures he identified at point A. He also stated that letter dated 12.09.08 (Ex.PW30/X) issued under the signatures of Dr. Raj Singh, Registrar of Companies, Punjab, HP and Chandigarh addressed to Sh. S.K. Peshin, SP CBI, whereby documents of Mahakali Capital Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. available in the office of Registrar of CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 20 Companies were received in the CBI office which bears signatures of Shri S.K. Peshin, the then SP CBI at point A. He further deposed that the certified copies of the aforesaid documents enclosed with aforesaid letter were certificate of incorporation (Ex.PW30/Y1), memorandum of association of Mahakali Capital Investment Services (Ex.PW30/Y2), Articles of Association (Ex.PW30/Y3) and extract of annual returns along with other documents referred at Srl. No.4 to 16 of letter Ex.PW30/X are collectively Ex.PW30/Y4.
He further deposed that the demolition action alleged to have been taken in the property in question by Mohd. Ahmed, JE was not corroborated and the entry had been fabricated in relevant records of MCD in conspiracy with other accused.
(b) PW2 Shri Naresh Kumar, the then Additional Commissioner (Engineering), MCD (i.e. the competent authority) accorded sanction for prosecution of accused Mohd. Ahmed, JE and proved the sanction order Ex.PW2/1.
(c) PW3 ASI Baljit Singh posted as ASI at PS Rajouri Garden in 2003 stated that on 22.08.03, he had gone to J Block Rajouri Garden New Delhi for demolition action with JE from MCD and outer force from battalions. Further, the demolition was carried at J157 and after CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 21 demolition action, photographs were taken and, thereafter, they returned to PS Rajouri Garden. It is further in his evidence that on aforesaid date, demolition was carried only at one place and he had made a departure/arrival entry in the Roznamcha on the date of demolition.
PW4 SI Tara Chand posted as ASI at PS Rajouri Garden stated that in August, 2003 an Inspector of MCD called Khan alongwith other officials including Mohd. Ahmed, JE had come at PS and he was deployed on duty with them for demolition action. Further, initially they were not disclosed as to where the demolition action was to be carried out and 20/22 police personnel proceeded to the spot where the demolition was to be carried. He further stated that demolition action was carried out probably at J140 Rajouri Garden from 10/11 a.m. till 4/5 p.m. Further, MCD personnel left after the demolition action and the police personnel returned to the police station where on return he had made an arrival entry.
He further stated that vide DD entry 17-B dated 28.08.2003 PS Rajouri Garden Ex.25/E (D-29), arrival and departure of Mohd. Ahmed, JE was recorded. Further, as per DD entry 37-B dated 28.08.2003 PS Rajouri Garden, New Delhi Ex.25/D (D-29), demolition action was taken under the supervision of JE Mohd. Ahmed Khan peacefully. He further stated that on 28.08.2003 except for property no. J-140, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, he had not visited any other property with JE Mohd. Ahmed.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 22
(d) PW1 Constable Kanwal Singh, PW5 Satpal, PW6 HC Pappu Ram, PW7 ASI Srinarayan and PW8 HC Balvinder Singh are the police officials from 4th Battalion, DAP who were deployed on 28.08.03 for demolition duty.
(e) PW25 HC Devi Sahay deposed that he was deputed as Record Mohrar on 6.3.07 at PS Rajouri Garden. He further stated that in case demolition action programme was to be carried by MCD, an information was usually received by Reader to SHO and police force was provided by the PS as requested by MCD on the date of demolition. He further proved production cum receipt memo dated 06.03.07 (Ex.PW25/A), vide which documents were handed over to CBI. He further stated that the documents produced were attested by the then SHO Shri V.K. Dham. He further proved attested copy of DD entry 29B dated 29.07.03 as Ex.PW25/B, DD entry 17B dated 29.07.03 as Ex.PW25/C, DD entry 37B dated 28.08.03 as Ex.PW25/D, DD entry 17B dated 28.08.03 as Ex.PW25/E, DD entry 20B dated 22.08.03 as Ex.PW25/F, DD entry 15B dated 22.08.03 as Ex.PW25/G, all of PS Rajouri Garden.
PW26 Sri Krishan (SI Retired) stated that during his tenure as SI at PS Rajouri Garden from April 2002 to February, 2005, if police force was required for demolition action by MCD a request letter was received by Reader to SHO from MCD and the record was maintained by him. He further stated that when the staff of MCD approaches the PS for providing police assistance, the entry is made in rojnamcha at PS and the staff from PS which is deputed for providing CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 23 the assistance also makes an entry in the rojnamcha and a similar entry is further made on return. Further, if any demolition action is taken, the entry in this regard is also made in the rojnamcha by the staff. He further stated that as per DD entry 17B dated 29.07.03 the name of the reporter in the entry is Mohd. Ahmed, JE/S.K. Arora, LI MCD West Zone, Kimti Lal, SO MCD West Zone. Further, as per DD register of PS Rajouri Garden, there was no DD entry reflecting demolition action at J117 Rajouri Garden on 29.07.03.
PW29 Ct. Lalit Kumar stated that on 6.3.07 he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as Reader to SHO. He further proved production- cum-seizure memo dated 6.3.07 Ex.PW29/A, whereby the documents mentioned therein were produced before Insp. K.S. Lohchab, CBI and he had handed over attested photocopy of Demolition Register for the month of August, 2003, July 2004 and November 2004. He further stated that the photocopy of Demolition Register for the month of August 2003 (Ex.PW29/B) had been attested by Insp. V.K. Dham, the then SHO PS Rajouri Garden.
He also stated that the entry with reference to 28.08.03 at srl. No.7 of Ex.PW29/B was made prior to his posting at PS Rajouri Garden since he was posted in the year 2005.
(f) PW9 Shri Moti Lal Sharma, OI(B), West Zone, MCD stated that he remained posted as OI(B), West Zone, MCD during the period 2002 to 2004 and his duties included maintenance of the record i.e. Unauthorized Construction Files, Missalband Register, Sealing Files and Demolition Register, Court Case Files, Demolition Charges CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 24 Register and File Movement Register. The U/C Files used to be maintained in relation to Unauthorized Constructions.
He further stated that on detection of unauthorized construction, JE registers the FIR and puts up the same before the AE who orders the issuance of notices. Further, the entry was made in the Missalband Register of the booking of Unauthorized Construction. Thereafter, the AE passes the Demolition Order and the file used to be marked to him {OI(B)}. Also, an entry was made in the Demolition Register after the demolition of the unauthorized construction.
He further stated that a File Movement Register was maintained for movement of files which was in his custody. Further, the Executive Engineer and the Deputy Commissioner used to prepare a demolition plan and a complete monthly report of booking, sealing and demolition of unauthorized construction was sent by way of 'action taken report' to the headquarters each month.
He also stated that after demolition order was passed, the file used to be in his custody and from time to time the JE took the U/C file to take demolition action. Further, when the JE took the file for demolition action, an entry was made in the movement register.
He further stated that the Executive Engineer used to prepare the demolition programme in the last week of a month and used to fix the priority of a demolition programme.
He further clarified that JE used to give a report about the time consumed in the demolition action and the rate per hour for which the demolition charges were to be claimed and the report was given to the AE. Further, a letter was sent by the office to the concerned party and CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 25 also to the house tax department for effecting recovery of the demolition charges.
He further stated that FIR Ex.PW9/1 [D-3(1)] registered in relation to booking of unauthorized construction at property no. J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 is in the handwriting of accused no.1 Mohd. Ahmed and bears his signatures at point A. Further, a notice was issued to the owner and carbon copy of that notice Ex.PW9/2 bears the signatures of Mr. Vinod Kumar, AE at point A. He also proved the handwriting at portions B to B-1, C to C-1 and D to D-1 on Ex.PW9/2 as of Mohd. Ahmed.
He further proved the handwriting and signatures of Shri Mohd. Ahmed, JE and Shri Vinod Kumar, AE on the notices issued to the owner/builder under Section 344 dated 24.06.03 (Ex.PW9/3) and notice u/s 343 DMC Act dated 1.7.03 (Ex.PW9/5).
He further stated that the request of demolition order at page 7 bears the signatures of the JE Mohd. Ahmed at point A on Ex.PW9/7 and the order of demolition was in the handwriting of the AE Vinod Kumar at portions B to B-1 thereon with his signatures at point C. He further proved the notings on the aforesaid demolition order at portions at points D to D-1, E to E-1, F to F-1 with signatures at point G, H and I in the handwriting and signatures of Mohd. Ahmed JE and the portions at point J to J-1, K to K-1, L to L-1 with signatures at point M, N and O in the handwriting and signatures of AE Vinod Kumar. He further stated that portions at Z to Z-1 of Ex.PW 2/2 (i.e. noting dated 28.08.03 at back of demolition order) was in the handwriting of Mohd. Ahmed JE. Further, thereupon it was endorsed CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 26 "try again" in the handwriting of Vinod Kumar AE on Ex.PW2/2.
He further clarified that after an entry is made in the Demolition Register of demolition carried out, the demolition charges are to be recovered from the owner/builder by the office. Further, JE makes the calculation of the demolition charges to be claimed which are approved by the AE. He further proved the entries in the demolition charges register [D3(2)] from Srl. No. 34(page 7.Z) till the last entry No. 297 (pages 71 to 72) at point Z-1 on Ex.PW9/8 colly to be in his handwriting. He further stated that as per the Demolition Charge Register D-3(2) Ex.PW 9/9, there is no entry mentioning the demolition charges in relation to property number J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
He further stated that the Demolition Charge Register Ex.PW9/9 was in his custody on 28.8.2003. He further clarified that as per Ex. PW 9/9, the demolition charges register D-3(2), demolition charges were claimed in relation to demolition carried out on 28.08.2003 vide entry at Srl.No. 202 at points G to G-1 (pages 49 to
50) on Ex.PW 9/8 Colly in relation to demolition carried out at J-140, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Further, as per pages 49 to 50 of Ex.PW 9/9 and Demolition Charge Register Ex.PW9/9, there are no demolition charges claimed in respect of any other property in relation to demolition carried out on 28.08.2003, other than J-140, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
He further stated that in Demolition Register Ex.PW9/H, there is an entry dated 28.08.03 (Ex.PW9/I) in the handwriting of Shri Mohd. Ahmed, JE. Further, on 28.08.03, the demolition was fixed in CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 27 the area of PS Rajouri Garden as reflected on top of the aforesaid entry dated 28.08.03 in Demolition Register and as per entry made by Mohd. Ahmed, JE the demolition was carried at J140, Rajouri Garden and J117, Rajouri Garden.
He further stated that attested copy of demolition programme (Mark PW9/J) fixed for the month of August, 2003 (D28) bears the signatures of the then Executive Engineer Vijay Kadyan at point A and the then Deputy Commissioner, West Zone at point B. Further, as per the aforesaid programme (D28) for the month of August, 2003 the demolition programme on 28.08.03 was fixed for PS Rajouri Garden in Ward No.23-24.
He further stated that letter no.648/EE/B/WZ03 dated 09.07.03 (Mark PW9/K) issued by the Office of Executive Engineer (Building), West Zone, Rajouri Garden (Part of D8) bears signatures of Shri Vijay Kadyan, the then Executive Engineer at point A whereby the Junior Engineers (West Zone) were directed to attend the demolition duties during the month of August, 2003 on various dates against the ward no. and police station reflected therein. Further, as per Mark PW9/K, Mohd. Ahmed, JE was deputed for 28.08.03 to attend the demolition duties with respect to Ward No.23-24, PS Rajouri Garden.
He further stated that the entry with respect to FIR No.370 in respect of property no. J117, Rajouri Garden had been made at point X at serial no. 370 on Ex.PW9/L (Missalband Register). Further, the entry in the Missalband Register were in his handwriting at point X at serial no. 370. He also stated that there is entry with respect to issuance of demolition notice and demolition order under the relevant CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 28 columns at point X in respect of property no. J117, Rajouri Garden in Ex.PW9/L but there is no entry reflecting if the demolition action had been taken in the property.
He further stated that as per entry dated 28.08.03 in File Movement Register Ex.PW9/M which is in his handwriting at point X, the unauthorized construction files were handed over to the concerned JEs pertaining to "U/C file of property no.F19, Rajouri Garden, (2) sealing file of F19, Rajouri Garden to Mohd. Ahmed, JE". Further, file pertaining to property no.J117, Rajouri Garden was not handed over to JE Mohd. Ahmed on 28.08.03 or 27.08.03. Also, the photocopy of File Movement Register Ex.PW9/M bears signatures of Shri Mohd. Ahmed, JE at point X2 against entry dated 28.08.03 whereby file pertaining to F19, Rajouri Garden was received by him.
He further stated that letter no. 648/EE/B/WZ03 dated 09.07.03 Ex.PW9/K bears signatures of Shri Vijay Kadyan, the then Executive Engineer at point A. Further, the demolition action programme for the month of August, 2003 Ex.PW9/J bears signatures of Vijay Kadyan, the then Executive Engineer (B), West Zone dated 04.07.03 at point A and was countersigned by Shri K.D. Akolia, the then Deputy Commissioner, West Zone at point B. He further stated that attested photocopy of monthly Action Taken Report for the month of August, 2003 dated 03.09.03 consisting of 07 pages Ex.PW14/B {D7(2)} does not reflect if demolition action was taken in property no. J117, Rajouri Garden on 28.08.03.
(g) PW 14 Shri Mukhwant Singh deposed that he was given CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 29 additional charge of OI(B) in December, 2005 and further Moti Lal Sharma was his predecessor OI(B) and Shri R.K. Joshi was his successor from June, 2006 as OI(B). He further stated that as OI(B) he was custodian of the record which included Missalband Register, Unauthorized Construction Files and record relating to Building Department. He further deposed with reference to duties assigned to OI(B) and the procedure followed for booking of unauthorised construction and claim of demolition charges.
He further stated that Unauthorized Construction file in relation to property J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is Ex.PW9/1 to Ex.PW9/7 and Ex.PW2/2 D-3(8). Further, the Demolition Charge Register (Ex.PW9/9) is maintained by OI(B) and entries at page no. 49 & 50 at serial no. 200 to 207 (Ex.PW14/A colly) were in the handwriting of his predecessor OI(B) Moti Lal Sharma. He further stated that question mark on page 50 of Demolition Charge Register (Ex.PW14/A colly) at point X, X1 to X6 thereon had been put by the external audit department of MCD to ask why the letter for claiming demolition charges had not been issued.
He further deposed that a letter is sent by the Building Department to the owner of the building under signatures of AE for claiming the demolition charges. Further, OI(B) prepares that letter which is signed by the AE for claiming demolition charges from the owner of building. He also proved note dated 28.08.03 (Ex.PW2/2) in the Unauthorized Construction file to be in the handwriting and signatures of JE Mohd. Ahmed.
He further stated that the corresponding entry in relation to the CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 30 demolition carried is also to be made in the Missalband Register. Further, Movement Register was maintained to indicate movement of the Unauthorized Construction files and the Movement Register and Daily Demolition Register are maintained in the custody of OI(B).
He further stated that the Missalband Register was maintained by him during his posting as OI(B) West Zone, MCD Rajouri Garden (as additional charge) during 2004-05. Further, entry at Srl. No.370 with respect to FIR No.370 dated 24.06.03 in the Missalband Register (Ex.PW9/L) D-3(iii) pertaining to J 117 Rajouri Garden was in handwriting of Shri Moti Lal Sharma and there was no entry with respect to demolition action in property no. J117 Rajouri Garden at Srl. No.370 of Missalband Register at point X. He further stated that the Demolition Charge Register (Ex.PW9/9) D-II maintained by OI(B) for the period corresponding to his charge, did not contain entry claiming the demolition charges in respect of demolition, if any, carried out at J117 Rajouri Garden and the Demolition Register used to be remained in the custody of OI(B) in which the entries with respect to demolition were made by the concerned JE.
He further stated that entry dated 28.08.03 (Ex.PW9/I) in the Demolition Register was recorded in handwriting of Shri Mohd. Ahmed, JE along with signatures at point X. Further, entry dated 28.08.03 (Ex.PW9/I) at point Y reflecting the name of Shri Mohd. Ahmed and PS Rajouri Garden was in the handwriting of Moti Lal Sharma, OI(B).
He further stated that the demolition action taken report for the month of August 2003 dated 03.09.03 consisting of 7 pages placed on CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 31 record of this case (D7-II) (Ex.PW14/B) did not reflect the demolition action taken in J117, Rajouri Garden on 28.08.03 which bears the signatures of Vijay Kadyan, EE at point A. He further stated that the demolition order dated 09.07.03 (Ex.PW9/7) D-3 was passed in UC file no.B/UC/WZ/03/370 dated 24.06.03 pertaining to property no. J117 Rajouri Garden. Further, the entry dated 28.08.03 (Ex.PW2/2) on the demolition order, was recorded under the handwriting and signatures of Mohd. Ahmed JE and file was further endorsed to AE/OI(B). Further, AE concerned Shri Vinod Kumar under his signatures at point Z endorsed "Try again". He also clarified that there was no further entry in the UC file on the demolition order after 28.08.03.
He further stated that file movement register (Ex.9/M) D7(iii) was maintained by the OI(B) during his respective tenure. Further, entry dated 27.08.03 & 28.08.03 in file movement register were in the handwriting of Shri Moti Lal Sharma at point X indicating that on 27.08.03 or 28.08.03 UC file pertaining to J117, Rajouri Garden was not handed over to JE Mohd. Ahmed. He also stated that the date on which the demolition was fixed, the file used to be handed over to JE concerned by OI(B) and the entry was correspondingly made in the file movement register. Further, as per entry dated 28.08.03 in the file movement register, UC file pertaining to F19 Rajouri Garden was received by Mohd. Ahmed, JE and the UC file pertaining to property no. J117 Rajouri Garden was not received on 28.08.03 by the JE.
He further stated that demolition programme for the month of August, 2003 (Ex.PW9/J) bears signatures of Shri Vijay Kadyan, the CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 32 then EE (B) West Zone dated 4.7.03 at point A and countersigned by the then Dy. Commissioner West Zone at point B. He also deposed that noting dated 22.08.03 in UC file was under the signatures of Mohd. Ahmed, JE at point J and the file had been thereafter marked to AE(B) Shri Vinod Kumar who made the noting "try again" under his signatures. Further, as per noting dated 22.08.03 in UC file made by Mohd. Ahmed JE, action could not be taken due to shortage of time.
He further proved letter dated 09.07.03 (Ex.PW9/K) issued by Shri Vijay Kadyan, EE(B) whereby demolition action plan for the month of August, 2003 was fixed.
(h) PW23 Shri R.K. Joshi posted in the Building Department, West Zone, MCD in 2006 as Officer-in-Charge (Building) (OIB) proved various documents handed over to CBI during course of investigation. He proved seizure memo dated 26.10.06 (Ex.PW23/A) along with documents handed over vide aforesaid seizure memo bearing his signatures [i.e. FIR Ex.PW9/1{D3(I)} registered by MCD in respect of premises no. J117 Rajouri Garden dated 24.06.03, notice u/s 344 DMC Act dated 24.06.03 Ex.PW9/2 {D3(I)}, noting Ex.9/4 {D3(I)} made by JE /AE for issuing demolition notice, notice u/s 343 DMC Act Ex.PW9/5 {D3(I)}, noting dated 09.07.03 Ex.PW9/7 {D3(I)} whereby demolition orders were passed, the Demolition Register Ex.PW9/9- D3(2) bearing page no. 1 to 72 and D3(III) copy of Missalband Register consisting of 5 pages.
He further proved seizure memo dated 26.10.06 (Ex.PW23/A) CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 33 whereby he had handed over photocopies of 5 pages of Missalband Register Ex.PW9/L {D3(III)}, office order no. D/1115/EE(B)/WZ/04 dated 31.08.04 regarding distribution of areas/wards amongst the AEs and JEs and original Demolition Charge Register Ex.PW9/9 {D3(II)}. He further proved seizure memo dated 06.12.06 (Ex.PW23/B) bearing his signatures whereby he had handed over photocopies of Demolition Register (Ex.PW9/H - D7(I), Action Taken Reports for the month of February, 2003 till September, 2004 Ex.PW14/B {D7(II)} as referred at serial no. 2 to 21 of the seizure memo dated 06.12.06 (Ex.PW23/B), attested copy of File Movement Register for the period 01.01.2003 to 22.09.2004 Ex.PW23/C {D7(III)}.
He further proved production cum seizure memo dated 2.2.07; seizure memo dated 6.8.07 Ex.PW23/E (D-15) and seizure memo dated 13.9.07Ex.PW23/F (D17) whereby he had handed over report dated 12.09.07 mentioning that no building plan was sanctioned in respect of J117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
(i) PW22 Shri Nand Kishore stated that he was working as Assistant Zonal Inspector in West Zone, MCD Assessment & Collection Department, Block 59, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi during 2004 and thereafter as Zonal Inspector and his duties included the assessment and collection of house tax. Further, he could identify the documents relating to assessment of Property No. J-117, Rajouri Garden which fell within the jurisdiction of West Zone, MCD during the relevant period.
He proved the copy of assessment file maintained in CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 34 Assessment & Collection Department in respect of Property No.J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi as Ex.PW13/A1 to A252 (D10) and identified attestation by Shri Rakesh Kumar, the then Assistant Assessor & Collector along with his stamp on the same.
He stated that as per Assessment & Collection record, property no. J117 was constructed prior to 01.04.69 and, thereafter, the assessment was revised in 1975 as per documents available at Ex.PW13/A31 to A33 in the name of the owner K.C. Verma and assessment of the aforesaid property was further revised in the year 2001-02 as per documents available at Ex.PW13/A67 to A70.
He further stated that as per Ex.PW13/A67 which is the proposed assessment, the change in assessment is on account of addition at GF, FF and increase in rent and change of use of one room at FF. Further, Ex.PW13/A67 reflects in the third and fourth column, the use of one room N/R (i.e. Non-residential).
He further stated that the final assessment order in respect of proposed assessment as per Ex.PW13/A67 was passed by the Assistant Assessor & Collector as per Ex.PW13/A128. He stated that as per assessment record file (D10), the property was originally owned by Shri K.G. Verma and thereafter, the property J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi was mutated as per order dated 18.11.1993 in favour of Ms. Kusum Verma daughter of late Shri K.G. Verma vide Ex.PW13/A61.
He further stated that after sale of property by Smt. Kusum Verma, property no. J-117 Rajouri Garden was mutated in favour of Sh. Gurcharan Singh vide order dated 27.03.03 (Ex.PW13/A128) CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 35 which bears the signatures of the then Assistant Assessor and Collector, West Zone at point A. Further, Mutation in favour of Gurcharan Singh was done at his request and documents submitted by him from page No.95 to 127 (D10) are part of Ex.PW13/A95 to A127.
He further stated that vide Ex.PW13/A158 to A168, part of property J-117 Rajouri Garden 103.67 sq. yards was transferred by Gurcharan Singh to M/s Maha Kali Capital Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Sh. Sameer Mahajan vide sale deed dated 13.03.03.
He further stated that as per request vide letter dated 24.04.03 to the Assistant Assessor and Collector, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Zone-West, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-27, Sameer Mahajan, Director of M/s Mahakali Capital, G.P. Singh for G.P. Singh and Sons (HUF), Manjeet Singh, A.P. Singh for A.P. Singh and Sons (HUF), requested for mutation/sub-division of property in their favour on the basis of documents Ex.PW13/A129 to A201.
He further stated that deficiency letter Ex.PW13/A198 was sent to G.P. Singh and Sons (HUF) through its karta G.P. Singh; deficiency letter Ex.PW13/A199 was sent to Manjeet Singh; deficiency letter Ex.PW13/A200 was sent to A.P. Singh and Sons (HUF) through its karta Sh. A.P. Singh; deficiency letter Ex.PW13/A201 was sent to M/s Mahakali Capital Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Sh. Sameer Mahajan wherein deficiencies were reflected at Srl. No.1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 of aforesaid letters.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 36 He further stated that as per order dated 18.08.04 Ex.PW13/A224, part of property of J-117 which is adjoining to J-116 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi was mutated as per request of M.L. Anand and as per communication dated 01.07.05 Ex.PW13/A252, part of property J-117, Rajouri Garden (adjoining to portion mutated in favour of M.L. Anand) was mutated in favour of Nishi Pal Bhatia in terms of his application dated 07.04.05.
He further stated that original Building Watch Registers for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04 pertaining to Rajouri Garden were maintained by the A&C Department, office of MCD and proved the photocopy of the Building Watch Register for the year 2002-03 containing entry Srl. No.155 dated 01.03.03 (Ex.PW22/B1) in respect of property J-117 Rajouri Garden bearing his signatures at point A and of Shri Rakesh Kumar at point B. He further stated that entry at Srl. No. 155 dated 1.3.03 at point X was made by him as Assistant Zonal Inspector of the concerned area during the year 2002-03 wherein it was observed under his signatures "old building demolished 1.3.03". He further proved attested photocopies of the Building Watch Register for the year 2003-04 containing entry at Srl. No.120/155 bearing date of initial visit 1.3.03 in respect of property J-117 Rajouri Garden as Ex.PW22/B2.
He further stated that entry at Srl. No. 120/155 bearing date of initial visit 1.3.03 was made by him as Assistant Zonal Inspector of the concerned area during the year 2003-04. Further, as per entry at Srl. No. 120/155 at point X the visits were made on different dates i.e. 8.4.03, 19.5.03, 13.6.03 and 19.6.03 and it was observed in the CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 37 relevant column of the aforesaid entry against date of acquisition as "rebuilt'. He further stated that in the aforesaid entries, it was further observed on 8.4.03 "brick work at FF" under his signatures and the entries were made by him after visiting the property on the respective dates mentioned therein under his signatures.
He further stated that on 19.5.03 it was further recorded against aforesaid entry after visit to site "brick work at IInd F 19.5.03". Further, on 13.6.03 it was recorded against aforesaid entry after visit to site "whitewash at GF, FF, II 13.6.03". Further, on 19.6.03 it was further recorded against aforesaid entry after visit to site "flooring work in hand 19.6.03".
He further stated that prior to 2004 the properties were visited and the proposed assessment was made on completion or occupation of the building.
He further stated that after 2004 the system of self assessment of property has been followed in MCD. He also clarified that the building watch register was maintained only till August 2003 as thereafter the system of self assessment of properties was introduced.
He further stated that the property in the present case after being rebuilt has been assessed on the principle reassessment/unit area method introduced after August, 2003.
(j) PW21 Shri Gaje Singh posted in DC Zone, Town Hall, MCD, Delhi during the period 2003 to 2006 deposed that report from all the twelve respective Zones were received in respect of unauthorized construction prior to bifurcation of MCD. Further, the unauthorized CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 38 construction report used to be received in the prescribed proforma and he used to compile the reports received from different Zones.
He proved unauthorized construction report dated 03.09.03 (Ex.PW21/A collectively) bearing number D1010/EE(B)/WZ/2001 pertaining to action against unauthorized construction for the month of August, 2003 which bears signatures of M.Prasad, the then ADC(Zones), MCD Town Hall, Delhi at point A. He further stated that aforesaid report also bears the diary no. R1614 dated 04.09.03 at point B vide which the report was received in the office and also signatures of the Executive Engineer at point C. He further proved unauthorized construction report dated 07.05.04 Ex.PW21/B (Colly) bearing number D442/EE(B)/WZ/2003 pertaining to action against unauthorized construction for the month of April, 2004 and stated that the same bears signatures of Sh. Ashok Kumar, the then DC at point A. He further stated that the aforesaid report also bears the diary no. R883 dated 11.05.04 at point B vide which the report was received in the office and also signatures of the then Executive Engineer at point C.
(k) PW13 Shri Anil Kalra, Peon in the House Tax Department, West Zone (i.e. A&C Department at 59 Block, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi) during 2007 stated that Ex.PW13/1 (D-10) bears signatures of Mr. Rakesh Kumar at point A, who was then Assistant Assessor and Collector in March 2007. He further stated that page 1 to 252 annexed to Ex.PW13/1 bear signatures of Rakesh Kumar with stamp on each page on Mark PW13/A-1 to A-252.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 39
(l) PW12 Shri Ashish Sharma stated that he had joined MCD in 1996 as a Junior Engineer and from June 2004 to February 2006, he was posted in the west zone building department of the MCD. He further proved the signatures of Shri Vinod Kumar, AE on FIR dated 24.06.2003 registered by MCD Ex.PW9/1 {D3(I)}.
(m) PW10 Manoj Verma stated that he joined MCD on 7.8.98 as an AE(Civil) and was posted in West Zone (B) from 24.10.07 to 14.01.09 as EE. Further, all complaints and actions are marked to the concerned AE by EE, as received in the office.
He further stated that on observing violation of MCD Act (i.e. unauthorized construction), the JE books the FIR and marks to the AE. Further, if there is no response received from the person to whom the show cause notice is issued as to why action be not taken within seven days of the notice, the AE could pass the demolition order.
He further stated that action was taken on priority as per guidelines of the MCD. He also stated that the EE in consultation with the OI prepares the demolition programme on a monthly basis and JE takes the demolition action and mentions in UC file to the effect that demolition action has been carried out to what extent.
He stated that the Deputy Commissioner concerned is competent to pass the orders for prosecution in relation to unauthorized construction.
(n) PW27 Shri Gautam Chand stated that during the year 2003, CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 40 he was posted in MCD West Zone, Building Department as Assistant Engineer and was supervising unauthorized construction in the wards allocated to him and also supervising the JEs. Further, Shri Brij Pal Singh was the Executive Engineer during October, 2002 and thereafter, Shri Vijay Kadyan joined as Executive Engineer.
He further stated that he had been looking after different wards which were allocated from time to time by the Executive Engineer within jurisdiction of West Zone, MCD. Further, he had been also looking after ward no. 23/24 pertaining to area of Rajouri Garden as AE during the year 2003 and Mohd. Ahmed, JE was allocated ward no. 23/24 during 2003. He further explained the procedure with reference to booking of unauthorized construction in MCD, issuance of notices under DMC Act, 1957 and demolition action taken against the unauthorized construction. He further specified the officers authorized to sanction the building plan in respect of residential and commercial plots.
He further stated that office order no. D/62/EE(B)/WZ/2003 dated 18.06.03, office order no. D/462/EE(B)/WZ/2003/1830 dated 01.01.04 and office order No.D/763/EE(B)/WZ/04 dated 1.7.04 were issued by EE (B) from time to time with respect to distribution of work among the AEs and JEs. Further, as per office order no. D/462/EE(B)/WZ/2003 dated 18.06.03 Ex.PW27/A1 (D8) issued by Shri Vijay Kadyan, EE; Shri Vinod Kumar AE(B-4) was the concerned AE and Shri Mohd. Ahmed, JE (B) was assigned ward no. 23-24. Further, as per office order no. D/EE(B)/WZ/2003/1830 dated 01.01.04 Ex.PW27/A2 (D8) issued by Shri Vijay Kadyan, EE; he was CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 41 the AE (B-2) and Shri Ranjit Sharma, JE (B) was assigned ward no. 23-24, 45 & 46.
He further stated that as per office order No.D/763/EE(B)/WZ/04 dated 1.7.04 Ex.PW27/A3 (D8) issued by Shri Vijay Kadyan, EE, he (Gautam Chand) was the AE (B-2) and Ashish Sharma, JE (B) was assigned ward no. 23 & 24. Further, the aforesaid orders were also marked to OI(B) by the Executive Engineer (Building) and the same were maintained in the Area Distribution Register.
He further stated that letter no. D/2423/EE/B/WZ/2007 dated 08.10.07 Mark PW27/B1 to B9 was addressed to Shri K.S. Lohchab, Inspector of Police by Executive Engineer (B) West Zone thereby enclosing the tenure of AEs, JEs and OI(B) attached therewith. Further, in Mark PW27/B5, his tenure as AE(B) in respect of different wards including ward no. 23 and 24 is reflected and he was posted as AE(B) in ward no. 23 from 23.10.02 to 06.11.02 and 01.01.04 to 31.08.04 and in ward no. 24 from 23.10.02 to 06.11.02 and 01.01.04 to 31.08.04. In Mark PW27/B6 tenure of Shri Mohd. Ahmed, JE(B) is reflected in West Zone.
He further stated that document Mark27/C1 (D15) reflects the tenure of Deputy Commissioner, SE and EE from "01.01.03 to till date" and bears signatures of Shri R.K. Joshi, OI(B) West Zone and Shri J.S. Yadav, EE(B), West Zone. The part of Mark PW27/C2 D15 reflects the tenure of AE Ward No. 124 Kirti Nagar w.e.f. 01.01.03 to till date, JE Ward No. 124 Kirti Nagar, Assistant Engineer Ward No. 23 Rajouri Garden w.e.f. 01.01.03 till date and Junior Engineer Ward CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 42 No. 23 bearing signatures of Shri R.K. Joshi, OI(B) West Zone and Shri J.S. Yadav, EE(B), West Zone. He further clarified that he was posted as AE in ward no. 23 from 01.01.04 to 31.08.04 as reflected in Mark PW27/C2.
(o) PW16 Shri Naveen Garg posted as AE at the Building HQs. MCD from December 2006 to 31.12.2011 stated that he was dealing with sanction of residential building plans above 400 sq. yards and in relation to commercial and government buildings.
He further stated that earlier JE used to give the first report for scrutiny of the sanctioned plans but subsequently, AEs started scrutinizing the sanctioned plans from 2007/2008. JEs used to give report to the AE and Executive Engineer was the sanctioning authority for sanction of building plans in relation to residential properties and SE was the sanctioning authority for sanction plans of buildings where there were basements i.e. for both residential and commercial properties. As and when an interpretation of the building bye-laws was required, the matter was taken to the building plan committee which is chaired by Addl. Commissioner Engineering, MCD.
(p) PW18 Bikramjeet Singh, PW19 Komal Prasad Sharma and PW17 Gurucharan Singh Sachdeva, Private Architect are the witnesses who proved the technical report along with the site plan which was prepared on inspection of property after the case was registered by CBI.
PW18 Shri Bikramjeet Singh, posted as AE at Building CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 43 (HQs), MCD proved the technical report Ex.PW18/2 (D-13) in respect of J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi bearing his signatures at point A and of K.P. Sharma, JE. He further stated that the architect had taken the measurement at the spot of the existing structure in the presence of Junior Engineer. A comparative chart showing the compoundable and non compoundable construction was also prepared by him and K.P. Sharma, JE. Further, the deviations in the construction which were permissible were mentioned as compoundable and those which were not permissible as per the master plan were mentioned as being non compoundable. He further clarified that the compoundable area can be compounded on levying a penalty and the non compoundable area has to be demolished.
He further stated that the sanctioned site plan of the property J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi was not found traceable at the Building Headquarters of the MCD. Further, the aforesaid property was commercial property. There was no document to show that any sanction for construction of the property at J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi had been accorded.
He further stated that the office order Mark-PW18/A and PW18/B(D-23) were issued by MCD to check unauthorized construction in Delhi.
PW19 Komal Prasad Sharma stated that in 2007 he was posted as JE in the office of SE (B) Headquarter, MCD, Town Hall, and remained posted there from 2001 to 2009. Further, in 2007, a team was constituted by MCD to determine the existing construction in CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 44 various properties which were under investigation by CBI and he was a member of team comprising Sh.Bikramjeet Singh, AE and Sh.Gurcharan Singh Sachdeva, (Private Architect). He further stated that the aforesaid team members visited the various properties as directed by CBI and the report were prepared reflecting the existing construction in respective properties which includes J117 Rajouri Garden, Z-6 Rajouri Garden and A-5 Kirti Nagar. The site plan Ex.PW17/1 (D-5) of property No.J-117, Rajouri Garden, reflecting the existing construction, was prepared by Gurcharan Singh Sachdeva. Further, through letter dated 24.08.2007 Ex.PW18/1 (D-13) technical inspection report of property No.J-117, Rajouri Garden, Z-6, Rajouri Garden and A-5 Kirti Nagar was forwarded to CBI under the signatures of M.R. Mittal, EE. He also stated that the technical report Ex.PW18/2 in respect of property No.J-117, Rajouri Garden was bearing his signatures at point B and of Bikramjeet Singh, AE at point A. He further stated that as per inspection report Ex.PW18/2 in respect of property No.J-117, Rajouri Garden, the plot area was found to be 258.26 sq.mtrs and permissible coverage on the three floors along with existing coverage has been reflected in the above report. Further, the permissible and excess coverage was specified. He also stated that the aforesaid technical report Ex.PW18/2 reflects the compoundable and non-compoundable area as per MPD-2001 and entire plot No.J-117, Rajouri Garden as per site plan Ex.PW17/1 (D-5) was also found partitioned in three parts from ground to second floor.
He further stated that an order dated 16.05.2001 Mark-
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 45 PW18/M (D-20) was issued by the office of Addl. Commissioner (Engineering) for taking action against the properties which are being misused. The letter Mark-PW1/8F(D-20) was issued by Addl. Commissioner, MCD whereby directions were issued that prosecution action be taken against the properties which are being used for other use than sanctioned.
PW17 Gurucharan Singh Sachdeva, Private Architect stated that the site planEx.PW17/1 (D-5) was prepared by him showing the existing building structure on plat No.J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, on the request of MCD which bears his signatures at point A. Further, the production cum receipt memo dated 27.08.2007 (Ex.PW17/2) (D-33) bears his signatures at point A with the date at point B and of K S Lohchab at point D whereby letter dt. 01-03-07 (Ex.PW17/3) was handed over to CBI .
(q) PW11 Shri Vikas Anand stated that in the year 2007, he was residing at B-15/18, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 27 and his father M.L. Anand was the owner of a portion of the building at J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Further, the total area of the plot at J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi was 312 square yards and his father was the owner of approximately 104 sq. yards. The aforesaid property was in three portions and in the portion belonging to his father, there was a construction of the ground floor, first floor, second floor and mumty. He further stated that the internal page 24 (D19) of Ex.PW11/A bears copy of photograph of his father at point A and CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 46 signatures at points B on each page (internal page 24 to 29).
He further stated that since the time the portion of the said property was in possession of his father, no action had been taken by the MCD in relation thereto and there had been no sealing done by MCD in the portion belonging to his father on the property at any time after purchase. Further, no notice had ever been received by his father in relation to any sealing activity in respect of the portion of the said property belonging to his father, from the MCD.
The testimony of this witness is not of much consequence with respect to action taken on 28.08.03 since the property was purchased by M.L. Anand vide sale deed dated 17.11.03.
(r) PW24 Inder Pratap Singh Walia stated that in the year 2006 he had brokered the deal of J-117, Rajouri Garden which is adjoining J-118, measuring about 104 sq. yards which was sold by A P Singh and G P Singh to Nishi Pal Bhatia. The plot no J-117 is a larger plot and the part of plot owned by Amrinder Pal Singh and G P Singh was sold by two separate sale deeds to Nishi Pal Bhatia. The sale deed dt. 29-08-06 Ex.PW15/6 was executed by G P Sing and Sons (HUF) through its karta G P Singh, being the owner of undivided one and half share of the property, in respect of plot no. J-117, measuring 103.67 sq. yards in favour of Nishi Pal Bhatia. Further, the sale deed dt. 29-08-06 Ex.PW15/7 was executed by A P Singh and Sons (HUF) through its karta A P Singh being the owner of undivided one half share of the property plot no. J-117, Rajouri Garden, Delhi measuring 103.67 sq. yards in favour of Nishi Pal Singh Bhatia and the original CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 47 sale deed had been retained by Nishi Pal Singh Bhatia.
(s) PW28 Gurcharan Singh stated that he was a tenant in J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi for a period about 20 years and the tenancy continued till 1995. Further, the documents for transfer of aforesaid property were executed by Ms. Kusum Verma, d/o K.G. Verma. He further proved sale deed dated 09.12.1994 Ex.PW20/C (D-32) executed by M/s. DLF Universal Ltd., in favour of Ms.Kusum Verma whereby ownership rights in respect of the aforesaid property stood transferred in favour of Ms.Kusum Verma.
He further stated that during the period of tenancy, the aforesaid premises was constructed only on ground floor and one room existed on the roof and further the sale deed dated 13.09.1995 Mark PW28/A (D-10) was executed by Ms. Kusum Verma in his favour in respect of premises no J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
He further stated that he had sold the aforesaid property to Gurinder Pal Singh, Manjeet Singh, Sameer Mahajan and Arjminder Pal Singh by execution of separate sale deeds and the sale deed Mark PW 28/A executed by Ms. Kusum Verma in his favour was handed over to the aforesaid buyers i.e, Gurinder Pal Singh, Manjeet Singh, Sameer Mahajan and Arjminder Pal Singh. He further stated that the sale deed dated 26.03.2003 Ex.PW15/3 (D-19) was executed by Gurcharan Singh in favour of Manjeet Singh in respect of 103.67 sq. yards out of total area of 311 Sq. yards of J-117 Rajouri Garden. Further, the sale deed dated 26.03.2003 Ex.PW 15/4 (D-19) was executed by Gurcharan Singh in favour of G.P.Singh & sons (HUF) CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 48 through its Karta G.P.Singh in respect of Half Undivided Share of 103.67 sq. yards out of total area of 311 sq. yards of J-117 Rajouri Garden. The sale deed dated 26.03.2003 Ex.PW 15/5 (D-19) was executed by Gurcharan Singh in favour of A.P.Singh in respect of half undivided share of 103.67 sq. yards out of total area of 311 sq. yards of J-117 Rajouri Garden. The sale deed dated 13.03.2003 Ex.PW 15/8 (D-19) was executed by Gurcharan Singh in favour of M/s. Mahakali Capital Investment Services Pvt. Ltd through its Director Sameer Mahajan in respect of 103.67 sq. yards out of total area of 311 sq. yards of J-117 Rajouri Garden.
He further stated that he had not made any addition/alteration in the property till the date of execution of aforesaid sale deeds in 2003 in favour of Manjeet Singh, Gurinder Pal Singh, Arminder Pal Singh and Sameer Mahajan after its purchase from Kusum Verma in 1995. Further, at the time of aforesaid sale to Manjeet Singh, Gurinder Pal Singh, Arminder Pal Singh and Sameer Mahajan, the property J-117, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi consisted of ground floor alongwith a room on the roof.
(t) PW15 Yashpal and PW20 R.S. Madan from the office of Sub-Registrar proved the relevant sale deeds.
PW20 Shri R.S. Madan posted as Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate in 2007 stated that he had furnished copy of Sale Deed dated 09.12.94 to CBI as requested vide letter dated 18.09.07 Ex.PW20/A addressed to K.S. Lohchab, CBI which bears his signatures at point A. The Sale Deed dated 09.10.95 as reflected in aforesaid letter could not CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 49 be traced which was informed by CBI to have been executed by Smt. Kusum Verma in favour of Shri Gurcharan Singh in respect of plot no. 117, Block-J, Rajouri Garden.
6. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused Mohd. Ahmed, JE denied the case of prosecution and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in this case. He further denied having made any false entry in the MCD record qua demolition action taken in the property.
Accused further filed written statement u/s 313(5) Cr.P.C. and submitted that the property in question was booked by him for unauthorized construction and thereafter the notices were issued under Section 343 & 344 DMC Act and demolition order dated 09.07.03 was passed. He further submitted that action could not be taken due to shortage of time on 10.07.03, 29.07.03 and 22.08.03 and entries to this effect were duly made in the UC file which was put up before the concerned AE(B) who endorsed "try again" on each date.
He further stated that on 28.08.03, part demolition action was carried in property no. J117 Rajouri Garden & J140 Rajouri Garden by demolition team headed by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE(B) with baildars along with police force and entry had been made by him in UC file in respect of property no. J117 Rajouri Garden to the effect "Demolition action has been taken along with police force. Room & mumty at IIIrd floor had partly demolished. The demolition action has been taken for 2 hours. The demolition charges may be recovered from owner/builder". Also, a corresponding entry was recorded in the CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 50 Demolition Register maintained by OI(B). He further stated that the demolition charges were to be prepared by the OI(B) and in case some entries were left inadvertently or due to heavy work by the OI(B), the JE could not be held responsible. He further stated that he initiated/recommended sealing action against property no. J117 Rajouri Garden on 21.08.03 and sealing order was passed on 04.09.03 by the then Deputy Commissioner, West Zone, MCD. He also claimed that he had been made a scapegoat and the officers who did not take action after his transfer had not been even interrogated. Accused Mohd. Ahmed further examined DW1 Jai Bhagwan, Baildar in defence.
DW1 Jai Bhagwan posted as Baildar, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi in the year 2003-04 deposed that he had accompanied Mohd. Ahmed, JE for purpose of demolition action at J117 Rajouri Garden but did not recollect the date. He further stated that he was taken to aforesaid property during investigation by CBI officer namely Insp. K.S. Lohchab and Shri Mahato and he had shown the CBI officers the properties wherein he had accompanied the MCD team for purpose of demolition action including J-117 Rajouri Garden. Further, 10-12 baildars had also accompanied CBI officials for showing them the properties wherein the demolition action had been carried out by them.
During cross-examination, he further clarified that on the aforesaid date they had visited police station Rajouri Garden and two properties wherein demolition was carried which included J117 Rajouri Garden. Further, the demolition was carried at J117 Rajouri CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 51 Garden for 1- 1½ hours.
Remaining co-accused also denied the case of prosecution and claimed that they had been falsely implicated. The demolition action was stated to have been taken in J117, Rajouri Garden on 28.08.03. However, no evidence in defence was led on their behalf.
Accused Arjminder Pal Singh & Gurinder Pal Singh also took a stand that entire property no. J117 Rajouri Garden was demolished and reconstructed by Gurcharan Singh, Satnam Singh and Jagmohan Singh from the year 2002 to the end of year 2003 and since the property was not in habitable condition, the possession of the same was not handed over till end of the year 2003. They further denied having ever met or communicated with Mohd. Ahmed, JE.
Accused Sameer Mahajan further took a stand that he was Director of M/s Mahakali Capital Investments Services Pvt. Ltd. but was not looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company and the same were being looked by Shri C.M. Mahajan, Managing Director of the company. Further, he was only doing some work in absence of C.M. Mahajan or on his directions and had never met any official regarding unauthorized construction at J117, Rajouri Garden. It was also claimed that no show cause notice or demolition order was served upon him.
7. Counsel for accused assailed the case of prosecution on various grounds detailed below and Shri Y. Kahol, Advocate for accused Mohd. Ahmed also filed written submissions on record.
a) That the sanction order Ex.PW2/1 had been passed by CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 52 PW2 Shri Naresh Kumar, Competent Authority against accused Mohd. Ahmed, JE without application of mind.
b) That Mohd. Ahmed, JE had no occasion, motive or opportunity to obtain any pecuniary advantage and the Investigating Agency had malafidely implicated him ignoring the role of other JEs/AEs posted in West Zone, MCD during the relevant period.
c) It was also vehemently urged that there was no evidence to prove conspiracy between the accused and the same could not be inferred in the absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds. It was also submitted that no evidence had been led to show passing of gratification or meeting of accused at any point of time.
d) Counsel for accused Mohd. Ahmed, JE also urged that demolition charges were not to be claimed by Mohd. Ahmed, JE since the same was the job of OI(B).
e) It was vehemently contended that the Investigating Agency had commenced the investigation only with the motive to fix Mohd. Ahmed, JE leaving aside the role of other officials i.e. AE, EE, SE or DC and the officials who were posted after his transfer.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 53
f) It was submitted that the proceedings recorded in the Unauthorized Construction file by Mohd. Ahmed, JE on 10.07.03, 29.07.03 and 22.08.03 to the effect that demolition could not be taken due to shortage of time could not be doubted as no evidence to the contrary had been collected during investigation. Further, the aforesaid notings were also endorsed by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE on the same date itself with the remarks "try again".
It was also contended that it could not be inferred that partial demolition action was not carried by Mohd. Ahmed, JE on 28.08.03 as inferred by the Investigating Agency since the noting dated 28.08.03 was countersigned by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE on the same date who further remarked "try again". It was urged that evidence on record corroborated the fact that the demolition action was carried on 28.08.03sicne a corresponding entry was also made in the Demolition Register and if the entry had been fabricated, Shri Vinod Kumar, AE would have also been arrayed as an accused as he had countersigned the same. It was submitted that Shri Vinod Kumar, AE had neither been arrayed as an accused nor cited as a witness though his testimony was crucial to the case of prosecution. Reliance was also placed upon testimony of PW9 Shri Moti Lal who admitted having missed the making of entries in several cases in the File Movement Register and other record due to overload of work.
It was also submitted that the Unauthorized Construction CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 54 file never stood closed vide entry dated 28.08.03 made by Shri Mohd. Ahmed, JE whereby partial demolition action was recorded to have been taken. It was also contended that Investigating Agency had not booked the AE or any other JE/AE posted subsequent to transfer of Mohd. Ahmed, JE for failing to take further demolition action since the Unauthorized Construction file (i.e. UC file) never stood closed by part demolition action reflected vide entry dated 28.08.03 in the UC file.
g) It was also contended that the inference could not be drawn that partial demolition action had not been taken on 28.08.03 on the basis of inspection conducted in 2007 by CBI reflecting the existing construction. It was submitted that even as per the technical committee report (Ex.PW18/2), a mumty and a room were not found in existence on the roof of the second floor (i.e. third floor) as the same had been demolished. It was also submitted that the fact that room and the mumty were demolished also stands corroborated by the sale deeds executed by Arjminder Pal Singh and Gurinder Pal Singh on 29.08.06 (Ex.PW15/6) wherein the structure was described as GF, FF and SF and the mumty and room had not been specified. Further, even in sale deed dated 17.11.03 executed by Manjeet Singh in favour of M.L. Anand, the structure was described as three storey. Aslo, in the sale deed dated 13.04.04 executed by M/s Mahakali Capital Investments Services Pvt.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 55 Ltd. in favour of Nishi Pal Bhatia, the constructed portion was reflected as GF, FF and SF. It was further contended that repair/reconstruction of the demolished portion cannot be further ruled out during the intervening period of 4 years till registration of FIR by CBI.
h) It was also urged that Mohd. Ahmed, JE had been posted in the concerned ward for a period 18.11.02 to 31.12.03 and 01.12.04 to 28.04.05 and the Investigating Agency had made him a scapegoat ignoring the role of the officials posted prior to him and after his transfer from the concerned ward though they failed to initiate any further action. It was also submitted that the file never stood closed by carrying of partial demolition action vide entry dated 28.08.03.
i) It was also submitted that there was no evidence to establish conspiracy between the accused. Counsel for accused further submitted that there could not have been any conspiracy with Mohd. Ahmed, JE in particular since different JEs/AEs were posted during relevant period and no evidence has been led on record to show the meeting of minds with Mohd. Ahmed, JE in particular or any other MCD official. It was also contended that there is absolutely no evidence to reflect that the accused was known to Mohd. Ahmed, JE or had ever met him or if any gratification had been passed. It was further submitted that Shri Mohd. Ahmed, JE had in fact initiated CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 56 sealing proceedings u/s 345A DMC Act against the property in question on 28.08.03 and the sealing orders were passed by Shri K.D. Akolia, DC on 04.09.03 as also reflected in statement of Shri Gautam Chand recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
j) Counsel for accused Arjminder Pal Singh & Gurinder Pal Singh further took a stand that entire property no. J117 Rajouri Garden was demolished and reconstructed by Gurcharan Singh, Satnam Singh and Jagmohan Singh from the year 2002 to the end of year 2003 and since the property was not in habitable condition, the possession of the same was not handed over till end of the year 2003.
k) Counsel for accused Sameer Mahajan further took a stand that though Sameer Mahajan was Director of M/s Mahakali Capital Investments Services Pvt. Ltd. but was not looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company and the same were being looked by Shri C.M. Mahajan, Managing Director of the company. Further, Sameer Mahajan was only doing some work in absence of C.M. Mahajan or on his directions and had never met any official regarding unauthorized construction at J117, Rajouri Garden. It was also claimed that no show cause notice or demolition order was served upon M/s Mahakali Capital Investments Services Pvt. Ltd. or Sameer Mahajan or C.M. Mahajan.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 57
l) Counsels for accused also contended that the stand of prosecution that the demolition had only been carried at J140 Rajouri Garden was completely in contrast to the details reflected in Demolition Register maintained at PS Rajouri Garden which did not reflect the property numbers in which the demolition had been carried on 28.08.03 as the same had never been updated and maintained regularly to conclude the property numbers where demolition was carried. Further, even the entries in the register dated 28.08.03 appeared to have been later on inserted to support the case of prosecution.
m) Counsel for accused Mohd. Ahmed, JE also relied upon John Pandian Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu, MANU/SC/1025/2010 : 2011(1) JCC 193 in support of the contentions made by him. Reference was further made to the judgement passed in Crl. M.C. No.2384/2011 & Crl. M.A. No. 8693/2011 A.K. Ganju vs. CBI decided on 22 November, 2013 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to contend that the CBI had no power to usurp the functions under the DMC Act and to investigate the matter of unauthorized construction in violation of MCD Bye-laws unless it is notified by the Central Government.
Counsels for accused Sameer Mahajan also placed reliance upon Anil Kumar Bose vs. State of Bihar(1974) 4 Supreme Court Cases 616; Rita Handa vs. CBI 152 (2008) Delhi Law CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 58 Times 248 Delhi High Court; Shreya Jha vs. CBI 2007 [3] JCC 2318 and John Pandian vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, T.Nadu 2011[1] JCC 193.
Counsels for accused Gurinder Pal Singh and Arjminder Pal Singh also placed reliance upon State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao 2008 (4) JCC 2983 (Supreme Court), Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1973 Supreme Court 501 and State of Kerala vs. P. Sugathan 2000 (2) JCC (SC)
776. On the other hand, ld. PP for CBI vehemently contended that the entry dated 28.08.03 in the Demolition Register was fabricated in conspiracy by Mohd. Ahmed, JE in order to help the accused and save the property from demolition. It was further contended that the contradictions in the testimony of witnesses were of minor nature and did not discredit the case of prosecution in entirety. Apart from above, reliance was also placed on the inspection report prepared by MCD officials in the year 2007 after the registration of FIR/RC by CBI which reflected the unauthorized construction in the property. Reference was also made to the DD entry 37B dated 28.08.03 and the statements of the police officials to contend that demolition action had only been carried at J140 Rajouri Garden and not at J117 Rajouri Garden.
8. I have heard Shri Y. Kahol, Advocate for accused Mohd.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 59 Ahmed, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for accused Sameer Mahajan, Shri Amardeep Singh, Advocate for accused Gurinder Pal Singh & Arjminder Pal Singh, Shri Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate for accused Manjeet Singh, ld. PP for CBI and perused the record.
Before deliberating upon the evidence on merits, the scope of Section 120B IPC may be briefly noticed, as the foundation of the prosecution case is that the entry dated 28.08.03 was forged by Mohd. Ahmed, JE in furtherance of conspiracy with co-accused and it was wrongly reflected that the demolition action had been partly taken in the property, to safeguard the same from demolition. It is also necessary to find out in this case as to whether the accused Mohd. Ahmed, JE abused his position and acted dishonestly or with a corrupt or oblique motive.
Criminal conspiracy has been defined in Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 120B provides punishment for the same. A conspiracy must be put to action, inasmuch as, so long a crime is generated in the mind of the accused, it does not become punishable. The offence is said to have been committed only when the thoughts take concrete shape of an agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act although not illegal by illegal means. The gist of the offence of the conspiracy lies in agreement being the essential element and mere knowledge of the plan is not per se enough. It also needs to be taken into account that the acts or the conduct of the parties must be cautious and clear enough to infer CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 60 their concurrence as to common design and its execution. Also the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn.
For the purpose of bringing the charge of criminal conspiracy read with other sections for which the accused has been charged, the prosecution is required to show the circumstances on which it could be inferred that the accused had hatched a conspiracy. Though often the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and for proving the offence direct evidence may not be possible to obtain but in aforesaid eventuality the circumstances need to be proved which may lead to an inference that the accused acted in conspiracy. It has to be established that the accused charged with criminal conspiracy had agreed to pursue a course of conduct which he knew leading to the commission of a crime by one or more persons to the agreement, of that offence.
The principles laid down for ascertaining the conspiracy as referred in para 40 & 41 of (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 617 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sheetla Sahai and Others may aptly be quoted:
"40. In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), this Court has quoted (at SCC p. 731, para 271) the following passage from Russell on Crimes (12th Edn., Vol.1) The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 61 between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se enough.
41. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu this Court stated the law thus: (SCC p.691, para 101) One more principle which deserves notice is that the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances. Of course, each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in regard to the appreciation of evidence relating to the conspiracy, the Court must take care to see that the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution."
9. Since accused Mohd. Ahmed is also alleged to have abused his position and by corrupt or illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage, it may be relevant to refer to observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.K. Kale vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1977 Supreme Court 822 with reference to Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It was therein held that the abuse of position in order to come within the mischief of the section must necessarily be dishonest so that it may be proved that the accused caused deliberate loss to the department. It was further held that it is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused by corrupt CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 62 or illegal means or by abusing his position obtained any pecuniary advantage for some other person.
In the aforesaid context, since the conspiracy has been inferred on circumstantial evidence, it may be apt to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 & 22 of S.P. Bhatnagar and Another vs. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 Supreme Court
826.
"21.................It would be well to bear in mind the fundamental rule relating to the proof of guilt based on circumstantial evidence which has been settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. The rule is to the effect that in cases depending on circumstantial evidence there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take place of legal proof. In such cases the mind is apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely it is, considering such matters, to over-reach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete.
22. In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 63 established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
10. Now, adverting to the charge-sheets filed by the prosecution, the evidence fairly needs to be assessed in the background that though the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) 4582/2003 directed to probe the nexus of MCD officers including suspects within the hierarchy in the Engineering Department, builders and political bosses and on the basis of the same, Preliminary Enquiry was registered against Shri Vijay Kadyan, EE, West Zone but the investigation has been confined only to the role of Mohd. Ahmed, JE ignoring the responsibility of all other officials in hierarchy. The role of the other JEs, AEs, EE who failed to take any further demolition action after transfer of Mohd. Ahmed, JE from concerned ward has been completely overlooked by the Investigating Agency and investigation has been focused only in respect of the entries of partial demolition action made by Mohd. Ahmed, JE. As per Mark PW27/C1 & C2, Mohd. Ahmed, JE was posted in the concerned CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 64 ward for the period 18.11.02 to 31.12.03 & 01.12.04 to 28.04.05 and Shri Vinod Kumar, AE was posted in the concerned ward for the period 18.06.03 to 31.12.03 which has not been disputed.
The Investigating Agency has overlooked the role of JEs who had been posted in the intervening period between 31.12.03 & 01.12.04. Further, the role of JEs/AEs/EE has not been investigated who had failed to initiate the demolition action against unauthorized construction after transfer of Mohd. Ahmed, JE from concerned ward on 31.12.03 though the UC file never stood closed vide entry dated 28.08.03. Further demolition action could be taken by the succeeding JEs/AEs under overall supervision of EE who were equally responsible to take the demolition proceedings to logical end, but have been left out by the Investigating Agency.
11. Reverting back to the facts of the case, it may be noticed that Mohd. Ahmed, JE had booked the property for unauthorized construction by way of FIR (Ex.PW9/1) on 24.06.03 which is not disputed. The unauthorized construction was reflected in the shape of Ground Floor, FF & SF and unauthorized construction of one room & mumty at IIIrd floor. Thereafter, show-cause notice u/s 344 (1) r/w Section 343 DMC Act, 1957 dated 24.06.03 (Ex.PW9/2) was issued to the Owner/Builder followed by notice under Section 343 DMC Act, 1957 dated 01.07.03 (Ex.PW9/5) directing the Owner/Builder to demolish the unauthorized construction within six days. The aforesaid notices were further served on the owner/builder of the property by CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 65 way of affixation by Mohd. Ahmed, JE which were witnessed by Ramesh and Balbir, Baildars. The demolition order dated 09.07.03 (Ex.PW9/7) was thereafter further proposed by Mohd. Ahmed, JE and approved by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE. The proceedings till aforesaid stage are not disputed by the Investigating Agency.
The controversy has been narrowed down by the Investigating Agency to entries dated 10.07.03, 29.07.03 & 22.08.03 made on the demolition order dated 09.07.03 whereby it was observed by Mohd. Ahmed, JE "action could not be taken due to shortage of time" which was further endorsed by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE with the remarks "try again" on each date. The prosecution has further relied upon entry dated 28.08.03 whereby noting was made by Mohd. Ahmed, JE with reference to the carrying out of partial demolition action to the effect, "demolition action has been taken along with police force and mumty at 3rd floor has been partly demolished. The demolition action has been taken for 2 hours. The demolition charges may be recovered from owner/builder". The case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid entry dated 28.08.03 in UC file has been wrongly made since the UC file was not obtained by Mohd. Ahmed, JE as per File Movement Register and further the demolition action has not been disclosed to have been carried by the police officials during the course of investigation.
At the outset, it may be observed that so far as aforesaid entries dated 10.07.03, 29.07.03 & 22.08.03 made in the UC file are CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 66 concerned, the proceedings undertaken on aforesaid dates cannot be disputed since the notings stand countersigned by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE on each date with the remarks "try again". In case there was any doubt as to the entry made by Mohd. Ahmed, JE, the same would also have been commented upon by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE(B) but he countersigned the file and remarked "try again" on each date. Nothing adverse can be inferred on the basis of aforesaid notings since it has not been substantiated by any evidence to the contrary on record. Neither it has been investigated by the IO, if the requisition had been sent by MCD for police force and the same had been provided by the police authorities and the entry had been wrongly recorded. The inference drawn by the Investigating Agency that the action was intentionally not taken on 10.07.03, 29.07.03 & 22.08.03 is not corroborated by the circumstances and evidence on record. In case any such entry was wrongly made, then obviously Shri Vinod Kumar, AE who was the officer concerned and was also responsible for demolition action would also have been chargesheeted by the Investigating Agency. In the facts and circumstances, on the basis of entries dated 10.07.03, 29.07.03 & 22.08.03, it cannot be inferred that the same had been wrongly recorded and the demolition action was intentionally not carried out on 10.07.03, 29.07.03 & 22.08.03.
12. The Investigating Agency has further disputed the entry dated 28.08.03 made by Mohd. Ahmed, JE in the Unauthorized Construction file whereby it was recorded "demolition action has been taken along with police force and mumty at 3rd floor has been partly demolished.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 67 The demolition action has been taken for 2 hours. The demolition charges may be recovered from owner/builder". The said entry dated 28.08.03 is alleged by prosecution to be concocted by Mohd. Ahmed, JE without actually carrying the demolition as no corresponding entry had been made in the Missalband Register and the charges had not been claimed for the alleged demolition action carried in the property. It is also alleged that the file was not reflected in the File Movement Register and demolition action was not reflected in the Action Taken Report for the month of August, 2003.
In order to assess the case of the prosecution with reference to entry dated 28.08.03, at the outset it may be observed that the Investigating Agency does not appear to have fairly investigated the case as Shri Vinod Kumar, AE has neither been cited as a witness nor arrayed as accused on investigation though he was posted at the time of booking of the property for unauthorized construction vide FIR dated 24.06.03 as well as the entries dated 10.07.03, 29.07.03 & 22.08.03 were signed by him wherein it was recorded by Mohd. Ahmed, JE that demolition action could not be taken due to shortage of time. The said entries were countersigned by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE with the observations "try again". Thereafter, the entry dated 28.08.03 as to partial demolition action has been also countersigned by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE on 28.08.03 itself with the observations "try again". In case the aforesaid entry had been fabricated by Mohd. Ahmed, JE and the proceedings had not been carried out as recorded then Shri Vinod Kumar, AE was equally a part and parcel of the CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 68 alleged conspiracy as AE is overall head of demolition team. However, Vinod Kumar has been let off by the Investigating Agency believing that the aforesaid entry was countersigned in good faith on 28.08.03. It appears that in case the proceedings as alleged in noting dated 28.08.03 in the Unauthorized Construction file had not been carried, then there could not have been any occasion for Shri Vinod Kumar, AE to endorse the aforesaid noting made by the JE under his signatures with the remarks "try again" and he was the most crucial witness to be examined by prosecution. The fact that the file was in possession of Shri Mohd. Ahmed, JE on 28.08.03 rather stands corroborated by the fact that the same has been countersigned by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE on the same date and no adverse inference can be drawn that the file was not taken by Mohd. Ahmed, JE since the same was not reflected in File Movement Register.
It is also relevant to point out that a corresponding entry relating to demolition carried out on 28.08.03 as reflected in Unauthorized Construction file also stands recorded in the Demolition Register maintained by MCD which appears to have been recorded along with the entries of demolition carried at J-140 Rajouri Garden on 28.08.03. The said entry does not appear to have been antedated as the same appears to be recorded in continuity in same ink and there is no evidence to substantiate if the same may have been subsequently recorded.
13. The demolition action in the property in question on 28.08.03 has been further corroborated by DW1 Shri Jai Bhagwan, Baildar who CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 69 had accompanied the MCD team on 28.08.03.
DW1 Jai Bhagwan deposed that he had accompanied Mohd. Ahmed, JE for purpose of demolition action at J117 Rajouri Garden and further stated that he was taken to aforesaid property during investigation by CBI officer namely Insp. K.S. Lohchab and Shri Mahato and he had shown the CBI officers the properties wherein he had accompanied the MCD team for purpose of demolition action including J-117 Rajouri Garden. He also stated that 10-12 baildars had also accompanied CBI officials for showing them the properties wherein the demolition action had been carried out by them. During cross-examination, he further clarified that on the aforesaid date they had visited police station Rajouri Garden and had visited two properties wherein demolition was carried which included J117 Rajouri Garden wherein demolition was carried for 1- 1½ hours.
The testimony of DW1 Shri Jai Bhagwan could not be dented in cross-examination. For the reasons best known, this witness was not examined or relied upon by the prosecution though the Baildars generally accompany the MCD team for the purpose of carrying out demolition action and he specifically deposed that he had been joined during investigation and had also accompanied MCD team for demolition action at J140 Rajouri Garden.
The carrying of demolition by MCD in 2003 has also been supported by PW24 Shri Inder Pratap Singh Walia who had brokered the deal of J117 Rajouri Garden between accused A.P. Singh, G.P. Singh as to their share in the property measuring about 104 sq. yards with Shri Nishi Pal Bhatia. During cross-examination, he deposed CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 70 that his office at J115 was adjacent to J117 Rajouri Garden and in 2003 MCD officials had visited the property and punctured the mumty above the second floor of J117 Rajouri Garden. The testimony of the witness to aforesaid extent could not be dented during cross- examination.
14. It is also imperative to notice that demolition action was not taken after transfer of Mohd. Ahmed, JE and during the intervening period when he was not posted in concerned ward. Obviously, the conspiracy would also have been with the JE/AE/EE posted during aforesaid period rather being only confined with Mohd. Ahmed, JE since the UC file did not stand closed vide entry dated 28.08.03. The evidence on the point of conspiracy is based only upon entry dated 28.08.03 as to partial demolition action which is alleged to be concocted but the same has not been conclusively proved to be fabricated on record. It may also be observed that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show passing of any gratification or if the co- accused had met Mohd. Ahmed, JE in specific. PW30 DSP K.S. Lohchab, IO of the case admitted in his cross-examination dated 19.05.2014 that no evidence in specific has come as to meeting of accused with Mohd. Ahmed, JE.
For the purpose of offence of conspiracy, the evidence should clearly reflect the meeting of the minds between the accused for achieving the intended object which is completely missing in this case. It is also imperative to notice that by merely making entry dated 28.08.03 the property of the owner/builder could not have been saved CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 71 from further demolition action. The duty for further demolition action also lay on the shoulders of succeeding officers (JE/AE) under the overall supervisory control of other senior officers in hierarchy (i.e. EE) after transfer of Mohd. Ahmed, JE. If any such conspiracy existed, then the officers posted after transfer of Mohd. Ahmed, JE were also equally responsible for failing to take further demolition action but have not been chargesheeted by the Investigating Agency. Even the concerned AE and EE have even not been chargesheeted and, rather, the remarks dated 28.08.03 made by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE directing to "try again" have been believed to be correct.
In the aforesaid context, it may also be observed that Shri Mohd. Ahmed, JE initiated sealing proceedings u/s 345A DMC Act against the property in question on 28.08.03 and the sealing orders were passed by Shri K.D. Akolia, DC on 04.09.03 as reflected in statement of Shri Gautam Chand recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation itself. Accused Mohd. Ahmed, as such, appears to have taken steps against unauthorized construction, which rules out the conspiracy between the accused.
In the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the evidence relied by prosecution does not establish conspiracy between the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The root of the prosecution case, as such, appears to be on a slippery ground.
15. Next, the period of construction of the property and the persons who had started the reconstruction in the property has been disputed by accused no. 2 to 6 to contend that the conspiracy could not have CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 72 been entered into by them since the building was already under construction. It has been pointed out that the property in question was sold by Gurcharan Singh (PW28) in three equal parts vide separate sale deeds dated 13.03.03 in favour of accused Arjminder Pal Singh and accused Gurinder Pal Singh; sale deed dated 26.03.07 in favour of accused Manjeet Singh and sale deed dated 13.04.04 in favour of M/s Mahakali Capital Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. through accused Sameer Mahajan.
It may be noticed that PW28 Gurcharan Singh who was the erstwhile owner of the property prior to its sale to accused no. 2 to 6, during his cross-examination took different stands as to the construction existing at the time of sale of the property in question to accused Manjeet Singh, Gurinder Pal Singh and Arjminder Pal Singh and M/s Mahakali Capital Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. through Sameer Mahajan. During his examination-in-chief the witness deposed that at the time of sale to the aforesaid accused the property consisted of ground floor along with a room on the roof. However, during cross-examination he clarified that he was contacted by one Satnam Singh and Jagmohan Singh in December 2002 for sale of aforesaid property for the first time and had entered into an agreement for sale of the said property with them. He further stated that there was a condition in the agreement that Satnam Singh and Jagmohan Singh may get the sale deed executed in their favour or in favour of any other person and he had handed over possession of property to Satnam Singh and Jagmohan Singh who started demolishing the property in January, 2003 and further started the construction. He CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 73 further deposed that till March 2003 the property remained in the possession of Satnam Singh and Jagmohan Singh and they were constructing the property but had no idea as to the date of completion of reconstruction of property. The aforesaid aspect was also stated to have been informed by him to the IO during the course of investigation and also finds reflected in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. It appears that the aforesaid aspect of demolition and initiation of reconstruction of the property in question by Satnam Singh and Jagmohan Singh does not appear to have been investigated by the IO though the stand taken by PW28 Gurchraran Singh regarding sale of property to Satnam Singh and Jagmohan Singh stands reflected in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Further, PW24 Shri Inder Pratap Singh Walia in the context of reconstruction of the property in cross- examination deposed that the building was constructed by Shri Gurcharan Singh upto first and second floor along with mumty in November 2002 and continued till 2003. As such, different versions have come up on record as to the period of commencement of construction initiated in the property without obtaining of the sanctioned plan and as such it cannot be held beyond reasonable doubt if the construction had been initiated by accused no. 2 to 6 in conspiracy with Mohd. Ahmed, JE.
16. Next it is submitted by ld. PP for CBI that entry dated 28.08.03 made by Mohd. Ahmed, JE in UC file appears to be fabricated since the file pertaining to J117 Rajouri Garden is not reflected to have been taken in the File Movement Register.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 74 To assess the aforesaid contention, it may be noticed that as per the File Movement Register only UC file pertaining to F19 Rajouri Garden along with the sealing file are reflected to have been obtained by Mohd. Ahmed, JE. Even the file pertaining to J140 Rajouri Garden wherein demolition action is admitted to have been taken, has not been reflected. The demolition in J140 Rajouri Garden is not doubted merely because the file had not been reflected in the File Movement Register. The same clearly leads to the inference that the Unauthorized Construction file could also have been obtained from the OI(B) without making of the entry in the File Movement Register. Even otherwise, the duty of entering the file in the File Movement Register is of the OI(B) and an omission in this regard does not automatically lead to an inference that the entry dated 28.08.03 had been fabricated by Mohd. Ahmed, JE.
In the aforesaid context, it may also be noticed that CC No. 133/13 pertaining to A5 Kirti Nagar was also investigated vide present FIR/RC by CBI. Even in the aforesaid case, a bare perusal of Demolition Register reflected that the demolition was carried out in various properties on 23.04.04 which admittedly included 28/10, E271, E272, D205, E206 Ramesh Nagar but the demolition action in A-5 Kirti Nagar was disputed. However, the File Movement Register against entry dated 23.04.04 only reflected the movement of file relating to 23/3 Ashok Nagar & 25/2 Ashok Nagar. Accused Mohd. Ahmed in aforesaid case bearing CC No.133/13 has also been acquitted by this Court vide judgement dated 08.07.14 as the prosecution failed to establish that the partial demolition action had CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 75 not been taken by the JE relying upon similar circumstances.
As such, it appears that the movement of files was either taking place without the same being recorded in the File Movement Register or the same may have been missed by the OI(B). The absence of the movement of file in the File Movement Register cannot be stretched to conclude that the entry dated 28.08.03 as to partial demolition action in the Unauthorized Construction file had been fabricated since the entry also stands countersigned by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE on the same date itself.
It may also be noticed that custody of the files and Demolition Register maintained by MCD remains with OI(B) but no explanation has come as to how the files could have been accessed by Mohd. Ahmed, JE on 28.08.03 if the same remained in possession of OI(B). Further, no complaint was lodged by AE(B) or EE in case the demolition action had been wrongly shown by Mohd. Ahmed, JE in the file.
17. It may further be noticed that a mere missing entry in the File Movement Register or the Action Taken Report or the Missalband Register or Demolition Claim Charge Register does not automatically lead to an inference that the entry of partial demolition action had been forged by the JE on 28.08.03. The same needs to be assessed in the light of circumstances and evidence on record.
During cross-examination of PW9 Moti Lal {the then CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 76 Officer Incharge (Buildings)}, it has been brought on record that various entries existing in the Demolition Register were not supported by corresponding entry in the Missalband Register, File Movement Register, Demolition Charge Register which may be due to negligence or oversight by OI(B) but were not disputed or chargesheeted by Investigating Agency. The aforesaid aspect has been admitted by PW9 Moti Lal in his cross-examination dated 17.04.14 wherein he stated "The entry in the Missalband Register and Demolition Charges Register may have been missed in respect of property number referred to above i.e. C1/122, Janakpuri due to overload of work. Similarly, the entry in respect of property no. B3/9, Paschim Vihar may have been missed to be entered in File Movement Register, Demolition Charges Register, Missalband Register and Action Taken Report". He further admitted the missing entries in respect of property no. A38/2, Mayapuri Phase-I during his cross- examination dated 22.04.14 and stated "The aforesaid entries in respect of property no. A38/2 Mayapuri Phase-I may have been missed in the Missalband Register and Demolition Register due to overload of work". He further admitted the missing entries in respect of property no. E-57, Tagore Garden Extn. during his cross-examination dated 22.04.14 and stated "The aforesaid entries in respect of property no. E-57, Tagore Garden Extn. may have been missed in the File Movement Register due to overload of work".
It is also pertinent to note that during cross-examination, PW9 Moti Lal admitted that the missing entries in the File Movement Register and the Action Taken Report may have been due to CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 77 overload of work. In the aforesaid context, cross-examination of PW9 Moti Lal dated 22.04.14 may be noticed wherein he stated that "The entries wherein required to be made in Missalband Register, File Movement Register, Action Taken Report and Demolition Charge Claim Register, if missing, may be due to overload of work."
In the aforesaid context, PW9 Shri Moti Lal, OI(B) also stated in his cross-examination dated 03.04.14 that demolition action could also be taken by the JE without taking the UC file and the UC file could be subsequently summoned in case the same was not taken to the site.
As such, it cannot be ruled out that the entries may be missed in the monthly 'Action Taken Report' by OI(B) and it cannot be conclusively inferred that the entry dated 28.08.03 is forged and the demolition action had not been carried by the JE. More so for the reason that the entry dated 28.08.03 in the UC file stands countersigned by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE who has not been chargesheeted by the Investigating Agency.
18. Ld. PP for CBI has next contended that since the 'demolition charges' were not raised in respect of the property in question and claimed from the owner, the entry for partial demolition action was forged.
The contention has been vehemently opposed by counsel for accused and it has been pointed out that it is the job of OI(B) to CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 78 prepare the letter of demand/bill for the demolition charges as per the entries in UC file or in the Demolition Register and, thereafter, the said letter/bill is sent to the owner/builder under the signatures of AE. It is also contended by counsel for accused that JE has in fact no role to play in recovery of said charges.
In the aforesaid context, it may be noticed that PW9 Shri Moti Lal admitted in his cross-examination dated 03.04.14 that the Demolition Charge Register is to be maintained by OI(B) and the letter claiming the demolition charges is prepared by him being the OI(B) though the same is signed by AE concerned.
In the aforesaid context, PW10 Shri Manoj Verma also stated during his cross-examination dated 27.09.12 that "The JE mentions the time consumed in the demolition action on the U/C file. The rates of demolition action per hour are fixed and there are different rates for mechanical action and different rates for manual action. The Executive Engineer or the AE can send the demand notice for recovery of demolition charges". As such, the duty to send the demand notice for recovery of demolition charges appears to be that of AE according to PW10.
PW14 Shri Mukhwant Singh in aforesaid context stated in his examination-in-chief dated 15.10.12, "When the JE informs the demolition charges as per the number of hours, the letter is prepared by the OI(B) and is signed by the AE concerned". PW12 Shri Ashish Sharma in the aforesaid context also stated during his cross- examination dated 28.09.12, "The JE mentions the number of hours consumed in the demolition action and the demolition charges as per CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 79 the rate per hour are claimed in the UC files and thereafter it is duty of the OI(B) to send the claim for demolition charges to the party concerned". He further stated "It is correct that the demolition charges claimed are sent to the owner/builder and also to the house tax department. It is correct that the JE has no role to play in sending these demolition charges both to the owner/builder and to the house tax department".
PW27 Shri Gautam Chand also stated in his cross-
examination dated 06.05.14 that "the demolition charges are claimed by the OI(B) depending upon the time consumed in the demolition action. The letter claiming the demolition charges is sent by OI(B) to the owner/builder. A copy of the said letter is also endorsed to House Tax Department."
Thus, it is evident that the role of OI(B) appears to be crucial for the purpose of claiming the demolition charges and it cannot be held that entry dated 28.08.03 had been fabricated subsequently merely because demolition charges were not claimed by OI(B). It has already been established on record that entry dated 28.08.03 is not antedated since the same was signed by Shri Vinod Kumar, AE on the same date itself.
19. Ld. PP for CBI has next relied upon the technical report (Ex.PW18/2) in respect of J117 Rajouri Garden prepared by the MCD team constituted in 2007 on the request of CBI along with one Gurcharan Singh Sachdeva (Private Architect) reflecting unauthorized construction.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 80 I am of the considered view that aforesaid report may be relevant to show that the unauthorized construction had been carried in the property but merely on the basis of construction reflected in the report prepared in the year 2007 after registration of FIR by CBI in 2007, it cannot be inferred that entry regarding partial demolition action dated 28.08.03 in the UC file and Demolition Register is forged.
In the aforesaid context, it may be observed that the demolition action taken by the accused also finds a possibility since the portion owned by Arjminder Pal Singh and Gurinder Pal Singh sold in favour of Nishi Pal Bhatia vide sale deed dated 29.08.06 mentions the constructed portion in the building as consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor and there is no mention of mumty or room on the third floor. Further, the part owned by Manjeet Singh sold vide sale deed dated 17.11.03 to M.L. Anand describs the building consisting of three storeys and the portion owned by M/s Mahakali Capital Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. sold vide sale deed dated 13.04.04 to Nishi Pal Bhatia refers the constructed portion in the building as GF, FF and SF and is also silent of existence of any mumty or room on the third floor. Even the technical committee report prepared after registration of FIR in 2007 does not mention the existence of mumty or room on the third floor of the property in question and as such the demolition action carried on 28.08.03 cannot be ruled out.
20. Prosecution has further also relied upon the Demolition CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 81 Register maintained at PS Rajouri Garden and the testimony of the police witnesses who were deputed on 28.08.03 to contend that demolition action was not carried on 28.08.03.
On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of accused that the testimony of police witnesses examined by Investigating Agency and relied by the prosecution, is untrustworthy and cannot be given any credence as the same was recorded after a period of about four years in 2007 and is not supported by the entries made in the Demolition Register maintained at PS Rajouri Garden which also appears to have been interpolated.
At the outset, it may be observed that the copy of the Demolition Register maintained at PS Rajouri Garden relied by the prosecution with reference to entry dated 28.08.03 (Ex.PW29/B) does reflect the properties in which demolition was carried in the area of Rajouri Garden on 28.08.03. Reader to SHO who makes the entries in the aforesaid Demolition Register and maintains the same, has not been examined or cited by the Investigating Agency. Entry dated 22.08.03 & 28.80.3 at serial no. 6 & 7 of the attested copy of Demolition Register (Ex.PW29/B) reflects that the same have been adjusted in between, before the entries commence for the month of September, 2003 and also contain certain interpolations which remain unexplained. As such, on the basis of the entries made in Demolition Register (Ex.PW29/B) maintained at PS Rajouri Garden, it cannot be concluded as to the properties wherein demolition action was carried by MCD team on 28.08.03.
The prosecution has next relied upon statements of police CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 82 witnesses for claiming the the demolition had only been carried at J140 Rajouri Garden and not at J117, Rajouri Garden. It the aforesaid context, it may be observed that the aforesaid statements of the witnesses was recorded by Investigating Agency after a period of four years relying upon DD No. 37B dated 28.08.03 (Ex.PW25/D) and DD entry 17B dated 28.08.03 (Ex.PW25/E). So far as DD No.17B is concerned, the same merely reflects the arrival of the JE along with staff for purpose of demolition and the rawangi of the police officials along with MCD staff to area of Rajouri Garden. DD No.37B reflects the recording of return of the police team and it is further reported that at J140 Rajouri Garden unauthorized construction was demolished peacefully under Mohd. Ahmed, JE. However, in aforesaid context, PW1 Constable Kanwal deposed in his examination-in-chief that there was demolition at one or two places in Rajouri Garden and did not recall the number of the premises they went with ASI Tara Chand. He also stated that MCD personnel continued demolition and they were seated on a side and were in Rajouri Garden till 4/5 PM. This witness was cross-examined by ld. Public Prosecutor and only on cross- examination, he stated that he had given a statement to CBI that demolition action was carried at J140 Rajouri Garden. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that J117 and J140 Rajouri Garden were situated close by in the same lane and he did not recall if the action had also been taken at J117 Rajouri Garden. Further, he admitted that there was no quarrel or resistance at J117 and J140 Rajouri Garden.
PW3 ASI Baljeet Singh in the aforesaid context in his CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 83 examination-in-chief did not recall the number of the house where the demolition had taken place and subsequently stated the property number wherein the demolition was carried as J157. This witness was not even cross-examined by the prosecution to elicit the correct number of the property wherein the demolition was carried as it is not the case of the prosecution that demolition was carried at J157. Further, during cross-examination he stated that CBI officer had not asked him while recording his statement as to how many places the demolition had been carried that day and further volunteered that there were demolitions at 2/3 places. He even stated that on the day the demolition had been carried, ASI Tara Chand had not accompanied. In the light of aforesaid discrepancies which have been brought on record and the fact that the Demolition Register maintained at PS Rajouri Garden does not refer to the property numbers wherein demolition action had been carried on 28.08.03, it may be difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that merely on the basis of DD entry no. 37B that the demolition action was only carried at J140 Rajouri Garden.
Even if the testimony of some police officials is considered in favour of prosecution, still the same stands contradicted by statement of other witnesses as already deliberated in preceding paragraphs pointing out to carrying of demolition action on 28.08.03. In such an eventuality where two versions have come up on record, the benefit has to be extended to accused.
21. It may further be observed that though the present case was CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 84 registered on the basis of Preliminary Enquiry conducted by Shri S.K. Peshin, the then DSP but his statement was never recorded by the Investigating Officer and has not been examined by the prosecution. In the aforesaid context, IO DSP K.S. Lohchab in his cross- examination dated 10.05.14 stated that he did not receive the Preliminary Enquiry report conducted by Shri S.K. Peshin after the investigation was marked to him. The Investigating Agency appears to have lost sight of the fact that though the Preliminary Enquiry was conducted on the basis of directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) 4582/2003 Kalyan Sansthan Social Welfare Association vs. Union of India to probe the nexus of MCD officers including suspects within the hierarchy in the Engineering department, builders as well as the political bosses and, thereafter, FIR/RC registered but unfortunately neither the role of AE, EE, SE and DC appears to have been investigated along with builders and politicians, nor any convincing reasons have been brought on record for overlooking the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. Even Shri Vinod Kumar, AE is stated to have been joined during investigation by the IO but his statement has not been placed on record for the best known reasons. The AE(B) was required to attend the daily demolition programme in their respective area to supervise the demolition action programme as per Ex.PW9/K but the responsibility cast under law appears to have been ignored. Further, no test checks have been carried by the AE/EE in terms of circular Mark PW30/BB to check the menace of unauthorized construction. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove on record that the entry dated 28.08.03 CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors 85 had been fabricated and partial demolition action had not been carried in the property in question.
However, the acquittal of the accused does not protect the JEs/AEs/EE (other than Mohd. Ahmed, JE) from departmental action who failed to take complete demolition action in the property in question after the transfer of Mohd. Ahmed, JE from the concerned Ward.
22. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against all the accused beyond reasonable doubt. All the accused are accordingly acquitted of all the charges.
Announced in the open court on 15th July, 2014.
(Anoop Kumar Mendiratta) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-08 (Central), THC, Delhi.
CC No.134/13 - CBI vs. Mohd. Ahmed & Ors