Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . A.K.Chauhan & Ors. on 31 October, 2017
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH:SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI03
(NORTHWEST DISTRICT), ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
Case No. CBI08/2016
( Old Case No. CBI119/2011)
CNR No. DLNW010000062009
CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors.
( Bhagwati C.G.H.S.)
FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI
U/s 120B r/w - 420 / 468/471 IPC & 13 (2) 13(1) (d) of PC Act and
U/s420/468/471 IPC and u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
CBI Vs. 1. Ashok Kumar Chauhan
S/o Late Sh. Rajbir Singh
R/o 13/75, Kalyan Puri,
Delhi110091
2. Ms. Krishna Kumari ( Since expired)
W/o Late Sh. Om Prakash Ohri
R/o T1945/25, Behind Naz Cinema ,
Jhandewalan, Delhi
3. Piyush Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. K.P.Sharma
R/o 2043, Outram Lane,
Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi
4. Rajesh Nagpal
S/o Late Sh. Arjun Das
R/o D37, Acharya Niketan ,
Mayur Vihar PhaseI,
Delhi
FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 1/93
2
5. Vijay Singh Lunia
S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal Lunia
R/o A358, Surya Nagar, Post Chander Nagar,
Ghaziabad (UP).
6. Pawan Kumar Rustogi ( Since expired)
S/o Late Sh. Balkishan Rustogi
R/o E5/21, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi110051
7. Akshay Kumar Jain,
S/o Sh. S.C.Jain,
R/o C35/36, Acharya Niketan,
Mayur Vihar PhaseI,
Delhi110091.
8. Ms. Padma Rai
W/o Sh. Surender Rai,
R/o 21,DDA Flats, Sec.23,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
9. Ms.Anju Malik (Since discharged)
W/o Sh. Vivan Malik
R/o 664, Kanoogo Apptt. 71, IP Ext.
Patparganj, Delhi110092.
10. Karamveer Singh
S/o Late Sh. Shobha Chand
R/o D36, Pocket:B,
Mayur Vihar PhaseII,
Delhi
( Bhagwati CGHS)
Date of institution of the case 09.1.2009
Date on which, case has been received in this court - 03.10.2011
Date on which, judgment have been reserved14.10.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment27.10.2017
FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 2/93
3
JUDGEMENT:
In brief, the case of the prosecution/CBI is that vide orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the matter relating to the fraudulent revival of large number of Cooperative Group Housing Societies was inquired in to by the CBI and during the course of Preliminary Enquiry No. PE DAI2006A0003/CBI/ ACB/ND, it was found that Bhagwati CGHS Ltd, was wound up vide order dated 25.4.1990 of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies ( hereinafter referred as 'RCS' ) as it was not found to be working in accordance with the rules and regulations and interest of the public in general. Thereafter vide order dated 12.6.1997, the said society was revived by the RCS and on the basis of such revival and approval of the freeze list of the members, Bhagwati CGHS obtained land measuring 17,000 sq. mtrs allotted by the DDA at the fixed rate for such societies . Thereafter the above mentioned preliminary enquiry was converted into a Regular Case i.e RC 61(A)/2006/MDMA/CBI/New Delhi u/s 120B r/w section 420/468/471 IPC &13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) PC Act, U/s 420/468/471 IPC and U/s 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988, against the accused persons.
It is stated that Bhagwati CGHS was registered with the office of RCS on 22.12.1983 vide registration no. 1112(GH) with 70 members having registered address as II/M54, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and Sh. G.S.Kalra was the chief promoter of the society. It is further stated that on 23.5.1985, the RCS office directed the society to produce the complete records including the final list of members, resignation or enrollment, if any and the details of the election of the Management Committee and in response to the same, the society forwarded the list of 150 members alongwith their affidavits which included the names of the 70 promoter members. Thereafter, the RCS directed the society to convene a special General Body Meeting within one month as per section 13(1) of the Delhi FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 3/93 4 Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 ( hereinafter referred as 'DCS Act , 1972') however the society failed to call any General Body Meeting despite several reminders from the office of RCS. On 01.3.1990, another reminder was issued by the office of RCS to the society referring to the directive dated 23.5.1985 and asking the society to produce the records for verification of the final list of members, resignation , new enrollments and elections to the Management Committee, however the society did not respond to this communication also. Therefore a show cause notice dated 20.3.1990 was issued to the society by the RCS asking it why society should not be brought under liquidation and again the society failed to submit any reply to the said show cause notice. Thereafter the matter was processed in the office of RCS and windingup order dated 25.4.1990 was issued by the Deputy Registrar (GH) on the ground that the society was not serving any useful to its members. It is stated that thereafter on 22.6.1990, Sh. G.S.Kalra Ex.President of the society filed an appeal against the aforesaid winding up order in the court of Lt. Governor Delhi and vide order dated 24.8.1990, Lt. Governor remanded back the matter to the Registrar for reexamination and disposal . On receipt of the aforesaid order of the Lt. Governor, the office of RCS wrote a letter dated 08.1.1991 to the society to explain its case on 23.1.1991. Sh. G.S.Kalra, exPresident of the society appeared in the office of RCS and sought an adjournment which was granted. Thereafter nothing was heard from the society and accordingly, the reminders dated 20.3.1991, 14.6.1991, 05.8.1991 and 17.9.1991 were issued to the society for producing the records, however the society did not respond to the same.
It is further stated that after about six years of passing of aforesaid order by Lt. Governor, suddenly a letter dated 14.10.1996 was received from Sh.G.S. Kalra, Ex.President of the Society in the office of RCS requesting to cancel the winding up order and authorizing Dr. R.L.Arora to represent the society in the FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 4/93 5 office of RCS. The said application was processed in the office of RCS and on 11.12.1996 office of the RCS directed the society to furnish records regarding the membership etc. of the society before 24.12.1996. Accordingly, Dr. R.L.Arora, Secretary of the society attended the office of the RCS alongwith records and thereafter, Dealing Assistant Sh. Ravi Kant Bhalla vide his typed note dated 04.6.1997 gave detailed background of the case and mentioned that G.S.Kalra, Ex. President of the society has requested for reexamination of the case and to withdraw the winding up order dated 25.4.1990 and vide this note, Sh. R.K.Bhalla, the then Dealing Assistant, recommended for withdrawal of winding up order dated 25.4.1990 u/s 63 of DCS Act and the same was forwarded to the concerned AR, DR & JR and ultimately, the said note was approved by Sh. Anshu Prakash , the then RCS on 06.6.1997.
It has been stated that during the pendency of the investigation in this case, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition ( Civil) No. 8726/2005 'Bhagwati CGHS Ltd. Vs. The Registrar Cooperative Societies and Anr ' called for the status Report from CBI and after going through the same , observed vide its order dated 08.7.2008 as follows : "An affidavit of Assistant Registrar (East). Cooperative societies, has been filed by Mr. V.K.Tandon today in furtherance of the status report filed on the last date of hearing. In the affidavit filed on record it is averred that the society which was registered on 22.12.1983 was ordered to be would up by order dated 25.4.1990 passed by Registrar Cooperative Societies. It is averred that the society preferred an appeal to the competent authority. The Lt. Governor considered the appeal and set aside the winding up order and remanded the case to Registrar Cooperative Societies for reexamination. In view of this, it is stated that the Registrar Cooperative Societies withdrew the winding up order on 12.6.1997. Apart FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 5/93 6 from that, it is averred that once an appeal is preferred u./s 76, the order of winding up of cooperative society made under section 63 is operative. Therefore even in the interregnum once an appeal was preferred, the winding up order did not operate. Considering the above facts, Mr. V.K.Tandon, Advocate submits that the present society would not fall in the category of defunct societies or the societies which have ceased to exist and which were then fraudulently got revived . The present society's case would be case of an existing society and the question with regard to the fraud played would have to be in the conspectus of enrollment of memberships and their approvals and ineligible persons being made members and with regard to the award of contract and the resulted diversion of funds."
It has been further stated that during investigation, CBI adhered to the abovesaid observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi so far as complicity of the accused persons in commission of crime after the revival of the society w.e.f 12.6.1997 as no offence stands committed till that date according to the High Court Order .
It has been stated that accused Karamveer Singh (A10) was the Dealing Assistant when the matter of freeze list was considered and he processed the file relating to approval of the freeze list and the said accused over looked that the management committee suddenly increased the strength of its members from 150 to 300 without any reference from the general body, failure on the part of society to submit copy of the audit reports from 1987 to 1996, details of elections of management committee, minutes of the GBM etc. Further, on 18.2.1997, the said R.L.Arora had filed a criminal complaint with the police stating that original records of the society were not traceable whereas on 04.8.1997, A10 had put up a note to the effect that the records of the society were verified by him.
It has been further stated that perusal of minutes of various meetings of FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 6/93 7 the management committee from Oct. 96 to 2002 revealed that these meetings were generally attended only by the five office bearers namely Ashok Kumar Chauhan, R.L.Arora, P.K.Sharma, A.K. Jain and Vijay Kumar Lunia, who took decisions and managed the affairs of the society. They reduced the strength of management committee from 13 to 7 and replaced the original members of the society with new members. By 31.3.2001, only two out of the original 70 members namely G.S.Kalra and Ashok Kumar Chauhan were shown as existing members, although G.S.Kalra had already died on 03.8.1999.
It has been stated that on 26.3.2004, the High Court of Delhi passed an order in writ petition no. 2199/2003 directing the RCS to verify the list of members of Bhagwati CGHS Ltd. for the purpose of conducting elections of the society. Pursuant to the same, a committee consisting of J.S.Sharma and Yogi Raj, Asstt. Registrars in the office of RCS, was constituted. The committee vide its report submitted in June, 2004 recommended that the list of 300 members as submitted by the society was verified and found to be genuine. As per this list, Sh. G.S.Kalra was shown as member of the society, whereas he had died on 03.8.1999.
It is further stated that investigation of the case also revealed that members were shown to be enrolled by the Management Committee of the society comprising of Ashok Kr. Chauhan (A1) President, Mrs. Krishna Kumari (A2), P.K.Sharma (A3), Rajesh Nagpal (A4), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5), Pawan Kumar Rustogi (A6), A.K. Jain (A7) Mrs. Padma Rai (A8), Mrs. Anju Malik (A9), R.L.Arora ( since expired, mentioned in column No. 12) , Mrs. Promilla Sardar (mentioned in column No. 12), Joga Singh & Madan Lal, vide different proceedings running from time to time. The fake proceedings in this respect were also prepared in the purported Proceedings Registrar of the society by the aforesaid accused persons in connivance with each other. The members namely Sh. Joga Singh and Madan Lal FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 7/93 8 also denied having ever applied for membership in the aforesaid society and stated that they were never members of the Management Committee of the society.
The Management Committee of the society consisting of Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1) President, Mrs. Krishna Kumar (A2), P.K.Sharma (A3), Rajesh Nagpal (A4), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5), Pawan Kumar Rustogi (A6), A.K.Jain (A7) Mrs. Padma Rai (A8) Mrs.Anju Malik (A9), R.L.Arora ( since expired mentioned in column No. 12) Mrs.Promilla Sardar ( mentioned in column No. 12) had also shown various members to be resigned from the membership of the society, in the fake proceedings register of the society from time to time.
It is stated that S/shri Sunil Tulli, Vinod Narda, Ayush Maheshwari, Sanjay Parashar, H.S.Sharma, H.M.Sudan, Suresh Bakshi, C.M.Sudan, Mrs. Kanchan Pathak and Anurag Passi have denied their resignation from the membership of the society and stated that they were still members of the society. None of the resignation letters except of Sunil Tulli is available in the record of the society. The GEQD has confirmed that the signature of Sunil Tulli on the resignation letter has been forged . Rest of the witnesses stated that since they were never members of the society hence the question of their resignation does not arise. Their signatures on the resignation letters have been forged.
It is further stated that GEQD opinion has confirmed that signatures of S/Shri U.C.Dugar, Smt. Kusum Lunia , L.C.Dugar, Manish Dugar and Smt. Kanak Surana on their application for membership, resignation letters and affidavits do not tally with their specimen signatures. Ten members whose names have been mentioned in the FIR have stated that they had applied for the membership of the said society but never resigned. No resignation letters in their names have been found in the concerned file except that of Sunil Tulli, however his signature on the same were found to be forged which has been conformed by GEQD. Their name FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 8/93 9 were also not in the list verified by the RCS officials in 2004. Further it is disclosed that Sh. Karamveer Sigh, Dealing Asstt. only processed the matter, checked the records and certified them. He was the only official of RCS who interacted with the representative of the society. No senior officer met any member of the society and merely acted on noting and recommendations made by Sh. Karamveer Singh.
After completion of investigation , the chargesheet have been filed against the above said accused persons u/s 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC & 13/2 r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act and substantive offences u/s 420/468/471 IPC and u/s Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
It is pertinent to mention here that after the filing of the chargesheet accused Pawan Kumar Rustogi (A6) expired and the proceedings against him stands abated as was evident from the order dated 03.2.2011 passed by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
Further, after the filing of the chargesheet accusedKrishna Kumari (A2) also expired as was evident from the order dated 19.12.2011 passed by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court and accordingly, proceedings against her stands abated.
2. It is stated that accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1) , Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Rajesh Nagpal (A4), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) , Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) , Padma Rai (A8) alongwith their coaccused - Piyush Kumar Sharma (A2) ( since deceased) and Pawan Kumar Rustogi (A6) ( since deceased) during the period from 19962001 at Delhi were party to a criminal conspiracy by having agreed to do an illegal act i.e to cheat the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi and Delhi Development Authority by dishonestly and fraudulently getting approved the freeze list of 300 members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 9/93 10 and forged documents.
It is further stated that accused Karamvir Singh (A10)while working as Dealing Assistant in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi in pursuance of abovesaid criminal conspiracy and by otherwise abusing official position as public servant obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage without any public interest, recommended and got approved the freeze list of 300 fictitious members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of forged documents without checking the genuineness of such documents and by putting false notes.
It is also stated that accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Rajesh Nagpal (A4), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5), Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) , Padma Rai (A8) alongwith their coaccused - Piyush Kumar Sharma (A2) ( since deceased) and Pawan Kumar Rustogi (A6) ( since deceased) had dishonestly and fraudulently induced the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi for getting approved the freeze list of 300 fictitious members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents and to get land allotted from DDA at subsidized rates .
3. Thereafter, the arguments on the point of charge were heard and on the basis of the material on record, charge for committing the offences u/s 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC & Sec. 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988 was framed against accusedAshok Kumar Chauhan (A1) , Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Rajesh Nagpal (A4), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) , Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) , Padma Rai (A8) & Karamvir Singh (A10) by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court. Further, charge for committing the offences punishable u/s Sec. 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC, Act 1988 was framed against accused - Karamvir Singh (A10). In addition to this, charge for committing the offences punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC was also framed against FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 10/93 11 the accusedAshok Kumar Chauhan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Rajesh Nagpal (A4), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) , Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) & Padma Rai (A8) by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
The above named accused persons pleaded not guilty to the respective charges framed against them and claimed trial.
It is pertinent to mention here that accusedAnju Malik (A9) has been discharged in this case vide order dated 09.7.2012 passed by one of the Ld.Predecessors of this court.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution/CBI has examined 61 witnesses i.e PW1 to PW61.
Prosecution witnesses can be classified as under: ORIGINAL MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY : PW7 Anurag Passi, PW8 Satnarayan Maheshwari, PW10 Chander Mohan, PW11 Sunil Kumar Tuli, PW12 Vinod Narda, PW14 Chander Prakash Kalra, PW19 Kanchan Pathak, PW26 Umesh Chander Vig, PW34 Col. Suresh Bakshi, PW41 Sanjay Parashar, PW43 Harish M. Sudan and PW50 H.S. Sharma, FAKE MEMBERS OR NOT MEMBERS IN THE SOCIETY : PW1 Sanjay Singhee, PW2 Ramesh Kumar Bengani, PW3 Sampat Mal Bhucha, PW4 Chhatra Singh Dugar, PW5 Kamal Singh Sethia, PW6 Arun Kumar Jain, PW9 Labh Chand, PW13 Suman Jyoti, PW16 Ajit Kumar Choraria, PW17 Hemant Jain, PW18 Mehar Chand Jain, PW20 Vinay Kumar Jain, PW27 Madan Lal, PW28 Rajesh Kumar Dugar, PW29 Manoj Kumar Sethia, 32 Karan Jain, PW35 Kusum Luniya, PW36 Chander Prakash Parakh, PW37 Ruby Chopra, PW38 Mukesh Kesri, PW39 Manish Duggar, PW40 Surender Kumar Choraria, FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 11/93 12 PW42 Ashok Kumar Tomar, PW47 Kanak Surana, PW48 Uday Chand Dugar and PW56 Anil Karnawat.
WITNESSES FROM RCS OFFICE:
PW21 Harendra Kumar Gaur, PW22 Mohan Chander Joshi, PW23 Daya Nand Gupta, PW24 J.N. Gupta, PW25 Satish Mathur, PW30 Ravi Kant Bhalla, PW31 Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj and PW49 Mukesh Prasad.
WITNESSES RELATED TO INVESTIGATION/GEQD/ CBI officials. PW44 S.C. Bhalla (complainant), PW45 Rajinder Singh, PW46 Anil Kumar, PW51 Umesh Vashishta, PW52 Naresh Indora, PW53 R.C. Sharma, PW54 Ajay Kumar, PW57 K.B. Jena and PW58 Sanjay Sharma.
SANCTIONING AUTHORITY PW55 P. Krishnamurthy, OTHER WITNESSES :
PW15 Anil Kumar, PW33 Vishal Thakre, PW59 Suraj Prakash, PW60 Pawan Kumar and PW61 Dr. Surender Kumar.
5. After recording of prosecution evidence, statements of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, which they denied as incorrect.
In their above said statements u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused Rajesh Nagpal FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 12/93 13 (A4) & Karamvir Singh (A10) stated that they do not want to lead any evidence in their defence and accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) , Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) & Padma Rai (A8) stated that they want to lead evidence in their defence.
It is pertinent to mention here that the additional statements u/s 313 Cr.PC of abovesaid accused persons were also recorded by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence as incorrect and accused Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) , Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) & Padma Rai (A8) stated that they do not want to lead any additional evidence in their defence and accusedAshok Kumar Chauhan (A1) stated that he wanted to lead additional evidence in his defence.
6. In his DE, accusedAshok Kumar Chauhan (A1) has examined himself as DW5. He has also examined DW6 Ashok Kumar Navet in his defence. It is pertinent to note here that in his DE, accusedAshok Kumar Chauhan (A1) has also partly examined DW4 Mukesh Kumar, however on 20.5.2016, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1) made a statement in the court that he do not want to examine DW4 any further after his part examination and he also closed the DE .
In his DE, accusedVijay Singh Lunia (A5) has examined DW2 Syed Faizal Huda.
In his DE, accused Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) has examined DW3 Syed Faisal Huda.
In her DE, accused Padma Rai (A8) has examined DW1 Krishan Kumar.
It is pertinent to mention here that accusedPiyush Kumar Sharma (A3) FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 13/93 14 has not led any evidence in his defence in this case.
7. I have heard the arguments at length put forward by Ld. Senior PP for the CBI and Ld. defence counsels for the accused persons and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution/CBI in support of its case and by the accused persons in their defence.
8. It has been submitted by Ld. Senior PP for the CBI that in view of the evidence adduced on record, the prosecution/CBI has been successful in proving on record the guilt of the accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that it has been established by the prosecution on record that accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Rajesh Nagpal (A4), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) , Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) , Padma Rai (A8) alongwith their coaccused - Piyush Kumar Sharma (A2) ( since deceased) and Pawan Kumar Rustogi (A6) ( since deceased) during the period from 19962001 were party to a criminal conspiracy by having agreed to do an illegal act i.e to cheat the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi and Delhi Development Authority by dishonestly and fraudulently getting approved the freeze list of 300 members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents. It is submitted that A1, A3, A4, A5, A7 & A8 were the office bearers of Bhagwati CGHS and they have forged the proceedings register of the society and have dishonestly and fraudulently shown therein the enrollment as well as the resignation of various fake members , although the said members were non existent and the said forgery has been proved on record by the opinion of GEQD (PW57). It is further submitted that in view of the evidence on record, the prosecution/CBI has proved that accused FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 14/93 15 Karamvir Singh (A10) while working as Dealing Assistant in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi in pursuance of the abovesaid criminal conspiracy and by otherwise abusing official position as public servant obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage without any public interest by recommending and getting approved the freeze list of 300 fictitious members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of forged documents without checking the genuineness of such documents and by putting up false notings.
It has been further submitted by the Ld. Sr.PP for CBI that prosecution has also been successful in proving on record that accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1) , Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Rajesh Nagpal (A4), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) , Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) , Padma Rai (A8) alongwith their coaccused - Piyush Kumar Sharma (A2) ( since deceased) and Pawan Kumar Rustogi (A6) ( since deceased) had dishonestly and fraudulently induced the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi for getting approved the freeze list of 300 fictitious members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents and for getting land allotted from DDA at subsidized rates. Ld. Senior PP for the CBI also submitted that in view of the evidence and material brought on record by the prosecution/CBI, guilt of the accused persons have been proved beyond the reasonable doubts and he prayed that all the accused i.e. A1, A3 to A5 , A7, A8 & A10 may be convicted of the respective charged offences.
In support of his contentions , Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has relied upon the case law cited as 1980 SCR (2) 249, 1993 SCR (3) 543, Indiankanoon.org./ doc/ 291195, Indiankanoon.org./doc/1447793 & Indiankanoon.org./doc/1481882.
9. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Ld. Defence counsel for accused A.K.Chauhan (A1) that the said accused was bonafide member of the FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 15/93 16 Bhagwati Society since the year 1984 and he got the membership through G.S.Kalra, who was the office bearer of the society . It is further submitted that in the year 1996, G.S.Kalra and Dr. R.L.Arora approached the A1 to become the President of the society and on their request, the applicant became the President of the Society but all the functions of the society were managed by Dr. R.L.Arora and even the society was shifted at the residence of Dr. R.L.Arora i.e C18/251, Acharya Niketan , Mayur Vihar, Delhi. It is submitted that society in question went into the winding up but later on, Dr. R.L.Arora initiated the process for recall of the said winding up order and said winding up order was recalled by the RCS and all the proceedings in this regard were done by Dr. R.L.Arora and the A1 was only the dummy/signatory President and he did not even attended many meetings and Dr. R.L.Arora used to bring the register to A1 for signatures . It is further submitted in the year 200102, it came to the knowledge of the A1 that Dr. R.L.Arora has transferred the funds of the society to the another society namely Lok Hitkari Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd in which he was also holding the post of secretary and A1 got filed the arbitration case and also lodged the police complaint against Dr. R.L.Arora . It is submitted that FIR No. 25/2003 was also registered regarding abovesaid illegal transaction by Dr. R.L.Arora at PS: Kapashera and he was also named as accused in the said case , however on 18.11.2003 he was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and during the investigation, nothing incriminating was found against the A1 and IO filed the final report in the said case and Ld. MM accepted the said final report . It is further submitted that Dr.R.L.Arora used to write all the minutes of meeting in his own hand writing and later on it was revealed to the A1 that some contents have been inserted in the said minutes by Dr. R.L.Arora. It is submitted that none of the members came for enrollment and none have resigned and all these enrollment and resignations and other official works of the society FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 16/93 17 were completed by Dr. R.L.Arora, who was the then Secretary of the society. It is further submitted that as per Rules 24 and 30 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, the personal appearance of a person was not required for disposal of the application for membership of the said member. It is submitted that as per Directive dated 08.11.1983, the Managing Committee was free to accept the resignation as well as enrollment of the members in the society and there has not been any violation of provision of DCS Act & DCS Rules in this case and even if there were some violations in the procedure done by the Managing Committee, the same was condonable as per section 34 of DCS Act , 1972. It is submitted that none of witnesses examined by the prosecution/CBI have made any averment against A1 in their depositions and none of them have stated that they have ever made any payment or handed over any amount to him. It is further submitted that from the material on record, the prosecution has failed to prove offences of criminal conspiracy and other substantive offences against A1. It is also submitted that A1 is innocent and prosecution/CBI has miserably failed to prove his guilt on record and it has been prayed that accusedA.K.Chauhan (A1) may be acquitted of the charged offences.
10. Further, it has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3) that the allegations against A3 were false and the said allegations have not been proved on record beyond the reasonable doubt by evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution/ CBI. It is further submitted that accusedPiyush Kumar Sharma (A3) is a businessman and was running one shop under the name and style of M/s Tip Top Drycleaners and Mr. R.L. Arora, who was the resident of C18/251, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, Delhi was his customer , who used to visit his shop and around 199596, Dr. R.L.Arora insisted A3 to get membership FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 17/93 18 in the Bhagwati Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd and due to friendly relationship with Dr. R.L.Arora, A3 accepted his proposal and got the membership in the said Society. It is submitted that after becoming the member in the Bhagwati Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., A3 came to know that the said society was solely run by Dr. R.L.Arora from his residence, who used to manage each and every thing in the society and was also holding the record of the society. It is further submitted that in the year 1998, A3 was told by Dr. R.L.Arora that he have been elected as a part of Managing Committee of the society and sometimes he used to get the signature of A3 from his shop on one register purported as Managing Committee register by stating that signature were required to complete the quorum of the Managing Committee. It is submitted that thereafter on so many occasions till 2003, A3 was made part of the Managing Committee of the society by Dr.R.L.Arora and in the year 200102, it came to his knowledge from some other members of the society that Dr. R.L.Arora has transferred the funds of the society to the account of other society. It is further submitted that after getting the knowledge of this bungling, the then Managing Committee has started legal proceedings by the filing the Arbitration case against Dr. R.L.Arora and one FIR was also got lodged against Dr. R.L.Arora by the then President Sh. A. K.Chauhan. It is submitted that A3 have attended only very few meetings although so many times his signatures were procured by Dr. R.L.Arora, who used to write all the minutes of meeting and use to leave some blank lines and he was told to put his signature and thereafter, at later stage some contents used to be inserted in the said minutes by Dr. R.L.Arora . It is submitted that during the presence of A3, none of the members came for enrollment and none have resigned and all these enrollment & resignations and other official works of the society were completed by Dr. R.L.Arora, who was the then then Secretary of the society. It is submitted that A3 was a dormant Managing FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 18/93 19 Committee member and none of the members of the society recognized him and they have not deposed anything against him viz. a viz any transaction/correspondence with applicant. It is submitted that even otherwise as per the Directive dated 08.11.1983, the Managing Committee was free to accept the resignation as well as enrollment and hence there was no violation as alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that even if there was some violation in the procedure done by the Managing Committee, the same was condonable as per section 34 of the DCS Act , 1972 . It is also submitted that in view of the material and evidence adduced on record, it was evident that the prosecution/ CBI has miserably failed to prove any charge against A3 and it has been prayed that accused Piyush Kumar Sharma (A
3) may be acquitted of the charged offences.
11. It has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Rajesh Nagpal (A4) that no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution/ CBI to show that the said accused was involved in the commission of offences alleged against him . It is further submitted that A4 was the bonafide member of the society and he never became the part of the Managing Committee of the society at any point of time , however he was told by Dr. R.L.Arora that he has been shown as a member of the Managing Committee from 06.10.1996 till 26.7.1997 but A4 never did anything and all the affairs of the society were controlled by Dr. R.L.Arora at that time. It is submitted that A4 never submitted any documents under his signature before the RCS or any other authority and even his signatures were never taken by the CBI and sent for comparison. It is further submitted that as per Rules 24 and 30 of DCS Rules 1973 , there was no need for the personal appearance of a person , who sought membership in the society and as such the personal appearance of a person was not mandatory at the time of enrollment of the member of the society. It is FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 19/93 20 submitted that as per Directive dated 08.11.1983, the Managing Committee was free to accept the resignation as well as enrollment and even if some violation in the procedure has been done by the Managing Committee, the same was condonable as per Section 34 of DCS Act . It is further submitted that A4 has been chargesheeted as he has been shown as member of Managing Committee, although A4 never participated in any of the meetings of the Managing Committee. It is submitted that GEQD opinion/ report filed on behalf of the prosecution/ CBI was inadmissible in evidence and even otherwise, the said report was faulty and unreliable as the same was not based upon any scientific approach. It is also submitted that A4 has been falsely implicated in this case without any evidence of criminality and it has been prayed that the said accused Rajesh Nagpal (A4) may be acquitted of the charged offences.
12 . It has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Padma Rai (A8) that the allegations qua the said accused were false and fabricated and that the prosecution/ CBI has miserably failed to connect the said accused with the commission of offences in this case. It is further submitted that A8 has been working with Airports Authority of India and was enrolled as a member of the society on 14.1.2001 . It is further submitted that on pursuance of some colleagues, A8 has joined the Managing Committee of Bhagwati CGHS under the Secretaryship of late Dr. R.L.Arora .It is submitted that A8 has never participated in the elections held in the society , however being a lady , Managing Committee specially Dr. R.L.Arora who was the then Secretary and was incharge of the whole society , coopted A8 in the post of MC Executive Member against the Women Representative Post . It is further submitted that although A8 was not interested in the membership of the Managing Committee but Dr. R.L. Arora told her to accept the same as nothing FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 20/93 21 specific was to be done and it was just a formality to elect women representative. It is submitted that A8 hardly attended 34 meetings, which were held on Saturday or Sunday and as she was irregular in attending the meetings, she was served with a notice vide letter dated 26.11.2002 signed jointly by the office bearer of the society for her disqualification from the MC as she has failed to attend the requisite meetings. It is submitted that during her tenure as member of the Managing Committee, the meeting notices were sent to A8 through UPC and these were usually received by her after the meeting or an hour before the meetings and A8 did not receive any notice for the meeting held on 18.9.2002, 05.10.2002, 20.10.2002, 02.11.2002 and 16.11.2002 and A8 was shown as present in those meetings by way of her fake signatures. It is further submitted that A8 was also shown present in the General Body Meeting by forging her signatures from the attendance sheet of the GBM, although she never attended the said meeting and in this regard, A8 had filed the complaint vide letter dated 15.4.2003 to SHO PS:Pandav Nagar. It is further submitted that A8 has never written minutes of the meetings or helped in writing of the minutes of the meetings and all the minutes of the various meetings were used to be written by Dr. R.L.Arora, who was the then Secretary of the society and A8 was used to be told to put her signature thereafter and later on A8 also came to know that some contents have been inserted in the minutes by Dr. R.L. Arora after obtaining her signatures. It is submitted that in the presence of A8, none of the member came for enrollments and none have resigned and all these enrollments and resignations and other official work of the society were done by Dr. R.L.Arora. It is further submitted that the signatures of the A8 in the minutes of some of meetings were taken after writing of minutes by Dr. R.L.Arora , who personally came to her house to obtain the said signatures . It is submitted that prosecution/CBI has failed to prove the offences of criminal conspiracy or other substantive offences FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 21/93 22 against the A8 in any manner and none of the witnesses have deposed that A8 has an agreement with other accused persons for committing illegal acts. It is also submitted that A8 had been falsely implicated in the present case and it has been prayed that since the prosecution/ CBI has failed to establish the guilt of the accused Padma Rai ( A8) on record beyond reasonable doubt, the said accused (A8) may be acquitted of the charged offences.
In support of his contentions , Ld. Defence counsel for accused A.K.Chauan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Rajesh Nagpal (A4) & Padma Rai (A8) have relied upon the case law cited as AIR 1985 SC 1224, AIR 1992 SC 1939 , (2010) SLT 708, 2013 (2) JCC 1175, 2014 1AD (Delhi) 349, 221 (2015) DLT 74 (DB), 2015 (2) RLR 323, AIR 1979 SC 1506, AIR 1979 SC 1890, AIR 1984 Orissa 71, AIR 2009 SC 2717, AIR 2003 SC 2748, AIR 1979 SC 1012, MANU/BH/0174/1917, MANU/KA/1277/2015, MANU/PH/1062/2016, Order dated 23.4.2012 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. Rev. P.No. 424/2011 (Parsadi Lal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi ) and Order dated 17.1.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. Rev. P.No. 397/2010 (A.P.Narang Vs. CBI ) & judgment dated 12.10.2017 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Crl. Appeal No. 293/2014 and 294/2014.
13. Further, it has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) that the said accused has been falsely implicated and he has nothing to do with the offences alleged in this case. It is further submitted that prosecution /CBI has charged A5 for the offences committed during the period 1996 2001, however A5 became the ordinary member of Bhagwati Cooperative Group Housing Society only on 1st May, 2001 and the said fact is also confirmed by the Proceeding Register of the Society for the period 01.4.2000 to 28.2.2002 which FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 22/93 23 reflected that A5 has been involved as member of Bhagwati Cooperative Group Housing Society on 01.5.2001. It is submitted that the society was allotted land by the DDA in Dwarka, New Delhi and possession of land was taken over by the society on 28.6.2000 and A5 became member of Bhagwati Cooperative Group Housing Society on 01.5.2001, which implies that everything pertaining to getting approved the freeze list of 300 members and for getting the land allotted for the society had been done much before A5 was enrolled as a member in the society. It is further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the role of A5 in the conspiracy for getting approved the freeze list of 300 members or for getting the land allotted from DDA at subsidized rates and as such no ingredient of the charge framed against A5 has been proved on record by the prosecution/CBI. It is submitted that from the material on record, it was evident that A5 has been made a scapegoat in this case by furnishing wrong information in the documents and by forging the signatures of A5 in the various proceeding registers of the society. It is further submitted that the signatures of A5 on the various minutes of meeting of the society has been forged and the Investigating Agency/CBI has not tried to investigate as to who has forged the signatures of A5 and why the same have been forged. It is submitted that the Member of the Management Committee of CGHS is elected and A5 have never contested any election or any position in the Management Committee of Bhagwati Cooperative Group Housing Society and inspite of this , the A5 has been shown as member of Management Committee in the resolution dated 15.2.2002 by forging his signature. It is stated that prosecution/CBI has failed to bring on record any incriminating evidence in respect of the charges framed against A5. It is also submitted that accused Vijiay Singh Singh Lunia (A5) has been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecution/CBI for ulterior reasons and it has been prayed that the said accused (A5) may be acquitted of the charged offences.
FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 23/93 24
14. It has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accusedAkshay Kumar Jain (A7) that said accused was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case . It is further submitted that Bhagwati Cooperative Group Housing Society is not a society which was bound up and was revived and therefore , the present society does not fall under the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P ( C ) No. 10066/04 and CBI has exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting investigation in the present case. It is submitted that in the instant case, the increase in the strength of freeze list from 150 to 300 was made on the basis of the proceedings vide meeting of the Management Committee placed in file D.9 (I) at page no.23 and the said a meeting was not attended by the A7 and the same also does not mention any act or omission or commission on the part of A7. It is further submitted that in pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble High of Delhi , a committee consisting of J.S.Sharma and Yogi Raj both Assistant Registrars, was constituted to verify the list of the members of the present society and the said committee submitted its report in June 2004 recommending that the list of 300 members as submitted by the society was verified and found to be genuine and on the basis of the said list , the Administrator of the society had acted and elections of the society were conducted , which implies that list increasing the strength from 150 to 300, which was recommended by A10 was further verified by officials of the RCS and was found to be genuine and correct. It is submitted that vide enrollment proceedings dated 15.2.2002 various members were shown to be enrolled in the society and the said meeting was not attended by A7. It is submitted that A7 was secretary of the society for merely two weeks i.e from 29.12.2001 to 15.1.2002 and the proceedings dated 15.2.2002 does not have the genuine signatures of A7 and this has also been confirmed by DW3, who was the forensic expert examined by the said A7 in his FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 24/93 25 defence. It is further submitted that vide proceedings dated 31.1.2003, 27.12.2003, 05.10.2002 and 20.10.2002, various members were shown resigned and all these proceedings were contained in D9 (II) and A7 had not participated in most of these meetings and the said meetings do not contain his name and signatures and the contents of these meetings do not indicate any act or omission or commission on the part of the A7. It is submitted that in the instant case, the land was allotted to the society in the year 1999 and 2000 and A7 had no role in taking the possession of the said land and he was also not part of the Managing Committee or any proceedings which decided and approached the RCS for obtaining the land. It is submitted that none of the PWs examined by the prosecution in this case have named A7 and none of the said witnesses have averred any illegal act or omission or commission on the part of A7 and even the CBI has failed to bring on record any document showing that A7 has indulged in any illegal act or adopted any illegal means for unlawful gain for himself or unlawful loss to any authority or person. It is further submitted that the specimen handwriting/ signatures have been taken in this case without the orders of the court and as such the opinion of GEQD was required to be ignored as it was in violation of Section 311A Cr. PC. It is also submitted that A7 has not committed any criminality and he has been falsely implicated in this case and it has been prayed that the said accused Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) may be acquitted of the charged offences.
In support of his contentions, Ld. Defence counsel for accusedAkshay Kumar Jain (A7) has relied upon the case law cited as (2013) 2 SCC 357, (2012) 9 SCC 257, AIR 1996 SC 1744, (2000) 8 SCC 740, (2007) 12 SCC 341 & AIR 1980 SC 791.
15. It has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accusedKaramveer FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 25/93 26 Singh (A10) that the said accused was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that in the instant case, the CBI has acted beyond the directions issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.( C ) No. 1066/04 as the present society does not fall under the category of society which was bound up and was revived. It is further submitted that A10 was the lowest rung official in the hierarchy and whatever he has done in the file in question, the same has been done by him in discharge of his official duties and that there was no malafide intention on his part. It is submitted that main allegation in the charge sheet is that in the note dated 04.8.1997, the dealing Assistant (A10) recommended that the freeze list of society be increased from 150 to 300 without the audit report on record, although in the note placed at page No. 32/N of D (VIII)1, the dealing Assistant (A10) had mentioned that the Secretary of the society has applied for certified copies of bye laws and registration certificate which were lost/missing and for which the FIR has been lodged and A10 has also mentioned at clause (18) that the audit for the society was complete up to 31.3.1997. It is further submitted that A10 was transferred from the office of RCS in June 1999 and thereafter the said accused has nothing to do with the affairs of the societies. It is submitted that A10 has made clear that the copy of the audit report was not on record and that society has requested to fix its strength at 300 members and the said note at the bottom has been seen by the Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar . It is further submitted that even queries raised by the Deputy Registrar at page No.58/N of D ( VIII)1, have been replied by A10 on clarification given by Sh.R.L.Arora, the then Secretary of the Society and further at page No. 60/N of D ( VIII)1, A10 has clearly and categorically brought to the notice of the higher authorities that although there was violation of provisions of Section 29, yet Section 29 of DCS Act 1972 was not applicable for the reason that the society was revived vide office order dated FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 26/93 27 12.6.1997 and this note was also seen by the Deputy Registrar (South). It is submitted that at page No. 54/N of D ( VIII)1, A10 has mentioned that the society has maintained the record of enrollment of new members and the old record of the society i.e original proceedings book, cash book, bill and vouchers , ledgers etc. were not available and the photocopies of record and documents obtained from the Secretary was placed on record. It is further submitted that vide his note at page no. 56/N of D ( VIII), A10 has brought to the knowledge of the higher authorities that there were lapses and irregularities on the part of the Managing Committee and in view of the said note, it can not be inferred that there was any conspiracy amongst the accused persons as every lacunae/ short comings have been pointed by A10 and the same have also been brought to the knowledge of higher authorities. It is submitted that vide directions given in W.P ( C ) No. 2199/2003, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has directed to the office of RCS to verify the list of the members of the present society for the purpose of conducting election and pursuant to the said directions, a committee consisting of J.S.Sharma and Yogi Raj both Assistant Registrars was constituted and it submitted its report in June 2004 recommending that the list of 300 members as submitted by the society was verified and found to be genuine and on the basis of the said list, the Administrator of the society had acted and elections of the society were conducted, which implies that the list which was recommended by A10 increasing the strength from 150 to 300 was further verified by the officials of the RCS and was found to be genuine and correct. It is further submitted that in view of the material on record, it is evident that A10 always acted within the ambit of law and the acts attributed to him by the prosecution does not fall under the term illegal and as such prosecution has failed to prove its accusation that A10 acted in illegal manner or has adopted illegal means to do any act. It is submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to bring on FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 27/93 28 record any evidence that A10 had knowledge of any illegality or A10 has adopted illegal means to do anything illegal or A10 concealed any important and relevant fact from his higher authorities in order to extend any benefit to himself or to any member or to the management committee of the society. It is also submitted that A10 has been falsely implicated in this case and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the said accused on record beyond the reasonable doubt and it has been prayed that accusedKaramveer Singh (A10) may be acquitted of the charged offences.
In support of his contentions, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Karamveer Singh (A10) has relied upon the case law cited as (1996) 10 SCC 193 AIR 2016 SC 2287 & (2012) 8 SCC 106.
16. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the prosecution/CBI and accused persons and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have carefully considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution/CBI in support of its case as well as by the accused persons in their defence. I have also carefully perused the written arguments/submissions filed on behalf of accused and the case law relied upon by the Ld. Sr.PP for the CBI and Ld.Defence counsels in support of their respective contentions.
17. In the present case, it is being stated on behalf of the prosecution/CBI that accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1) , Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Rajesh Nagpal (A4), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) , Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) , Padma Rai (A8) alongwith their coaccused - Piyush Kumar Sharma (A2) ( since deceased) and Pawan Kumar Rustogi (A6) ( since deceased ) during the period from 1996 FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 28/93 29 2001 at Delhi were party to a criminal conspiracy by having agreed to do an illegal act i.e to cheat the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi and Delhi Development Authority by dishonestly and fraudulently getting approved the freeze list of 300 members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents.
It is further stated that accused Karamvir Singh (A10) while working as Dealing Assistant in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy and by otherwise abusing official position as public servant obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage without any public interest by recommending and getting approved the freeze list of 300 fictitious members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of forged documents without checking the genuineness of such documents and by putting false notes.
It is also stated that accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Rajesh Nagpal (A4), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5), Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) , Padma Rai (A8) alongwith their coaccused - Piyush Kumar Sharma (A2) ( since deceased) and Pawan Kumar Rustogi (A6) ( since deceased) had dishonestly and fraudulently induced the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi for getting approved the freeze list of 300 fictitious members of Bhagwati CGHS, on the basis of false and forged documents, for getting land allotted from DDA at subsidized rates .
18. In the instant case, it is being argued on behalf of the accused A7 & A10 that Bhagwati Cooperative Group Housing Society is not a society which was bound up and was revived and therefore , the present society does not fall under the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P ( C ) No. 10066/04 and FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 29/93 30 CBI has exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting investigation in the present case. It is further submitted that CBI has acted beyond the directions issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the abovesaid Writ Petition and as such the registration of FIR in the present case was void, however the said submissions made on behalf of the accused are devoid of any merits and are contrary to the record as the perusal of the record reveals that in the instant case, the FIR has been registered and investigation has been conducted in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
In the present case, it has been stated on behalf of the prosecution /CBI that during the pendncy of the investigation in this case, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition ( Civil) No. 8726/2005 'Bhagwati CGHS Ltd. Vs. The Registrar Cooperative Societies and Anr.', called for the Status Report from CBI and after going through the same, vide its order dated 08.7.2008, observed as follows : "An affidavit of Assistant Registrar (East). Cooperative societies, has been filed by Mr. V.K.Tandon today in furtherance of the status report filed on the last date of hearing. In the affidavit filed on record it is averred that the society which was registered on 22.12.1983 was ordered to be would up by order dated 25.4.1990 passed by Registrar Cooperative Societies. It is averred that the society preferred an appeal to the competent authority . The Lt. Governor considered the appeal and set aside the winding up order and remanded the case to Registrar Cooperative Societies for reexamination. In view of this, it is stated that the Registrar Cooperative Societies withdrew the winding up order on 12.6.1997. Apart from that, it is averred that once an appeal is preferred u./s 76, the order of winding up of cooperative society made under section 63 is operative. Therefore even in the interregnum once an appeal was preferred, the winding up order did not operate. Considering the above facts, Mr. V.K.Tandon, Advocate submits that the present society would not fall in the FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 30/93 31 category of defunct societies or the societies which have ceased to exist and which were then fraudulently got revived . The present society's case would be case of an existing society and the question with regard to the fraud played would have to be in the conspectus of enrollment of memberships and their approvals and ineligible persons being made members and with regard to the award of contract and the resulted diversion of funds."
In view of the above observations, it is evident that the present society's case would be the case of an existing society as the instant society would not fall in the category of defunct societies , which were got fraudulently revived and the question with regard to the fraud played would have to be in the conspectus of enrollment of memberships and their approvals and ineligible persons being made members and with regard to the award of contract and the resulted diversion of funds.
Further, it has been specifically stated on behalf of the prosecution/CBI that during investigation, CBI has adhered to the abovesaid observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi so far as complicity of the accused person in commission of crime after the revival of the society w.e.f 12.6.1997 as no offence stands committed till that date according to the High Court Order.
Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the case law cited as (2012) 8 SCC 106 (Mayawati Vs. UOI & Ors.), however the said case law is not applicable in the instant case as the fact and circumstances of the present case are different from the fact and circumstances of the case discussed therein and in my considered opinion, the aforesaid case law is not of any help to the accused in the present case.
In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, there does not appear to be any illegality in the investigation conducted by the CBI in this FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 31/93 32 case and it can not be said that CBI has exceeded its jurisdiction or has acted beyond the directions issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
19. ROLE OF ACCUSED PUBLIC SERVANT (i.e A10 It has been submitted by the Ld. Defence counsel for A10 that he was the lowest rung official in the hierarchy and whatever he has done in the file in question regarding the revival of the society, the same have been done by him in discharge of his official duties and that there was no malafide intention on his part. It has also been submitted that there was no evidence on record to connect the said accused with the offences alleged in this case.
In the instant case , to connect the abovesaid public servant i.e A10 with the alleged offences, notings on the file are the vital piece of evidence.
It is pertinent to note here that evidential value of such notings has been recognized by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as "Runu Ghosh Vs. CBI" ( CRL.A. 482/2002, DOD - 21.12.2011) and therein, it has been laid down that since the offences of corruption are done under the clock of official duties and in a very clever and shrouded manner, the only evidence available is note sheets written or approved by public servant and the court would be fully justified to draw appropriate inferences from such note sheets.
In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to note sheets and the signatures of the the concerned official i.e A10 appearing thereon. The abovesaid notings and the signatures of the concerned official therein have also been proved on record by PW49 Mukesh Prasad, who deposed that in the year 1996, he was posted as Dy. Registrar, RCS Delhi and he dealt with the file Ex. PW23/A pertaining to Bhagwati CGHS. PW49 further deposed that the order of RCS for withdrawal of FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 32/93 33 order of winding up dated 25.04.1990 was communicated under his signature vide letter dated 12.06.1997 to the society and thereafter the branch undertook the verification of list of members enrolled / resigned for determination of freeze strength of the society. PW49 deposed that the note running from page 41/N to 57/N was put up by the dealing assistant Karamveer Singh on 11.08.1997 and he raised six queries including regarding verification of residential proof of enrolled members and all the affidavits seen and verified by the DA and marked the file to the concerned officials. PW49 deposed that Karamveer Singh vide his note dated 18.08.1997 on page 58/N to 60/N furnished reply to his queries dated 12.08.1997 in which he inter alia confirmed about the verification of concerned record and thereafter the proposal was submitted to higher authorities for freezing the list of 300 members as verified by DA vide his note dated 20.08.1997 at page 61/N and marked the file to Alka Diwan, who marked it to Gopal Dixit, the then RCS who approved the proposal on 28.08.1997, 61/N. PW49 also deposed that he raised queries from time to time for recommendation of revival of the society by the then DA & AR since RCS was final authority to give approval for revival of the society and he had forwarded the same to him for orders and on the recommendation of Karamveer Singh, freeze list of 300 members was approved by Gopal Dixit, the then RCS.
20. In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that the noting, Ex. PW23/C ( colly.) at page No. 54/N to 57/N of the FileD8 ( Vol. I), has been put up by the accusedKaramveer Singh (A10).
The abovesaid noting [Ex. PW23/C ( colly.)] of accusedKaramveer Singh (A10) reads as under: "The society has maintained record of enrollment of new members. It has been also noted that a new membership register has been maintained to FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 33/93 34 update the details of members. The old record of the society i.e original proceeding book, cash books, ledgers, bill and vouchers of original years are not available. The photocopies of record and documents obtained from secretary are placed on record.
It has been observed that the managing committee has enrolled members after registration of the society. Initially there were 70 promoter members. In total 294 members were enrolled from time to time and 119 members were enrolled before 30.6.86 which not needed verification and approval. The rest of the 294119175 needed verification and approval. The managing committee of the society although followed rule 30 but it has been found that share money from some members were taken in advance. The managing committee failed to intimate this office regarding enrollments as desired vide directive dated 28.6.86 issued U/R 77. The managing committee enrolled 12 members i.e membership nos. 190 to 201 in the meeting held on 01.12.1996 while application were received in advance but share money and admission fee were taken in advance in each case. Society made enrollments of 4 members i.e membership nos. 202 to 205 in June, 1997 and admission fee and share money were received in advance. Managing committee enrolled 146 members i.e membership nos. 206 to 351 in the meeting held on 12.7.97 and 13 members were enrolled i.e membership nos. 352 to 364 in the managing committee meeting held on 25.7.1997 in this case two share money and admission fee were taken in advance.
The Secretary of the society vide his letter dated 03.6.97 submitted a list of 150 members who were enrolled after withdrawal of order u/s64. It has been also informed by the secretary of the society vide his affidavit that application of 52 persons were rejected by the managing committee from time to time. The list of 52 members are placed at page 1377/C to 1379/C. The reasons stated for refusal /rejection were that the applicant failed to file requisite application/affidavit/ and failed to deposit share money etc. There were no expulsion case in the society. The society has affirmed it vide his affidavit.
No court case are pending against the society.
It has been observed that though there is no ban in the enrollments of the members in the Group Housing Society/ies. The right of enrollment of members is vested in the managing committee. Therefore the managing committee of society enrolled 150 new members in the society. However, it FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 34/93 35 is significant that original strength was 150. There were violation of rules and directives made by society w.r.t. resignation and enrollments but the managing committee of the society has passed a resolution in its managing committee meeting held on 29.7.97 requesting the RCS to condone the lapse committed by the society.
The RCS has powers/discretion to condone the lapse committed so far by the society, if agree the requisite condone the lapse may be acceded to. The Annual General Meeting of the society was held on 21.12.1996 and the selection of managing committee was held on 21.12.1994 in the General Body Meeting. The details of General Body minutes are placed at page 466/C. The audit for the society is complete up to 31.3.97.The Auditor has submitted his report in the office of the R.C.S. The copy of the audit report is awaited.
The society has not been allotted land so far, it has now requested to fix it's fresh strength to 300 members .
In view of the submission made from page 41/N onward the request of the society to consider its case for approval of a freeze strength of 300 members has been examined and verified and in the light of submission made at para16 at page 56/N, the case is recommended for consideration."
It is pertinent to note here that when the abovesaid noting was put before DR (S), he raised certain queries and the same were replied by accused Karamveer Singh (A10) vide his note at page 59/N & 60/N of the aforesaid fileD8 ( Vol. I).
The abovesaid note ( at pages59/N & 60/N) of accused Karamveer Singh (A10) reads as under: The queries raised by DR (S) replied as under: (1) Regarding proof of residence w.r.t enrolled members the proof submitted by the society have been placed on record and the same were verified.
(2) Regarding receipt of share money and admission fees in advance to FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 35/93 36 the date as enrollment Refer Page 44/N the Secy. Vide letter dated 14.8.1997 Secy. has stated that it was accepted on the personal request of person concerned.
(3) Regarding refund to resigning members Sh. Sudesh Chaudhary, the Secy has submitted a photocopy of acknowledgement of receipt and cheque from him which is placed on records at page 1395/C regarding information at S.No. At page 43/N the date of M.C,. Meeting approving resignation of Sh. Jugal Kishore M.S. 95 is dated 15.3.1997 needful has been done, the copy of minutes of M.C are placed at page 1396/C. (4) Regarding holding AGM in Dec. 1996 it is stated that although there is violation of provision of Sec29 yet in this we can not apply sec29 for the reason then the society was revived from winding up proceeding vide this office order dated 12.6.1997, so society could not hold AGM.
(5) Regarding information at Page 54/N needful has been done.
(6) All the affidavit file by the members have been kept on records and are in the requisite formate.
Submitted for Sign please.
In view of the above, it is evident that the relevant noting, Ex. PW23/C (colly.) was put up by A10 and therein he specifically stated that society has maintained record of enrollment of new members and that a new membership register has been maintained to update details of members. Further, old record of the society was not available and A10 obtained photocopies of record and documents from secretary and placed the same on record.
It is pertinent to note that from the said noting, it was clear that managing committee has failed to intimate the office of RCS regarding enrollments in terms of Directive dated 28.6.1986 issued u/r77 of DCS, Rules. In addition to this, FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 36/93 37 there were violations of Rules and Directives made by the society w.r.t registrations and enrollments of members and even then, A10 recommended that request of the society for approval of freeze strength of 300 members may be considered and while doing so, he specifically stated that case of the society has been examined and verified, although the relevant record and documents were apparently not available and produced by society.
The perusal of the record reveals that when the abovesaid noting was put up before DR (S), he raised certain queries and the same were replied by A10 by giving false and fabricated clarification by ignoring the irregularities in the enrollments and resignation of members and as such, it was apparent that A10 recommended for the enhancement of member strength of the society from 150 to 300 without any verification of the documents of the society.
Ld. Defence counsel for A10 has relied upon the case law cited as (1996) 10 SCC 193 and AIR 2016 SC 2287, however the said caselaw is not applicable in the present case as the fact and circumstances of the present case are distinguishable from the fact and circumstances of the case discussed therein and as such, the abovesaid case law is not of any help to A10 in this case.
21. In the present case , accusedKaramveer Singh (A10) is a public servant and sanction for his prosecution has been obtained by the CBI from the concerned authority/officer i.e PW55 P. Krishnamurthy.
PW55 P. Krishnamurthy deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted as Director, Directorate of Education, Govt of NCT of Delhi and had received the report/ documents including calender of evidence, oral and documentary and statements of witnesses of the case investigated by the CBI and after going through the same and after applying the mind, he came to the conclusion that a primafacie FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 37/93 38 case was made out against Karamvir Singh, who was functioning as dealing hand in office of the RCS, Govt of NCT of Delhi in the year 1997 and hence he granted sanction being the competent authority to grant prosecution sanction against accused Karamvir Singh, an official of the RCS office, Delhi in respect to Bhagwati CGHS and the said sanction order dated 11.06.2010 was Ex. PW55/A and order copy of the same was Ex. PW55/A1.
The important fact is that the abovesaid witness i.e PW55 P. Krishnamurthy, was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel, but nothing material has come on record, which could assail the credibility of this witnesses or could be of any help to the accused person in this case.
In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, PW55 P. Krishnamurthy stated that he had gone through the documents as well as statements of witnesses sent by the CBI to his office . He further stated that he had perused the provisions of IPC as well as PC Act and after going through the same and on perusal of the documents placed before him, he accorded the sanction for prosecution against accused Karamveer Singh. PW55 denied the suggestion that he simply signed the draft sent by the CBI for the purpose of sanction. He further denied the suggestion that he has not applied the mind while granting the sanction . PW55 also denied the suggestion that he acted under the pressure of CBI to grant sanction or that he was deposing falsely.
In the present case, the perusal of the abovesaid sanction order reveals that the concerned sanctioning/competent authority has given the reasons for granting the sanction for prosecution in respect of A10. Further, it is also revealed that the concerned sanctioning/competent authority has also perused the material before granting the sanction for the prosecution of accused (A10) in this case and as such, FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 38/93 39 the said sanction do not suffer from any non application of mind.
22. Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record, it is evident that accusedKaramveer Singh (A10) was the Dealing Assistant in the office of RCS at the relevant time and he dealt with the file pertaining to Bhagwati CGHS. Further , from the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution / CBI, it is evident that record of the society was not verified by A10 before recommending and getting approved the freeze list of 300 fictitious members of Bhagwati CGHS, although it was incumbent upon him to verify the same before recommending the approval of the said freeze list. Apart from this, accused Karamveer Singh (A10) did not recommend for the physical verification or field inspection of the members of the society, whose names and numbers were sought to be freezed, for the reason best known to him, although this would have been the natural course of action as the relevant record /documents of the society were missing as was reflected from the notesheet dated 11.4.1997 and letter addressed by Dr.R.L.Arora to AR ( South). Further, without any verification of the record/ documents of the society, A10 recommended for approval of freeze strength of 300 members of the society despite the fact that he noticed various irregularities in the enrollment of members, whereby the strength of members was increased abruptly from 150 to 300. In addition to this, A10 had made recommendation for approval of freeze list of 300 members despite the fact that audit reports were not available on record and it appears that he also intentionally overlooked the period for which the accounts of the said society were audited. Further, from the material on record, it was clear that A10 has also given favourable notings in favour of the society in respect of the objections raised by DR(S) and as such, on the said misrepresentation of the facts regarding the status and record/documents of the society, A10 FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 39/93 40 dishonestly & fraudulently induced the senior officers of the office of RCS in processing the file of the society for approving the freeze list of 300 members of the society and forwarding the same to DDA. It is pertinent to note that on account of the abovesaid dishonest & fraudulent acts and omissions on the part of A10, the aforesaid list of 300 members of the society was approved by RCS and the same was forwarded to DDA for allotment of land corresponding to the strength of 300 members and in consequent thereof, a plot of land measuring 17000 sq. mtrs was alloted to Bhagwati CGHS at Dwarka by the DDA. All the abovesaid circumstances clearly establishes the involvement of accusedKaramveer Singh (A10) in the commission of offences in this case.
23. Role of the remaining accused persons i.e A1, A3, A4, A5, A7 & A8.
It has been submitted on behalf of the prosecution/CBI that accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Rajesh Nagpal (A4), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) , Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) , Padma Rai (A8) alongwith their coaccused-Karamveer Singh (A10) and Piyush Kumar Sharma (A2) ( since deceased) & Pawan Kumar Rustogi (A6) ( since deceased) during the period from 19962001 were party to a criminal conspiracy by having agreed to do an illegal act i.e to cheat the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi and Delhi Development Authority by dishonestly and fraudulently getting approved the freeze list of 300 members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents. It is further submitted that A1, A3, A4, A5, A7 & A8 were the office bearers of Bhagwati CGHS and they have forged the proceedings register of the society and have dishonestly and fraudulently shown therein the enrollment as well as the resignation of various fake members , although the said members were non existent FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 40/93 41 and the said forgery has been proved on record by the opinion of GEQD (PW57). It is also submitted that A1, A3, A4, A5, A7 & A8 in connivance with A10, had dishonestly and fraudulently induced the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi for getting approved the freeze list of 300 fictitious members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents and for getting land allotted from DDA at subsidized rates.
On the other hand, it is being submitted on behalf of the accused A1, A3, A4, A5, A7 & A8 that the allegations qua the said accused persons were false and fabricated and the prosecution/ CBI has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the said accused on record. It is further submitted that society in question went into the winding up but later on, Dr. R.L.Arora initiated the process for recall of the said winding up order and said winding up order was recalled by the RCS and all the proceedings in this regard were done by Dr. R.L.Arora and the A1, A3, A4, A5, A7 & A8 were only the dummy/signatory office bearers and they did not even attended many meetings and Dr. R.L.Arora used to bring the register to them for their signatures. It is submitted that Dr.R.L.Arora used to write all the minutes of meeting in his own hand writing and later on, it was revealed to the A1, A3, A4, A5, A7 & A8 that some contents have been inserted in the said minutes by Dr. R.L.Arora . It is submitted that none of the members came for enrollment and none have resigned in the presence of abovesaid accused and all these enrollment and resignations and other official works of the society were completed by Dr.R.L.Arora, who was the then Secretary of the society. It is further submitted that as per Rules 24 and 30 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, the personal appearance of a person was not required for disposal of the application for membership of the said member. It is submitted that as per Directive dated FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 41/93 42 08.11.1983, the Managing Committee was free to accept the resignation as well as enrollment of the members in the society and there has not been any violation of provision of DCS Act & DCS Rules in this case and even if there were some violations in the procedure done by the Managing Committee, the same was condonable as per section 34 of DCS Act, 1972. It is submitted that none of witnesses examined by the prosecution/CBI have not made any averment against A1, A3, A4, A5, A7 & A8 in their depositions and none of them have stated that they have ever made any payment or handed over any amount to them. It is also submitted that from the material on record, the prosecution has failed to prove offences of criminal conspiracy and other substantive offences against A1, A3, A4, A5, A7 & A8.
24. In the present case, it is stated that A1, A3, A4, A5, A7 & A8 were the office bearers of Bhagwati CGHS at the relevant time and they have forged the proceedings registers - Ex. PW57/M, (D8, Vol. XXIII), Ex. PW57/C, (D10, Vol. I) and Ex. PW57/K, (D8, Vol. XXII) of the society and have dishonestly and fraudulently shown therein the enrollment as well as the resignation of various fake members , although the said members were non existent.
In instant case, the perusal of record reveals that the abovesaid record/proceedings registers ( Ex. PW57/M, Ex. PW57/C & Ex. PW57/K etc.) of the society were manipulated/forged and some persons, who never became the members of Bhagwati CGHS, were shown to be the members of the said society and even their resignation from the membership of the Bhagwati CGHS were forged. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that some of the fake members mentioned in the list of members of the society have stated in their deposition in FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 42/93 43 the court that they never became member of the Bhagwati CGHS and since they never became the members in the Bhagwati CGHS, there was no question of their resignation from the membership of the said society as was evident from the testimonies of the following witnesses examined by the prosecution/CBI in this case.
PW1 Sanjay Singhee deposed that he never became member of any society including Bhagwati CGHS and has never filed any affidavit in the year 2002 in the said society. PW1 further deposed that he has also not filed any resignation letter in Bhagwati CGHS. PW1 deposed that he had never applied for the membership of Bhagwati CGHS vide application form Ex. PW1/A and the signature on the affidavit Ex. PW1/B does not pertain to him.
PW2 Ramesh Kumar Bengani deposed that he never became member of any society including Bhagwati CGHS and has never filed any affidavit in the year 2002 in the said society. PW1 further deposed that he has also not filed any resignation letter in Bhagwati CGHS. PW1 deposed that he had never applied for the membership of Bhagwati CGHS vide application form Ex. PW2/A and the signature on the affidavit Ex. PW2/B does not pertain to him.
PW3 Sampat Mal Bhucha deposed that he never became member of any society including Bhagwati CGHS and has never filed any document with such society. PW3 further deposed that the document (Ex. PW3/A) shown to be in his name does not bear his signature at point A & A1. PW3 also deposed that he has never filed any application form (Ex. PW3/B) and the signature appearing therein does not pertain to him.
PW4 Chhatra Singh Dugar deposed that he never became member of any society including Bhagwati CGHS and has never filed any document with such society. PW4 further deposed that the document (Ex. PW4/A) shown to be in his FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 43/93 44 name does not bear his signature at point A & A1. PW4 deposed that he has never filed any application form (Ex. PW4/B) and the signature appearing therein does not pertain to him. PW4 further deposed that resignation letter Ex. PW4/C does not bear his signature at point A and the affidavit Ex. PW4/D, Ex. PW4/E, Ex. PW4/F & Ex. PW4/G shown to be sworn in the name of Manish Dugar, Labh Chand Dugar, Rajesh Dugar and Uday Chand Dugar do not pertain to them and the signatures appearing at point A and A1 on the said affidavits also do not pertain to the said persons. PW4 also deposed that he has seen the membership register D9 (I) at page 36 of the said register and therein, his name was appearing at page no. 543, however he has never member of Bhagwati CGHS and he has proved the said page as Ex. PW4/H. PW5 Kamal Singh Sethia deposed that he never became member of any society including Bhagwati CGHS and has never filed any document with such society. PW5 further deposed that he had never attended any meeting in the said society and had never received any communication from RCS as well as the said society. PW5 deposed that the affidavit (Ex. PW5/A) does not bear his signature and the said affidavit and the application (Ex. PW5/B) were never filed by him. PW5 deposed that share certificate Ex. PW5/C of Bhagwati CGHS in his name for the value of Rs.5,000/ has never been received by him. PW5 further deposed that he has never submitted any resignation to the Secretary, Bhagwati CGHS and the signature on the resignation letter Ex. PW5/D does not pertain to him. PW5 also deposed that he has never received any amount of Rs.5,000/ from Bhagwati CGHS vide receipt Ex. PW5/E. PW6 Arun Kumar Jain deposed that he never became member of any society including Bhagwati CGHS and has never filed any document with such society. PW6 further deposed that he had never attended any meeting in the said FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 44/93 45 society and had never received any communication from RCS as well as the said society. PW6 further deposed that the affidavit (Ex. PW6/A) does not bear his signature and the said affidavit and the application (Ex. PW6/B) were never filed by him. PW6 deposed that the share certificate Ex. PW6/C of Bhagwati CGHS in his name for the value of Rs.5,000/ has never been received by him. PW6 deposed that he has never submitted any resignation to the Secretary, Bhagwati CGHS and the signature on the resignation letter do not pertain to him. PW6 also deposed that he has never received any amount of Rs.5,010/ from Bhagwati CGHS vide receipt Mark6X.
PW9 Labh Chand deposed that he never became member of any society including Bhagwati CGHS and the application form dated 12.02.2002 [D8 (xi)] at page no. 88 which was Ex. PW9/A, does not bear his signature at point A. PW9 further deposed that he had never deposited any amount with the said society vide receipt MarkPW9/B and share certificate dated 16.02.2002 (Ex. PW9/C) was never issued to him. PW9 further deposed that he never resigned from the membership of the society because he never became member of the said society and the signature appearing at point A (Q14) on Ex. PW9/D does not pertain to him. PW9 deposed that he had never received share amount from the society vide refund voucher, Ex. PW9/E. PW9 deposed that he had seen the proceedings register [ D8 (xxii)] and therein at page 62 (Ex. PW9/F) were the proceedings of the management committee meeting dated 05.10.2002 and his name was appearing at serial no. 12. PW9 further deposed that he had never attended the said meeting of the society. PW9 also deposed that he was called by the CBI and IO of this case obtained his specimen signature S38 to S41 (D16) which were Ex. PW9/G. PW13 Suman Jyoti deposed that she herself never became member of FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 45/93 46 any society, however her father included her name in one society namely Bhagwati CGHS through one Mr. G.S. Kalra. PW13 further deposed that she had never signed any document and was never called by the society for attending any meeting nor she received any communication from office of the RCS in her name at her address. PW13 deposed that she had seen the list of members of Bhagwati CGHS (Ex. PW13/A) placed in file D8 (iv) from pages 43/C to 33/C and in the said list, her name was appearing at serial no. 43. She further deposed that the affidavit (Ex. PW13/B) placed in the same file at page 93/C does not bear her signature at point A and A1. PW13 further deposed that she has not filed any application for becoming member in Bhagwati CGHS and as she was never a member in the society so the question of submitting resignation does not arise and she had not signed any resignation and the resignation (letter Ex. PW13/C) does not bear her signature.
PW16 Ajit Kumar Choraria deposed that he was called by the CBI and he had given specimen signatures to the CBI and he never became member of any society including Bhagwati CGHS. PW16 further deposed that application form (Ex. PW16/A) and affidavit (Ex. PW16/B) do not bear his signature and he has never submitted the said application for becoming member in Bhagwati CGHS nor filed the said affidavit for becoming member in the society. PW16 deposed that the letter dated 14.10.2002 (Ex. PW16/C) regarding cancellation of membership bears his signature, however the signature appearing at point A therein were not his. PW16 also deposed that the receipt Ex. PW16/D bears his name, however the signature appearing therein at point A does not pertain to him.
PW17 Hemant Jain deposed that he never became member of Bhagwati CGHS nor filed any documents in the said society. PW17 further deposed that at page 48 the membership register D9 (i) his name has been appearing at serial no. 624 and the names of his brothers were appearing at serial nos. 623 & 625 and he FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 46/93 47 stated that neither he nor his brothers ever became member in any society including Bhagwati CGHS and their names on the said pages, Ex. PW17/A have been wrongly mentioned. PW17 further deposed that the affidavits Ex. PW17/B, Ex. PW17/C & Ex. PW17/D do not pertain to him or his brothers Tarun Jain and Naveen Choraria and the said affidavits were never sworn by him or his brothers. PW17 deposed that letter dated 12.11.2002 (Ex. PW17/E) placed at page 295/C in file D9 (vi), letter (Ex. PW17/F) placed at 296 of the said file and letter dated 28.09.2002 (Ex. PW17/G) placed at page 294/C in the same file do not bear his handwriting or handwriting of his brothers and the said letters also do not bear their signatures.
PW20 Vinay Kumar Jain deposed that he never became member of Bhagwati CGHS and has never submitted any document in the said society. PW20 further deposed that resignation letter dated 31.08.1997 placed in file D9 (vi) at page no. 187 does not bear his signatures at point A and he stated that he was not a member and the signatures appearing on the said resignation letter were forged signatures. PW20 also deposed that at page 49 (Ex. PW20/B1) in membership register D9 (I) (Ex. PW20/B), his name and particulars have been appearing at serial no. 333, however the signature appearing at point A against the relevant entries were not his and the information regarding rejection given in the said column was false as he was never a member in the said society.
PW27 Madan Lal deposed that he never became member of any society including Bhagwati CGHS. He further deposed that the application form Ex. PW27/A, affidavit Ex. PW27/B do not bear his signature and he had never filled up the said application or executed the above said affidavit. PW27 also deposed that resignation letter dated 20.02.2001 Ex. PW27/C in file D9 Vol. VI M No. 274/07 page 99 does not bear his signature at point A and stated that he had never became FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 47/93 48 member of the said society at any point of time and has never visited society's office nor took part in any activity as he never became member of Bhagwati CGHS.
PW28 Rajesh Kumar Dugar deposed that he never became member of Bhagwati CGHS nor invested any money towards the membership of the said society. PW28 further deposed that the application form of Bhagwati CGHS (Ex. PW28/A) and affidavit (Ex. PW4/F) do not bear his signatures and he has never filed the said application or sworn the said affidavit. PW28 further deposed that resignation letter (Ex. PW28/B) does not bear his signature at point A and he has never resigned from the membership of the said society and stated that he never became member of the said society. PW28 also deposed that share certificate (Ex. PW28/C) for Rs.5,000/ issued in his name with membership no.545 was never received by him as he has never invested any money towards the same and the refund slip (Ex. PW28/D) also do not bear his signature at point A. PW29 Manoj Kumar Sethia deposed that he never became member of Bhagwati CGHS nor invested any money towards the membership of the said society. PW29 further deposed that the application form of Bhagwati CGHS (Ex. PW29/A) and affidavit (Ex. PW29/B) do not bear his signatures and he has never filed the said application or sworn the said affidavit. PW29 also deposed that share certificate (Ex. PW29/C) for Rs.5,000/ issued in his name with membership no.547 was never received by him as he has never invested any money towards the same.
PW32 Karan Jain deposed that the application form (Ex. PW32/A) placed at page 550 in file D8 (xi), affidavit dated 16.05.2002 (Ex. PW32/B) placed at page 122 in file D7 do not bear his signature and he has never filed the said application or got attested the aforesaid affidavit. PW32 further deposed that he never became member of the said society so there is no question of his resignation FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 48/93 49 from the membership of the said society. PW32 deposed that affidavit Ex. PW32/C and Ex. PW32/D do not bear the signature of his father Mangi Lal Chorari and his signature therein were forged. He also deposed that the membership form Ex. WP32/E placed at page 250 in file D9 (7) does not bear his signature and he has never signed the said membership form.
PW35 Kusum Luniya deposed that she never became the member of Bhagwati Housing Society nor she applied for its membership. PW35 further deposed that the application form Ex. PW35/A and affidavit Ex. PW35/B do not bear her signature and she has never filled up the said application form or executed such affidavit. PW35 further deposed that she never paid any money to become member in the society and the receipt (Ex. PW35/C) does not pertain to her and the application for cancellation of membership (Ex. PW35/D) also does not bear her signature at point A and her signature on the receipt (Ex. PW15/C) were also forged. PW35 also deposed that CBI official had taken her specimen signature on three sheets (D15) and the same were Ex. PW35/F. PW36 Chander Prakash Parakh deposed that he never applied for membership in Bhagwati CGHS nor became its member. He further deposed that application form (286) D8 XI Ex. PW36/A, D8 XI Ex. PW36/B at page 120 of file D8 VII and share certificate Ex. PW36/C at page 15 of file D8 XI do not bear his signature and he was not issued the said receipt or share certificate and he does not know, who filled the details in Ex. PW36/A. PW37 Ruby Chopra deposed that he never applied to become member of Bhagwati CGHS and had never signed the application form (Ex. PW37/A) and his signature on the said application were forged. He further deposed that he never executed affidavit (Ex. PW37/B) and signature appearing thereon also does not pertain to him. PW37 also deposed that he never became member of the society so FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 49/93 50 the question of his resignation does not arise and his resignation (Ex. PW37/C) was forged and the signature appearing thereon at point A does not pertain to him.
PW38 Mukesh Kesri deposed that he never became member of Bhagwati CGHS nor had he applied for the same and he has never signed the application form (Ex. PW38/A) or executed affidavit (Ex. PW38/B) and his signatures appearing on the said application and affidavit were forged. PW38 also deposed that he had never executed resignation letter (Ex. PW38/C) and signature appearing thereon does not pertain to him.
PW39 Manish Duggar deposed that he, his brother Sanjay Duggar and father had applied for membership of Bhagwati CGHS by way of filling up the membership forms and also submitted amount of membership by cheque and they could not become members as their cheques were never presented in the bank by the society. PW39 further deposed that as they never became member of Bhagwati CGHS, question of refund does not arise. PW39 deposed that the application form (Ex. PW39/A) and affidavit (Ex. PW4/D) bear his signature at point A. PW39 further deposed that share certificate (Ex. PW39/B) issued in his name by Bhagwati CGHS was forged as he never became member of the said society at any point of time. PW39 deposed that resignation (Ex. PW39/C) was also forged as he never signed the same and the signature appearing at point A thereon does not pertain to him. PW39 also deposed that he voluntarily gave his specimen signature on four sheets (D17) and the same were Ex. PW39/D. PW40 Surender Kumar Choraria deposed that he never became member of Bhagwati CGHS nor had executed the documents like affidavit (Ex. PW40/A) or filled up any application (Ex. PW40/B) to become a member of Bhagwati CGHS and his signature appearing thereon on the affidavit and application were forged. PW40 also deposed that share certificate (Ex. PW40/B) was not issued to him nor FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 50/93 51 had he received it at any point of time as he never became member of the said society nor deposited any money with Bhagwati CGHS for membership.
PW42 Ashok Kumar Tomar deposed that he never became member of the Bhagwati CGHS at any point of time nor he filled up any application (Ex. PW42/B) or executed any affidavit (Ex. PW42/A) and his signature thereon were forged. PW42 further deposed that he never signed any resignation letter (Ex. PW42/C) at point A and the said signature were forged signature. PW42 also deposed that Mr. Om Prakash was his uncle and he has since expired and the affidavit (Ex. PW42/D) allegedly executed by him does not bear his signature at point A as the said signature were in English and he used to sign in Hindi.
PW47 Kanak Surana deposed that he never became member of Bhagwati CGHS nor had applied for the same. PW47 further deposed that affidavit (Ex. PW47/A) and application form (Ex. PW47/B) do not bear her signature at point A and the same were forged. PW47 also deposed that share certificate MarkX1 page 20 in file D8 X1 was in her name, however share certificate was not issued to her as she has never applied for membership.
PW48 Uday Chand Dugar deposed that he had applied for membership of Bhagwati CGHS and had given a cheque for the membership and the said cheque were never encashed with the bank and he had never become the member of Bhagwati CGHS. He further deposed that affidavit (Ex. PW4/G) and application form (Ex. PW48/A) do not bear his signature and the same were forged. PW48 deposed that he never received the receipt Mark X1 or share certificate Mark X2 as he never member of Bhagwati CGHS at any point of time. PW48 also deposed that IO had obtained his specimen signatures on (D14) and the same were Ex. PW48/B. PW56 Anil Karnawat deposed that he was neither member of Bhagwati FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 51/93 52 CGHS nor had he applied for membership in respect of the said society nor invested any money or received any refund for the same. PW56 further deposed that application (Ex. PW56/A), affidavit (Ex. PW56/A1) do not bear his signature and he had never applied for any membership. PW56 deposed that receipt dated 16.02.2002 (Ex. PW56/A3) and share certificate (Ex.PW56/A4) were not received by him and someone had committed forgery as he never invested any money. PW56 deposed that he had not executed the affidavit (Ex. PW56/A5) and the signature appearing thereon does not pertain to him. PW56 deposed that since he was not member of any society, hence question of his resignation from the membership of the said society does not arise. PW56 further deposed that application for cancellation of membership (Ex. PW56/A6) does not bear his signature at Q20 and he has never applied for cancellation of membership. PW56 also deposed that receipt (Ex. PW56/A7) does not bear his signature and stated that he has never been a member of any society and the question of refund also does not arise.
The important fact is that abovesaid witnesses have been cross examined on behalf of accused, but nothing material has come on record, which could assail the credibility of these witnesses. Further, from the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, it was evident that record of the society has been manipulated/ forged by the accused persons and various persons, who never became the members of Bhagwati CGHS were dishonestly and fraudulently shown to be members of the said society and even the record pertaining to their enrollment and resignation from the membership of Bhagwati CGHS was forged.
25. Further, the fact that the record pertaining to the enrollment or resignation of the members have been manipulated/ forged was also evident from the testimonies of PW7 Anurag Passi, PW8 Satnarayan Maheshwari, PW10 FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 52/93 53 Chander Mohan, PW11 Sunil Kumar Tuli, PW12 Vinod Narda, PW14 Chander Prakash Kalra, PW19 Kanchan Pathak, PW26 Umesh Chander Vig, PW34 Col. Suresh Bakshi, PW41 Sanjay Parashar, PW43 Harish M. Sudan and PW50 H.S. Sharma, who were the original members of the Bhagwati CGHS.
PW7 Anurag Passi deposed that he became member in Bhagwati CGHS through one person who was known to his father and he has proved the application form and affidavit in this regard as Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B respectively. PW7 further deposed that he had not attended any meeting of Bhagwati CGHS and he had never submitted any resignation from membership of the said society. PW7 deposed that he had seen the proceedings register (D8 XXIII) and stated that in the proceedings dated 27.12.2002 from pages 1 to 5, his name was appearing at serial no. 28 on page no. 3 in the list of members whose resignation has been received for approval and acceptance and he stated that he never submitted his resignation from Bhagwati CGHS as mentioned therein.
PW8 Satnarayan Maheshwari deposed that his son Ayush Maheshwari became member of Bhagwati CGHS through one Mr. R.N. Arora and his son had not resigned from the membership of the said society and he also did not attend any meeting of the society and he has proved application form in this regard as Ex. PW8/A. PW8 further deposed that he had seen proceedings register (D8 XXIII) and stated that in the proceedings dated 18.09.2002 from page 55 to 58 and stated that his son never resigned from the membership of Bhagwati CGHS nor has he received any fund. PW8 deposed that he had seen affidavit placed in D8 XXII and the affidavit (Ex. PW8/C) therein pertains to his son, however neither he nor his son had purchased the said stamp paper nor got the same attested in the year 2002 as mentioned therein. He further deposed that the signatures at points A and A1 were neither his nor his son and also stated that neither he nor his son had submitted the FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 53/93 54 said affidavit in any society including Bhagwati CGHS. PW8 also deposed that the receipt dated 04.05.2001 was in the name of his son Ayush Maheshwari but neither he nor his son ever deposited or received an amount of Rs.5010/from Bhagwati CGHS.
PW10 Chander Mohan deposed that he became member of Bhagwati CGHS through Sh. R.L. Arora and deposited Rs.5010/ for becoming member of the said society and application form dated 14.02.2002 (D8 XIX) was Ex. PW10/A and the signatures appearing therein at point A (Q52) were not his. PW10 further deposed that he had seen the proceeding register (D8) (XXII) page nos. 57 & 58 which were the management committee proceedings held on 18.09.2002 and stated that he had never resigned from Bhagwati CGHS and his name was wrongly mentioned at serial no. 11 therein. PW10 deposed that the affidavit (D8) contains the particulars pertaining to him, however he had never purchased the said stamp paper and never got attested the same in the year 2002 as mentioned therein and even the signatures at points A & A1 (Q53) were not his and he had never submitted the said affidavit in any society including Bhagwati CGHS. PW10 further deposed that he had seen the refund share money voucher dated 01.10.2002 and 21.10.2002 (D8 XIX) at page no.9 which was Ex. PW10/E and stated that he never received any refund of Rs.5,000/ from the society nor has he been allotted any flat.
PW11 Sunil Kumar Tuli deposed that he became member of Bhagwati CGHS and deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/ approximately and he had never resigned from the said society. PW11 further deposed that he had seen the affidavit (Ex. PW11/A) placed in D8 (VII) VolumeXVII at page 77/C and application (Ex. PW11/B) placed in D8 (XII) and stated that the particulars mentioned in the said affidavit were pertaining to him, however the said affidavit does not contain his FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 54/93 55 signatures at point A & A1 and he had never purchased the stamp paper nor got the said affidavit attested in the year 2002. PW11 deposed that he had seen the resignation letter (Ex. PW11/C) placed in the main file and stated that he had not submitted the said resignation and the signatures appearing in the said letter and on the above said receipt (Ex. PW11/D) were not his. PW11 deposed that he has not received any refund from the society and never received refund amount of Rs.5,000/ as shown in the receipt Mark 11/X1. PW11 further deposed that he had seen the proceedings dated 05.10.2002 and the proceedings register (D8 XXII) which are Ex. PW9/F and in the said proceedings, his name was appearing at serial no. 8 in the list of resigned members and stated that he never resigned from the membership of the said society. PW11 also deposed that he had given his specimen signatures in the CBI voluntarily and he has proved the said specimen sheet (S71 to S73) placed in file D18 as Ex. PW11/E (colly.).
PW12 Vinod Narda deposed that he became member of one society namely Bhagwati CGHS and had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/ and he never resigned from the membership of the said society nor had he received any refund of the money. PW12 further deposed that he had seen the affidavit (Ex. PW12/A) placed in file D8 (VII), Volume XVII, page 136/C and application form ( Ex. PW12/B) placed in the same file and stated that the particulars mentioned therein pertained to him, however handwriting appearing in the said affidavit and application was not his and the signatures appearing at points A & A1 on the affidavit and at point A in the application were also not pertaining to him. PW12 deposed that he had seen the refund receipt Mark12/X1 and stated that he had not received the amount mentioned therein. PW12 also deposed that he had seen the proceedings dated 18.09.2002 (Ex. PW10/C) in the proceedings register D8 XXII and his name appears in the list of resigned members therein and stated that he never resigned from FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 55/93 56 the membership of the said society.
PW14 Chander Prakash Kalra deposed that his late father Sh. G.S. Kalra was a member in Bhagwati CGHS. PW14 further deposed that he had seen the list of members of Bhagwati CGHS for the year ending 30.06.1986 placed in file D8
(ii) from pages 165/C to 167/C which was Ex. PW14/A (colly.) and stated that the name of his father alongwith particulars and date of membership etc appearing therein at serial no. 1 were correct. PW14 has proved the death certificate of his father late Sh. G.S. Kalra as Ex. PW14/B. PW14 further deposed that he had seen file Ex. PW24/H (colly.) D8 (II), Vol. III, M. No. 53/07 at page 155 (Ex. PW14/C) and stated that the signatures appearing therein at point A (Q385) were not the signatures of his father. PW14 deposed that he had also seen pages 222 (Q380), 223 (Q379), 230 ( Q377 ), 231 ( Q376 ), 246 and 249 in the file D8 (II), Vol. III M. No.53/07 which were Ex. PW24/H (colly.) and stated that the signatures appearing therein at points A appears to be of his father and he cannot say exactly whose signatures were those. PW14 also deposed that he had seen the affidavit dated 01.12.1983 ( Ex. PW14/D and the signatures appearing therein at point A (Q375) appearing to be of his father but he cannot say exactly about it. PW14 also deposed that after one or two months of death of his father, the Management Committee of Bhagwati CGHS called and inquired about his father and he informed them about his father's death, who had expired on 03.08.1999.
PW19 Kanchan Pathak deposed that she became member of Bhagwati CGHS and has not been allotted any flat by the said society and she never resigned from the membership of the said society. She further deposed that she had seen one application form (Ex. PW19/A) placed in file D8 (XX) and affidavit (Ex. PW19/C) placed in D9 (IX) page 139/C and stated that the particulars mentioned in the said application and affidavit pertained to her and were correct, however handwriting FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 56/93 57 appearing in the affidavit was not her and the signatures appearing at points A & A1 also does not pertain to her and she has never purchased the said stamp paper nor got the said affidavit attested in the year 2002. PW19 also deposed that she had seen proceedings dated 27.12.2002 in register D8 XXIII Mark7/X and therein her name was appearing at serial no. 29 at page no. 3 in the list of members, who have resigned and also stated that she had never resigned from the said society.
PW26 Umesh Chander deposed that in the year 2003, he had taken membership in Bhagwati CGHS and his sons namely Gaurav Vig and Suarabh Vig and his wife Pooja Vig were also members in the Bhagwati CGHS and he was elected as President of Bhagwati CGHS in the year 2004. PW26 further deposed that he has seen file M275/07 and therein, an application form of Sourabh Vig was at page no. 413 and another application in the name of Gaurav Vig at page no. 415 and his application form at page no. 416 and application of his wife Pooja at page no. 417 were filled up by him and the said application forms were Ex. PW26/A, Ex. PW26/B, Ex. PW26/C and Ex. PW26/D respectively. PW26 has also proved the letter (D13) dated 13.07.2007 addressed to the SP, CBI, Special Crime Bureau, New Delhi as Ex. PW26/E. PW34 Col. Suresh Bakshi deposed that he applied for the membership of Bhagwati CGHS and the same was allotted to him. PW34 further deposed that he had seen page 1 of D8 (XVII) and page 82 of file D8 (VII) which were application forms Ex. PW34/A and affidavit Ex. PW34/B filed in his name and stated that the signatures appears at point A on application were not his and the same was not filled up by him and the signatures appearing at point A on the affidavit were also not his and he has never executed the same and has also never purchased the stamp paper nor got the same attested. PW34 deposed that he has seen page 8 of file D8 (XVII) which was a ledger account of Bhagwati CGHS which shows that the amount of FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 57/93 58 Rs.5,000/ has been refunded to him and stated that the same was incorrect as he never received such amount from the said society. PW34 also deposed that he has never resigned from the membership of the society and was still a member of the Bhagwati CGHS.
PW41 Sanjay Parashar deposed that he became member of the Bhagwati CGHS through his brotherSunil Parashar and had deposited a sum of about Rs.5,000/ to become a member of the Bhagwati CGHS and has never resigned from the membership of the said society and was waiting for the allotment of the flat by the society. PW41 further deposed that he had seen page 78 of file D8 VII which was an affidavit (Ex. PW41/A) and has also seen page1 of file D8 XIII which was application form (Ex. PW41/B) filled in his name for membership of Bhagwati CGHS and stated that he never executed the said affidavit and signatures appearing at point A on the application form were forged and the signatures on the said affidavit were also not his and were forged. He also deposed that he has never taken any refund from the society and the receipt was issued to him for the above said Rs.5,000/ when he became the member of the society.
PW43 Harish M. Sudan deposed that he became the member of Bhagwati CGHS in the year 2002. He further deposed that he has seen page 1 of D8 (XV) which is the application from (Ex. PW43/A) and page 80 of file D8 (VII) which is affidavit (Ex. PW43/B) executed in his name and stated that the signatures appearing at point A on the affidavit and at point B on the application were not his and the same were forged one. PW43 has also deposed that he paid his membership amount of Rs.5,010/ to become member of the said society and he has never resigned from the society and has never applied for refund of any membership nor has he received the same.
FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 58/93 59 PW50 H.S. Sharma deposed that he became member of Bhagwati CGHS Limited in the year 2001 and initially he had paid a sum of Rs.5,010/ as membership fees to Mr. R.L. Arora and Mr. Ashok Kumar Chauhan and he was given the receipt for the same on 02.05.2001 vide receipt no. 1704 and the membership was given to him vide membership no. 507. PW50 further deposed that he had seen page 1 of file D8 (XIV) which was an application form for membership of Bhagwati CGHS (Ex. PW50/A) and page 29 of file D8 (VII) which was an affidavit (Ex. PW50/B) executed in his name and stated that he has never filled up the said application form and has never executed the said affidavit and signatures appearing at point A on application and affidavit were not his and were forged one. PW50 has deposed that he had seen page 68 of file D8 (XXII) which was the proceedings register of the society and stated that his name therein was shown at point A at serial no. 3 that he had tendered his resignation from the society and the same was wrong as neither he had attended the said meeting nor had ever resigned from the membership. PW50 has also deposed that still he was the member of the society and the proceedings register contained false information as mentioned by the office bearers of the society.
It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid witnesses have been cross examined on behalf of the defence, but their credibility or trustworthiness have not been impeached. Further, from the depositions of the said witnesses, it was apparent that records of the society have been manipulated/forged and the original members, who never resigned, were shown to have resigned from the membership of the society so as to enroll new/fake members to manipulate the list of membership of the society.
26. In the instant case, the prosecution/CBI is also relying upon GEQD FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 59/93 60 opinion/ report to connect the accused with the commission of offences in this case, whereas on the other hand, it is being submitted on behalf of the accused that GEQD opinion/ report filed on behalf of the prosecution/ CBI was inadmissible in evidence and even otherwise, the said report was faulty and unreliable as the same was not based upon any scientific approach. It is also submitted that the specimen handwriting/ signatures have been taken in this case without the orders of the court and as such the opinion of GEQD was required to be ignored as it was in violation of Section 311A Cr. PC.
In the present case, during investigation, questioned documents along with specimen writing/signatures of the accused were sent to CFSL Calcutta for obtaining opinion and the said documents were examined by PW57 Ms. K.B. Jena (GEQD).
PW57 Ms. K.B. Jena deposed that she joined office of GEQD in the year 1992 as Asstt. Central Intelligence Officer GradeI and in the year 2010, she had been promoted to the post of Deputy GEQD and working in the same post till date and during the said period, she had examined more than 20,0000 exhibits and deposed before various courts of law in India. PW57 further deposed that her office had received documents vide no. 3824/3/61A/2006/MDMA/ND dated 23.10.2007 from SP CBI SCB, New Delhi for examination and vide said letter dated 23.10.20078, the SP had forwarded the questioned documents marked and stamped as Q1 to Q68 besides the specimen writing/ signature marked and stamped S1 to S109 respectively. PW57 deposed that she had brought the reasons for the said opinion and the said reasons in respect of the opinion (Ex. PW57/A) were Ex. PW57/A2 and it bears her signatures on each of the page at point A. PW57 further deposed that after some time, documents were also forwarded vide no. 509/3/61A/2006/MDMA/ND dated 12.02.2008 from SP CBI SCB New Delhi which FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 60/93 61 have been entrusted to her for examination by the then GEQD and vide said letter dated 12.02.2008, the SP CBI had again forwarded the questioned documents marked and stamped as Q69 to Q387 besides the specimen writing/ signatures marked and stamped S111 to S251 respectively besides admitted writing stamped and marked AA and A2. PW57 further deposed that after examination, she had expressed her opinion vide no. DXC/356/2007 dated 20.03.2008 Ex. PW57/B and it bears her signatures at point A. PW57 deposed that Sh. B.P. Mishra, Deputy GEQD also examined the above mentioned documents independently and arrived at the same opinion. PW57 further deposed that the opinion was forwarded by Sh. I.K. Arora vide letter no. DXC/356/2007/2516 dated 20.03.2008 which was Ex. PW57/B1. PW57 deposed that she has brought the reasons for the opinion (Ex. PW57/B) and the same were Ex. PW57/B2 and stated that all the material documents were returned to the CBI after giving opinion. PW57 further deposed that she had seen file (D8/VII) in which the documents marked and stamped Q1, Q3 to Q5, Q8, Q12, Q18, Q22, Q24, Q26, Q28, Q29, Q33, Q35, Q37, Q39A, Q40, Q49, Q51, Q53, Q55, Q59 (Ex. PW11/A), Q61, Q63, Q64, Q66, Q76 to Q77 (Ex. PW 42/A), Q80, Q81, Q83, Q84, Q86 to Q90, Q96, Q97, Q387 (Ex. PW19/C) and the said file was Ex. PW57/C (colly.). PW57 deposed that she had seen file (D8/VII) in which the documents marked and stamped Q1, Q3 to Q5, Q8, Q 12, Q18, Q22, Q24, Q26, Q28, Q29, Q33, Q35, Q37, Q39A, Q40, Q49, Q51, Q53, Q55, Q59 ( Ex. PW11/A ), Q61, Q63, Q64, Q66, Q76 to Q77 (Ex. PW42/A), Q80, Q81, Q83, Q84, Q86 to Q90, Q96, Q97, Q387 (Ex. PW19/C) and the said file was Ex. PW57/D (colly.).
PW57 further deposed that she had seen file (D9/II) in which the documents marked and stamped Q284 to Q372 and the said file was Ex. PW57/D FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 61/93 62 (colly.). PW57 deposed that she had seen file (D9/VI) in which the documents marked and stamped Q100 was at page no.98 and the said file was Ex. PW57/E (colly.). PW57 further deposed that she had seen file (D9 and D9/III) in which the documents marked and stamped were Q180 to Q283 and the said file was Ex. PW57/F (colly.).PW57 deposed that she had seen file (D9V) in which the documents marked and stamped were Q68 (Ex. PW20/A), Q46 (Ex. PW37/C), Q75 (Ex. PW45/C) and Q92 (Ex. PW38/C) and the document marked and stamped as Q79 was Ex. PW57/G (colly.). PW57 further deposed that she had seen file D9/VII part 1 consisting of 1 to 234 pages and 240 to 525 pages in part 2 in which the documents marked and stamped Q85/1, Q85, Q2A, Q23, Q27, Q25, Q91, Q78, Q70 to Q72, Q98, Q99, Q67, Q45 and Q74 and the said documents marked and stamped as mentioned above were Ex. PW57/H ( part 1) and Ex. PW57/H1 (part 2).
Further , in her opinion (Ex. PW57/A), PW57 Ms. K.B. Jena (GEQD) stated that the documents of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined and the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S29 to S32 did not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q3 and Q3A. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S33 to S35 did not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q41, Q42 and Q43. Further, the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S38 to S41 did not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q15 to Q17. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S50 to S53 did not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q7.The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S71 to S73 did not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q57 and Q58.The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S102 to S105 did FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 62/93 63 not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q35 and Q36.The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S36 to S37 did not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q43A. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S50 to S53 did not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q5 and Q6.The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S54 and S55 did not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q37 and Q38.The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S71 to S73 did not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q56 and Q59.The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S74 to S77 did not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q60 and Q61.The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S95 to S96 did not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q44.
27. Apart from above, in her supplementary opinion (Ex. PW57/B), PW57 Ms.K.B. Jena (GEQD) stated that further documents of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined and the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S111 to S116 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q115 to Q118, Q121 to Q137, Q139, Q141 to Q144, Q147 and Q148.The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S117 to S121 and S221 to S235 did not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q155, Q156, Q157/3, Q160/3, Q161/3, Q162. Q163, Q164, Q165/2, Q166, Q167/1, Q168, Q169, Q170, Q171/1, Q172, Q173/1, Q174 to Q176, Q177/1, Q178/1 and Q179. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S117 to S121 and S221 to S235 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q115/2, Q116/3, Q117/2, Q121/4, Q122/4, Q123/3, Q124/2, FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 63/93 64 Q125/3, Q126/1, Q147/3 and Q148/3.The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S122 to S142 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q69, Q70, Q103, Q103A, Q105A, Q106, Q107, Q109/1, Q110, Q114, Q115/1 to Q118/1 Q119, Q120/1, Q121/1, Q122/3, Q123/1, Q124/1, Q125/1, Q126/3, Q127/1, Q128/3, Q129/1, Q130/4, Q131/1, Q132/4, Q133/1, Q134/1, Q135/1, Q136/1, Q137/1, Q138/2, Q139/1, Q140, Q141/3, Q142/1, Q143/1, Q144/1, Q145, Q146/3, Q147/1, Q148/2, Q149/3, Q150, Q151/3, Q152/3, Q155/3, Q156/1, Q157/1, Q158 to Q161, Q162/3, Q163/3, Q164/3, Q165, Q166/3, Q167, Q168/3, Q169/3, Q170/3, Q171/3, Q172/3, Q173, Q174/3, Q175/2, Q176/3, Q177/3, Q178/3 and Q179/3.The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S143 to S154, S154A to S154F also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q72, Q73, Q105, Q108, Q112, Q115/3, Q116/2, Q118/3, Q121/3, Q122/1, Q123/4 and Q124/4.
In her subsequent opinion (Ex. PW57/B), PW57 (GEQD) further stated that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S169 to S171 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q75. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S178 to S194 and S236 to S240 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q85, Q87, Q127/4, Q128/2, Q129/4, Q130/2, Q131/4, Q132/3, Q133/4, Q134/2, Q135/4, Q136/3, Q137/3, Q138/1, Q139/3, Q141/1, Q142/3, Q143/2, Q144/3, Q146/1, Q147/4, Q148/1, Q149, Q150/1, Q151/1, Q152/1, Q153/2, Q154, Q155/1, Q156/3, Q157, Q158/1 Q159/1, Q160/2, 161/1, Q162/1, Q163/1,Q164/1, Q165/1, Q166/1, Q167/2, Q168/1, Q169/2, Q170/2, Q171, Q172/2, Q173/2, Q174/1, Q175/1, Q176/1, Q177, Q178, Q179/2, Q180 to Q220, Q224, Q225, Q227 to Q235, Q237 to Q248, Q250 to Q273, Q275 to Q302 and Q304 to Q372.The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S195 to S210 did not write the FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 64/93 65 red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q155/2, Q156/2, Q157/2, Q160/1, Q161/2, Q162/2, Q163/1, Q164/2, Q165/3, Q166/2, Q167/3, Q168/2, Q169/1, Q170/1, Q171/2, Q172/1, Q173/3, Q174/2, Q175/3, Q176/2, Q177/2, Q178/2 and Q179/1. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S195 to S210 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q115/4, Q116/4, Q117/3, Q118/4, Q119/1, Q120/2, Q121/2, Q122/2, Q123/2, Q124/3, Q125/2, Q126/2, Q127/2, Q128/1, Q129/2, Q130/1, Q131/2, Q132/1, Q133/2, Q134/4, Q135/2, Q136/2, Q137/2, Q138/3, Q139/2, Q141/4, Q142/2, Q143/1, Q144/2, Q146/2, Q147/2, Q148/4, Q149/2, Q150/2, Q151/2 and Q152/2.
28. In the instant case, it has been submitted by Ld. Defence counsel for accused persons that the specimen handwriting/signatures of the accused have been taken by the IO during the investigation without the permission of the court and it renders the reports Ex. PW57/A and Ex. PW57/B as inadmissible in evidence, however the said submissions made on behalf of the accused are devoid of any merits and are contrary to law and it is well settled law that the investigating officer has power to take specimen signatures during the investigation even without permission of the court and that report of such expert based on such specimen signatures/writing could be used as evidence as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as 'Ravinder Singh @ Dara Singh Vs. Union of India ( reported as AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1436) .
It is pertinent to note that PW57 Ms.K.B. Jena (GEQD) has been cross examined on behalf of accused, however nothing material has been come on record which could assail the credibility of this witness or which could show that the said witness has not applied proper procedure for comparison purposes. In fact, the FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 65/93 66 report (Ex. PW57/A) and the supplementary opinion/report ( Ex. PW57/B) are reliable documents as these are well reasoned and these reports also proves the case of the prosecution that it were A1, A3, A5 & A7 whose signatures were there on the forged proceeding registers of the society, wherein enrollment as well as registrations of various fake members have been shown fraudulently, although the said members were nonexistent.
Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the accused that the sole testimony of PW57 (GEQD) was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as there was no corroborative evidence to support the reports given by PW57 (GEQD), however the said contention put forward on behalf of accused does not hold water and is contrary to law as there is no rule of law or prudence which provides that opinion/evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 1980 SC 531.
In the aforesaid case, titled as 'Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P ( reported as AIR 1980 SC 531) it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that : "There is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution.
Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 66/93 67 no reliable evidence through a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight.".
From the abovesaid reports Ex. PW57/A & Ex. PW57/B of PW57 (GEQD), it is evident that it were A1, A3, A5 & A7 , who were the office bearers of Bhagwati CGHS at the relevant time and they have forged and fraudulently signed the proceeding registers Ex. PW57/C, Ex. 57/K, Ex. PW57/M etc of the society and have dishonestly and fraudulently shown therein the enrollment as well as resignation of various members who have either denied to have applied for the membership of the society or have denied to have resigned from the membership of the said society.
29. Apart from the testimony of hand writing expert i.e PW57 Ms.K.B. Jena (GEQD), the involvement of A1, A3, A5 & A7 in forging the record/proceeding register of the society has also been proved on record by various other prosecution witnesses i.e PW1 to PW6, PW9, PW13, PW16 to PW20, PW27 to PW29, PW32, PW35 to PW40, PW42,Pw46, PW48 and PW56, all of whom have stated in their testimonies that they never became members of Bhagwati CGHS and since they never became the members in the Bhagwati CGHS, there was no question of their resignation from the membership of the said society. Further, the fact that record pertaining to enrollment or resignation of the members have been manipulated/forged was also reflected from the depositions of PW7, PW8 , PW10 to PW12 , PW14, PW19, PW26, PW34, PW41, PW43 and PW50, all of whom were the original members of the Bhagwati CGHS and they FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 67/93 68 specifically stated that they never resigned from the membership of the said society, which implies that the record/proceeding registers of the society in this regard have been forged and fabricated by the above mentioned accused persons.
Apart from above, the fact that specimen handwriting/signatures were voluntarily given by A1, A3, A5 and A7 have been proved on record by PW59 Suraj Prakash, who deposed that in the year 200708, he was posted as Assistant GradeIII in FCI Delhi and in the year 2008, he was called by the CBI and at that time accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan had given his handwriting/ signatures on page S125 to S142 before him to the IO and the said document was Ex. PW59/A (colly.). He further deposed that accused Vijay Singh Lunia had given his handwriting/ signature at S195 to S210 and accused Akshay Kumar Jain had given his handwriting/ signature at S143 to S154 in his presence to the IO and the said documents were Ex. PW59/K (colly.) and PW57/ W (colly.). PW59 has also stated that the above said accused had given their handwriting/ signatures voluntarily in his presence to the IO.
Further in this regard, PW60 Pawan Kumar has deposed that in the year 2007, he was posted in SCRIII as LDC on adhoc basis and at that time, accused A.K. Chauhan had given his handwriting/ signatures from S122 to S124 in his presence to the IO without any pressure and the said document was Ex. PW57/S (colly.).
30. The case of the prosecution/CBI have also been supported by prosecution witnesses from RCS office i.e PW21 to PW25,PW30, PW31 and PW49.
PW21 Harendra Kumar Gaur deposed that he remained posted as Asstt. Registrar ( East ) in office of the RCS, Delhi from January 2006 to October 2007 and FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 68/93 69 he was conversant with the rules and procedure relating to registration, working, liquidation, revival etc of Cooperative Group Housing Societies and the procedure about various aspects of Cooperative Group Housing Societies largely based on DCS Act , 1972 and Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 Compendium of Directives, Circulars, Notifications issued by cooperative department, Govt of Delhi published by Delhi State Cooperative Union and practices established from time to time in the office of the RCS. PW21 further deposed that for registration of a CGHS with the RCS office, promoter member was required to move an application in this regard in the office of RCS and only Chief Promoter Member can be authorized to file an application u/s 7 of DCS Act, 1972 r/w rule 6 of DCS Rules, 1973 for registration of a CGHS u/s 9 DCS Act 1972 and the required documents in this regard were mentioned in Rule 6 (1) of DCS Rules. PW21 deposed that after the year 1985, no CGHS has been registered as DDA was not able to provide land to the already registered societies. PW21 further deposed that so far as enrollment of any member in the CGHS is concerned, a resolution to this effect has to be passed by the CGHS and it should be conveyed to the office of the RCS after its enrollment. PW21 deposed that so far as a resignation of a member from the CGHS is concerned, a resolution is required to be passed in the management committee of the CGHS and its copy should be forwarded by the management of the CGHS to the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies within a stipulated period i.e. seven days and later on it was enhanced to 15 days etc and an intimation of the resignation of a member is also required to be given to the concerned applicant. PW21 further deposed that after receipt of proposal from the CGHS, the office of the Registrar approves the list of members and forward the same to the DDA for allotment of land and such list is called Freeze List of members of the CGHS and once the freeze list is approved by FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 69/93 70 RCS, its number cannot be increased or decreased without the approval of the RCS. PW21 further deposed that there is no procedure provided either under the DCS Act 1972 or DCS Rules 1973 for reapproval of a list of members of any CGHS to whom land has already been alloted by the DDA. PW21 deposed that as per section 29 of the DCS Act 1972, Annual GBM should be held within a period of six months next after the date fixed for making up its accounts for the year under the Rules for the time being in force by the cooperative society and as per Section 31 of the said Act, society is required to conduct the election of the members of the management committee of the society at least once in every three years. PW21 further deposed that the provision regarding the revival of CGHS is Section 63 (3) of DCS Act, which provides that in case of society wound up u/s 63 (2), the Registrar might cancel an order for winding up of cooperative society at any time in any case wherein his opinion, the society should continue to exist. PW21 deposed that as per Section 53 of DCS Act 1972 r/w Rule 84 of DCS Rules 1973, the audit of the CGHS is to be conducted after closing accounts withing six months and the audit of the CGHS is to be conducted by the RCS or office of the RCS from the panel of the auditors maintained in the office of RCS. PW21 further deposed that RCS may get the inspection of the CGHS done u/s 54 of DCS Act 1972 from any official of office of the RCS and the Asstt. Registrar had no power to order inspection of the CGHS. PW21 has proved copies of compendium of Directives & Circulars/ Notifications issued by Cooperative Department, Govt of Delhi published by Delhi State Cooperative Union Ltd as Ex. PW21/A (colly.).
PW22 Mohan Chander Joshi deposed that he was posted in RCS office as LDC from 11.06.1998 to December 2002 and worked in Accounts Branch, South Zone and thereafter in Administration Branch during his posting in RCS office. PW22 further deposed that he can identify the signatures/ initials and handwriting of FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 70/93 71 officers of the branches in which he worked in RCS office during his tenure as he had seen them writing and signing during the course of his official duties and used to receive documents purportedly signed by them. PW22 has identified his handwriting on the notings from point A to A on page 102/N in the RCS file D8 (1) M 51/07 relating to Bhagwati CGHS and he has proved the said page as Ex. PW22/A. PW22 has identified the signatures of the then ARCS V.P. Singh at point X1 on page 103/N in the same file and he has proved the said page as Ex. PW22/B. PW22 has also identified the signatures of the then ARCS V.P. Singh at point X1 on page 104/N & 105/N in the same file and he has proved the said page as Ex. PW22/C & Ex. PW22/D respectively. PW22 has proved his noting dated 22.05.2002 from portion A to A on page 105/N in the same file and stated that it was regarding a complaint against all the executive members of the Bhagwati CGHS namely Dr. Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Manju Malik, R.L.Arora, Akshay Kumar Jain, Krishna Kumari, Khushwant Singh Gulati and Promila received from some members of the society for registration of a criminal case against them for cheating, misappropriation, breach of trust etc. PW23 Daya Nand deposed that he worked in Cooperative Department situated at Parliament Street in the capacity of Junior Employment Officer for about two to four months in the year 1996 or 1997. PW23 further deposed that RCS file relating to Bhagwati CGHS (D8 Vol. I, M No. 51/07) was dealt with by him inter alia other officers and he has proved the said file as Ex. PW23/A (colly.). PW23 further deposed that note from portion A to A on page 33/N and 34/N of the said file was put up by the then dealing assistant/ UDC R.K. Bhalla and he has identified his signature at point X and he has also identified the signature of DR (South) at point X3 on the said noting and he has proved the said page as Ex. PW 23/B. PW23 deposed that the noting dated 04.06.1997 of R.K. Bhalla on page 37/N and 38/N, wherein he has stated that the order dated 25.04.1990 of DRCS passed FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 71/93 72 u/s 63 of DCS Act 1872 was under review on the direction of Hon'ble LG and no final decision has yet been taken and when office bearers of the society were making efforts to submit the required papers and were interested to revive the society, they may request the competent authority to withdraw the order dated 25.04.1990 u/s 63 and the society may be directed to submit the requisite documents for the purpose of determination of freeze strength for further transmission to the DDA for the purpose of consideration of allotment of land. PW23 deposed that this file was marked to him and he had written his note pages from 37/N to 38/N from portion B to B alongwith his signature at point X1, wherein he had written for seeking the foregoing note of dealing assistant from portion A to A and also that the society was put under liquidation but the liquidation order was not upheld in appeal by Hon'ble LG and the same was remanded for reexamination vide order dated 24.08.1990 and he has identified signatures of DR (S) Mukesh Prasad at X2, the then RCS Sh. Anshu Prakash at point X4, JR Alka Diwan at point X5 and Mukesh Prasad at point X6 and his own signature at point X7 and stated that the said file was marked to the then dealing assistant Mukesh Prasad, who in turn marked the same to dealing assistant, who dealt with the said file and put up his note on page 39/N from portion A to A and he has proved the signature at point X on page 39/N and his own signature at point X1 and he has also proved the said pages as Ex. PW23/C (colly.).
PW24 J.N. Gupta deposed that he joined as Assistant Registrar in RCS office, New Delhi in the year 1990 and remained posted there till 31.01.1994. He further deposed that he has been shown file pertaining to Bhagwati Cooperative Society, New Delhi (F47/1112/AR/Cop) already Ex. PW20/A and stated that noting dated 06.04.1991 at page 17/N therein was put up before him by dealing hand and it bears his signature at point A and thereafter the said file was marked to DR (GH) Mr. Mathur and he has proved the said pages as Ex. PW24/A. PW24 further FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 72/93 73 deposed that he had written the portion X to X on page 18/N and it bears his signature at point A and marked the file to the then DR Sh. Mathur and he identified his signature at point B thereon and stated that the file was again marked to him on 11.06.1991. PW24 deposed that thereafter the file was again put up by the dealing hand vide noting dated 12.06.1991 and directed the dealing hand to get the work done personally vide his note dated 12.06.1991 and his writing and signature were encircled with red at point D and he has proved the said page as Ex. PW24/A1. PW24 deposed that earlier the noting dated 20.07.1990 (page 10/N) in the same file was put up by the then AR (Liquidation) to him and he marked it to the then dealing assistant on 27.07.1990 and he has proved the said page as Ex. PW24/A2. PW24 deposed that note sheet at page 17/N in the same file pertaining to Bhagwati Cooperative Society (F47/112/AR/Cop) Ex. PW20/A and stated that the said noting was marked to him by the dealing hand and file was again submitted to him on 15.07.1991 and thereafter this noting was marked to the then Deputy Registrar (GH) and he has proved the said note sheet as Ex. PW24/B. PW24 further deposed that the note sheet at page 20/N in the aforesaid file was put up before him on 19.07.1991 by the dealing hand and he marked it to the then DR (GH) on 22.07.1991 and file was again marked to him by DR (GH) on 22.07.1991 and he marked it to the dealing assistant and he has proved the said page Ex. PW24/C. PW24 deposed that noting at page 21/N in the said file was put up by the dealing assistant on 22.08.1991 and he wrote that hearing on 23.08.1991 at 4 PM before DR (GH) on the point raised in the show cause notice u/s 63 and thereafter the file was sent to DR (GH), who marked the file to him on 23.08.1991 and he has proved the said noting Ex. PW24/D. PW24 deposed that he had written vide note dated 03.09.1991 at page 21/N to 22/N that "may like to pass the order for winding up again" and the file was marked by him to the then DR (GH) and he had written that "notice has been served on them (on the FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 73/93 74 society)" and he has proved the said page as Ex. PW24/E. PW24 deposed that noting from X to X on page 23/N was put up by the dealing assistant to him on 06.09.1991 and he marked it to the then DR (GH) Sh. Mathur, who marked the noting back to him on 10.09.1991 and he marked the same to the dealing assistant on 11.09.1991 and he has proved the said page as Ex. PW24/F. PW24 further deposed that noting from X to X on page 24/N was put up by the dealing assistant to him on 16.09.1991 and he marked it to the then DR (GH) Sh. Mathur, who marked it to him and he marked the same to the dealing assistant on 30.09.1991 and he has proved the said page as Ex. PW24/G. PW24 has also proved the file pertaining to Bhagwati CGHS correspondence side (D8 (II) Vol. III) as Ex. PW24/H colly. PW24 has further proved the letter dated 20.03.1991 page 217, letter dated 14.06.1991 page 216, letter dated 05.08.1991 page 214, letter dated 17.09.1991 page 213, all addressed to the society as Ex. PW24/J, Ex. PW24/K, Ex. PW24/L, Ex. PW24/M respectively. He has also proved notice dated 27.06.1990 page 184 received from court of Lt. Governor, Delhi as Ex. PW24/N. PW24 has further proved the letter dated 12.07.1990 at page 183 addressed to the then Assistant Registrar (Liquidation) Delhi by him requisitioning the file of Bhagwati CGHS as Ex. PW24/O. PW24 has proved the parawise comments (pages 173 to 177) in the same file on the appeal filed by the Bhagwati CGHS sent on behalf of the department as Ex. PW24/P colly. PW24 has proved the letter dated 20.08.1990 (page 172), letter dated 24.08.1990 (page 169 & 170) passed by Lt. Governor, Delhi and letter dated 08.01.1990 (page
322) addressed to Bhagwati Society informing the order dated 24.08.1990 of Lt.Governor as Ex. PW24/Q, Ex. PW24/R & Ex. PW24/S respectively.
PW25 Satish Mathur deposed that he was posted in the office of RCS, New Delhi as Deputy Registrar at Parliament Street, New Delhi from June 1989 to mid of October 1991. PW25 has proved showcause notice dated 20.03.1990 given FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 74/93 75 to Bhagwati CGHS, order dated 25.04.1990 to wind up the Bhagwati CGHS, notings dated 12.04.1990 & 23.04.1990 on page 9/N & 10/N as Ex. PW25/A ( file M53/07 at page no.220), Ex. PW25/B ( file M53/07 at page no.208), Ex. PW25/C & Ex. PW25/D respectively.
PW30 Ravi Kant Bhalla deposed that he was posted as GradeII Head Clerk from 01.02.1995 to 02.07.1997 in the office of RCS. PW30 has further deposed that notes on pages 26/N to 40/N (file D8 (1) of Bhagwati CGHS were in his handwriting and the same were Ex. PW30/A (colly.). PW30 has also deposed that page 56/N of the said file, certain violations have been mentioned over there and he had never dealt with the said noting and the same did not belong to his tenure and the said page was Mark30/X. PW31 Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj deposed that he was posted as UDC in the office of RCS from the year 2003 to 2005. He has further deposed that notes appearing on pages 124/N to 185/N of RCS noting file D8 (1) were in his handwriting and he made the said notings in the official course of duties and the said notings were Ex. PW31/A (colly.).
PW49 Mukesh Prasad deposed that in the year 1996, he was posted as Dy. Registrar, RCS Delhi and he dealt with the file Ex. PW23/A pertaining to Bhagwati CGHS. He further deposed that the said file was put up before him on 06.11.1996 by the then AR (S) Sh. M.D. Sharma with the proposal to accord final opportunity to the society to produce the relevant record on 15.11.1996 and he has drawn attention to the order of liquidation of society and order dated 24.08.1990 of LG and he has also stated that inspite of notice issued to the society, nobody appeared and all of a sudden Ex. President of society had filed a letter dated 14.10.1996 for revival and he suggested that instead of considering request of revival FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 75/93 76 of society, society should reply to the proposed action and the case be considered accordingly and he marked the file to JR (NW) Mrs. Alka Diwan, who in her note dated 13.11.1996 proposed that society be directed to produce the relevant records. PW49 deposed that the branch issued the notice to the society for producing records and the dealing assistant Sh. Bhalla in his note mentioned that documents filed by the society were not complete and the file was put up to him by AR (S) with his note dated 11.04.1996 upon which his query dated 14.04.1996 was there and thereafter the file was again put up to him with the proposal that further letter might be issued to society for furnishing documents and he made a note dated 30.05.1997 at note sheet 34/N and he sought further order of the higher authority and marked the file to Mrs. Diwan. PW49 further deposed that Mrs. Diwan vide her note dated 02.06.1997 wrote that final opportunity for one week was given and thereafter the file was marked to him and he marked it to AR. PW49 deposed that the order of RCS for withdrawal of order of winding up dated 25.04.1990 was communicated under his signature vide letter dated 12.06.1997 to the society and thereafter the branch undertook the verification of list of members enrolled/ resigned for determination freeze strength of the society. PW49 further deposed that the note running from page 41/N to 57/N was put up by the dealing assistant Karamvir Singh on 11.08.1997 and he raised six queries including regarding verification of residential proof of enrolled members and all the affidavits seen and verified by the DA and marked the file to the concerned officials. PW49 deposed that Karamvir Singh vide his note dated 18.08.1997 on page 58/N to 60/N furnished reply to his queries dated 12.08.1997 in which he inter alia confirmed about the verification of concerned record and thereafter the proposal was submitted to higher authorities for freezing the list of 300 members as verified by DA vide his note dated 20.08.1997 at page 61/N and marked the file to Alka Diwan, who marked it to Gopal Dixit, the then RCS who approved FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 76/93 77 the proposal on 28.08.1997, 61/N. PW49 also deposed that he raised queries from time to time for recommendation of revival of the society by the then DA & AR since RCS was final authority to give approval for revial of the society and he had forwarded the same to him for orders and on the recommendation of Karamvir Singh, freeze list of 300 members was approved by Gopal Dixit, the then RCS.
The important fact is that all the abovesaid witnesses were cross examined on behalf of the accused, however nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of these witnesses or which could be of any help to the accused in this case.
In the present case, Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the case law cited as AIR 1985 SC 1224, AIR 1992 SC 1939 , (2010) SLT 708, 2013 (2) JCC 1175, 2014 1AD (Delhi) 349, 221 (2015) DLT 74 (DB), 2015 (2) RLR 323, AIR 1979 SC 1506, AIR 1979 SC 1890, AIR 1984 Orissa 71, AIR 2009 SC 2717, AIR 2003 SC 2748, AIR 1979 SC 1012, MANU/BH/0174/1917, MANU/KA/1277/2015, MANU/PH/1062/2016, Order dated 23.4.2012 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. Rev. P.No. 424/2011 (Parsadi Lal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi ) and Order dated 17.1.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. Rev. P.No. 397/2010 (A.P.Narang Vs. CBI ) & judgment dated 12.10.2017 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Crl. Appeal No. 293/2014 and 294/2014, however the said case law is not applicable in the instant case as the fact and circumstances of the present case are different from the fact and circumstances of the cases discussed therein and in my considered opinion, the aforesaid case law is not of any help to the accused in the present case.
31. In the present case, in his defence accused Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) has examined DW2 Sh. Syed Faizal Huda , a forensic expert, who deposed that he has FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 77/93 78 been appointed on behalf of accused Vijay Singh Lunia to examine and compare the questioned signatures on the proceedings register with his specimen signatures on the specimen sheets given to the CBI and accordingly, he had examined the same and has given his opinion /report, which was Ex. DW2/A. DW2 further deposed that after careful examination and comparison of the abovesaid signatures he was of the definite opinion that the questioned signatures marked as Q115/4 to Q 152/2 have not been written by the writer of the specimen signatures Vijay Singh Lunia, who has written the specimen signatures marked by him as S1 to S30 in his report .
Further in his defence, accused Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) has examined DW3 Sh. Syed Faisal Huda , who deposed that he was working as a forensic expert and he has been appointed on behalf of accused Akshay Kumar Jain to examine and compare the questioned signatures on the proceedings register with his specimen signatures marked by him as S1 to S3 and he has examined and compared the said questioned signature and specimen signatures and his report in this regard was Ex. DW3/A. DW3 further deposed that after careful examination and comparison of the abovesaid signatures he was of the definite opinion that the questioned signatures as mentioned in his report have not been written by the writer of the specimen signatures Akshay Kumar Jain, who has written the specimen signatures marked by him as S1 to S3 in his report .
It is pertinent to note that both abovesaid witness i.e DW2 Sh. Syed Faizal Huda & DW3 Sh. Syed Faisal Huda were appointed by the concerned accused i.e A5 & A7 respectively for the purpose of comparison of their signatures and as far as the testimonies of these witnesses DW2 & DW3 are concerned, their testimonies are not of much use to A5 & A7 as both these FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 78/93 79 witnesses admitted in their cross examination that they have not obtained any separate degree for examination of questioned documents and this makes their competence to examine the said documents doubtful. Further, these witnesses also admitted that the opinion of the expert may change if photographs are taken by the defective lens. They further stated that it may or may not be possible that two different experts give different opinions on the examination of the same documents. DW2 & DW3 also admitted that they have charged fee from their clients i.e A5 & A7 for giving report . In addition to this, in reply to specific question as to in how many cases they have given adverse report against their clients who had engaged their services, these witnesses DW2 & DW3 stated that they can not tell . In these circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon so called experts engaged by a particular accused who have been shown to be remunerated witnesses as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as 'Gular Alishri Raj Mohammad Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ' In the aforesaid case , titled as 'Gular Alishri Raj Mohammad Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ' ( cited as Indiankanoon.org./doc/1447793), it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
" PW20 ( M.L.Sharma), Government Examiner on questioned documents, after comparing the handwriting in the said letters gave an opinion that both were written by the accused. An attempt was made by the accused, through the evidence of DW1 ( N.KJain who claimed to be an expert in the science of handwriting ) to show that opinion of the Government Examiner is basically faulty. High Court has observed that "there is a natural tendency on the part of an expert witness to support the view of the person who called him" and preferred the opinion of PW20M.L.Sharma. The FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 79/93 80 said observation of the High Court cannot be downstaged, for, man so called experts have shown to be remunerated witnesses making themselves available on hire to pledge their oath in favour of the party paying them".
In view of the above, it is evident that there is a natural tendency on the part of an expert witness to support the view of the person who had called him and it is not safe to rely upon his evidence, especially when such witness have been shown to be a remunerated witness making himself available on hire to a particular accused as has been the case herein. Further in the instant case , the perusal of the record reveals that as per opinion/report (Ex. PW57/A and Ex.PW 57/B) of PW57 Ms.K.B. Jena ( GEQD ) it was evident that specimen writings /signatures of A5 and A7 have tallied with the respective questioned writings/ signatures and the said reports given by PW57 (GEQD) are reliable and well reasoned and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. In these circumstances , in my considered opinion, the testimonies of DW2 & DW3 are not of any use to the respective accused Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) & Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) in this case.
32. In the instant case, accusedAshok Kumar Chauhan (A1) has examined himself as DW5 and therein he has stated that he was innocent and was not involved in any irregularities in the Bhagwati CGHS. He further stated that all the misdeeds and bunglings in the said society were done by Dr. R.L.Arora and he had lodged a complaint regarding the same to the DCP and other higher officials and he also written a letter to the Manager of the Banker of Bhagwati CGHS informing that all the cheques should be cleared only when there must be signatures of the three managing committee members. . DW5 (A1) stated that he had also filed the arbitration case against Dr. R.L.Arora wherein the award was passed in his FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 80/93 81 favour by the Arbitrator . He also stated that some of the members of the society have also lodged one FIR at PS: Kapashera against the office bearers of Bhagwati CGHS and therein cancellation report has been filed qua him and the same has been accepted by the concerned Ld. MM.
In view of the above testimony of DW5 (A1), it was evident that he has tried to put entire blame on Dr. R.L.Arora, erstwhile Secretary of Society, who has since expired and is not available to rebut the allegations against him . Further DW5 (A1) stated that he was appointed as President of Society by Dr.R.L.Arora and no election was held in this regard, however he admitted that no documents were available to show that he was appointed as President of the Society by Dr.R.L.Arora . He further stated that he remained President of the Society from 1997 till 2002/2003, however he do not remember as to how many times managing committee meetings were held in the society in one month. DW5(A1) stated that he has not brought the letter which was sent to the Manager of the bank where Bhagwati CGHS had an account informing that all the cheques should be cleared only when there must be signatures of three managing committee members and stated that he can try to trace out the same at his residence. It is pertinent to note that in his testimony, DW5(A1) has not brought on record any material fact, which could be of any help to him in the fact & circumstances of this case. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the abovesaid evidence of DW5 (A1) does not appear to be of much help to the said accused (A1) in the instant case.
In the present case, apart from himself accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1) has also examined DW6 Sh. Ashok Kumar Navet , who deposed that he was posted as Asstt. Registrar, Arbitration in the office of RCS and has brought an action FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 81/93 82 report in respect of Arbitration Case No. 5692/AR/ARB/0203 titled 'Dr.Ashok Kumar Chauhan Vs. Dr. R.L.Arora, the Bhagwati CGHS' and stated that the arbitration file pertaining to the aforesaid arbitration case was not traceable despite best efforts by the office and he has proved the said action taken report as Ex. DW6/A and attested copy of the award as Ex. DW6/B. It is pertinent to note that this witness (DW6) has only produced action taken report qua abovesaid Arbitration Case and it has not been explained on behalf of accused (A1) as to how the said action taken report was of any relevance in this case. Even otherwise, DW6 has not deposed anything about the fact and circumstances of the present case. Further, DW6 also admitted in his cross examination that at the time of passing of the said award through arbitration, he was not posted in the RCS office and hence he do not have any personal knowledge about the contents of the said award. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the testimony of DW6 is also not of any use to A1 in the instant case.
33. Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record, the prosecution /CBI has been able to establish that accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3),Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) & Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) in connivance with accused public servant i.e Karamveer Singh (A10) entered in to a criminal conspiracy to cheat the office of RCS and DDA by dishonestly and fraudulently getting approved the freeze list of 300 members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents. Further, it has also been proved on record that accused Karamveer Singh (A10), while working as Dealing Assistant in the RCS Office, Delhi processed the file of Bhagwati CGHS for approval of freeze list of 300 members and put up false and fabricated notings in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and vide his false notes and by ignoring the irregularities in FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 82/93 83 the enrollment of members and in the absence of audit report on record, A10 recommended for the enhancement of the membership strength of the Bhagwati CGHS from 150 to 300 without any verification of the documents of the said society. AccusedKaramveer Singh (A10) knowingly and dishonestly did not recommend for physical verification/field inspection of the members of the society whose names were included in the freeze list, although the members mentioned in the freeze list were in fact either nonexistent or were falsely mentioned. In these circumstances and on the basis of his false notings, accusedKaramveer Singh (A10) thus induced RCS Officials/Officers to approve the said false and fabricated freeze list of 300 members and in pursuance to the fraudulent approval of the said freeze list, the land was allotted by the DDA to the Bhagwati CGHS at subsidized rates. In addition to this, it has also been proved on record that accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3),Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) & Akshay Kumar Jain (A7), in furtherance of the abovesaid conspiracy, prepared and signed false records/proceeding registers etc. of the management committee of Bhagwati CGHS showing resignation and enrollment of large number of members, who either denied having applied for the membership of the society or denied having resigned from the membership of the said society and the signatures of these accused persons on the said false record have been confirmed by the GEQD.
34. Further as far as accused Rajesh Nagpal (A4) and Padma Rai (A8) are concerned, it is being submitted on behalf of the prosecution/CBI that the said accused were also part of the criminal conspiracy to cheat the office of RCS and DDA by dishonestly and fraudulently getting approved the freeze list of 300 members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents for the FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 83/93 84 purpose of getting the land allotted from the DDA to the said society at the subsidized rates.
On the other hand , it is being submitted on behalf of the accused - Rajesh Nagpal (A4) that no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution/ CBI to show that the said accused was involved in the commission of offences alleged against him . It is further submitted that A4 was the bonafide member of the society and he never became the part of the Managing Committee of the society at any point of time , however he was told by Dr. R.L.Arora that he has been shown as a member of the Managing Committee from 06.10.1996 till 26.7.1997 but A4 never did anything and all the affairs of the society were controlled by Dr. R.L.Arora at that time. It is submitted that A4 never submitted any documents under his signature before the RCS or any other authority and even his signatures were never taken by the CBI and sent for comparison. It is further submitted that A4 has been chargesheeted as he has been shown as member of Managing Committee, although A4 never participated in any of the meetings of the Managing Committee of the society.
Further, it has been submitted on behalf of accused Padma Rai (A8) that the allegations qua the said accused were false and fabricated and that the prosecution/ CBI has miserably failed to connect the said accused with the commission of offences in this case. It is further submitted that A8 has been working with Airports Authority of India and was enrolled as a member of the society on 14.1.2001 . It is further submitted that A8 has never participated in the elections held in the society, however being a lady, Managing Committee specially Dr.R.L.Arora who was the then Secretary and was incharge of the whole society , coopted A8 in the post of MC Executive Member against the Women Representative Post . It is submitted that A8 hardly attended 34 meetings, which FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 84/93 85 were held on Saturday or Sunday and as she was irregular in attending the meetings, she was served with a notice vide letter dated 26.11.2002 signed jointly by the office bearer of the society for her disqualification from the MC as she has failed to attend the requisite meetings . It is submitted that during her tenure as member of the Managing Committee, the meeting notices were sent to A8 through UPC and these were usually received by her after the meeting or an hour before the meetings and A8 did not receive any notice for the meeting held on 18.9.2002, 05.10.2002, 20.10.2002, 02.11.2002 and 16.11.2002 and A8 was shown as present in those meetings by way of her fake signatures. It is further submitted that A8 was also shown present in the General Body Meeting by forging her signatures on the attendance sheet of the GBM, although she never attended the said meeting and in this regard, A8 had filed the complaint vide letter dated 15.4.2003 to SHO PS:Pandav Nagar. It is further submitted that A8 has never written minutes of the meetings or helped in writing of the minutes of the meetings and in the presence of A8, none of the member came for enrollments and none have resigned and all these enrollments and resignations and other official work of the society were done by Dr. R.L.Arora. It is also submitted that prosecution/CBI has failed to prove the offences of criminal conspiracy or other substantive offences against the A8 in any manner and none of the witnesses have deposed that A8 was in agreement with other accused persons for committing illegal acts.
In the present case, in order to connect accused persons with the offences alleged in this case, the prosecution is mainly relying upon the opinion/ report of PW57 (GEQD), however as far as accused Rajesh Nagpal (A4) is concerned, the perusal of the record reveals that his specimen handwriting/ signatures have not been obtained or sent for comparison to GEQD during investigation of this case. In the absence thereof, the prosecution / CBI has failed to prove on record that the FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 85/93 86 forged record / proceeding register etc. of the Bhagwati CGHS contain the signatures of accused Rajesh Nagpal (A4). In these circumstances, since the signatures of Rajesh Nagpal (A4) could not be proved on the questioned/forged documents, it has not been established on record that accusedRajesh Nagpal (A4) attended the relevant meetings of the management committee of the society or was a party to the conspiracy to cheat the office of RCS and DDA by getting approved the freeze list of 300 members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents as is being alleged on behalf of prosecution/CBI. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the prosecution/CBI has failed to connect the accused Rajesh Nagpal (A4) with the commission of offences alleged in this case.
Further, as far as accused Padma Rai (A8) is concerned, as per the opinion/reports ( Ex. PW57/A and Ex. PW57/B) of PW57 Ms. K.B. Jena (GEQD), the specimen hand writing/signatures of the said accused had tallied with the questioned writing/signatures, however in the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that prosecution / CBI has failed to conclusively prove that specimen handwriting/ signature which were sent to GEQD for comparison/opinion, were in fact pertaining to A8 as was evident from the testimony of PW61 Dr. Surender Kumar, who deposed that he have been shown specimen signature of Padma Rai from S111 to S116 and on seeing the same, he stated that the specimen signatures of Padma Rai were not taken before him and he simply signed at the asking of the IO. Further in reply to leading a question by Sr. PP for CBI, PW61 stated that he was sitting before the IO and IO had asked Padma Rai to go into another room and sign some papers and said papers were blank and he was having no knowledge about the said papers. PW61 also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. In these circumstances , PW61 has not supported the case of the prosecution/CBI FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 86/93 87 regarding the obtaining of specimen signatures of the accusedPadma Rai (A8).
In view of the above testimony of PW61 Dr. Surender Kumar , it is clear prosecution/CBI has failed to prove on record that specimen handwriting/ signature from S111 to S116 were in fact pertaining to A8 and in the absence thereof, the prosecution/CBI has failed to conclusively connect A8 with the offences alleged in this case.
Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material on record, the prosecution/CBI has failed to prove on record beyond the reasonable doubt that A4 & A8 were also part of the criminal conspiracy to cheat the office of RCS and DDA by dishonestly and fraudulently getting approved the freeze list of 300 members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence on record to link A4 & A8 with the offences alleged in this case . In these circumstances , it is evident that prosecution/CBI has not been able to bring home the guilt against the accusedRajesh Nagpal (A4) and Padma Rai (A8).
35. Further, it has been submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused public servant (A10) had entered into the alleged conspiracy as the said accused public servant i.e A10 has done his official duties, while processing the file of Bhagwati CGHS for approval of the freeze list of 300 members of the said society and there was nothing to show that there was any meeting of minds to commit the alleged offences, however the said submissions made on behalf of the accused are devoid of any merits and contrary to law laid down in the case cited as 1993 (3) SCC 609.
In the aforesaid case , titled as 'Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India' FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 87/93 88 ( reported as 1993 (3) SCC 609), it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
".....It is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is conceived as having three elements: (1) agreement; (2) between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects."
Further, in the case reported as (2003) 8 SCC 461, it has also been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that: "Privacy and secrecy are more characteristic of a conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. Direct evidence in proof of a conspiracy is seldom available, offence of conspiracy can be proved either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of the formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of the conspiracy, about the object, which the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy, and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out, all this is necessarily a matter of inference."
Hence, in view of the evidence on record as discussed above, it has been proved on record that accused public servant A10 along with A1, A3, A5 & A7 have conspired together to achieve the common object of getting approved the freeze list of 300 members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false and forged FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 88/93 89 documents, for getting allotment of land to the society from the DDA at subsidized rates.
36. Further, it has been submitted by the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused public servant that the said public servant (A10) had acted in a routine manner without having any knowledge of the forgery or without having any intention to abuse his official position and as such, he can not be said to have committed any offence U/s 13 of PC Act.
Section 13 of PC Act deals with criminal conduct by a public servant and Section 13 (1) (d) of the said Act reads as follows: "13 (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,
(d) if he,
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;
In view of the above provisions of Section13(1) (d) of PC Act, it is clear that a public servant commits the offence of Criminal Misconduct, if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 89/93 90 pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
In the case titled as "Runu Ghosh Vs. CBI" ( CRL.A. 482/2002, DOD
- 21.12.2011), it has been observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that : " Having regard to the previous history of the statute, the amendments to the 1947 Act, its avowed objects and the distinctive structure which parliament adopted consciously, under the 1988 Act, despite being aware of the preexisting law, as well as the decisions of the Court the conclusion which this Court draws is that mens rea is inessential to convict an accused for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d)
(iii). It would be sufficient if the prosecution proves that the public servant "obtains" by his act, pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, to another, without public interest. The inclusion of public interest, in the opinion of the Court, tips the scale in favour of a construction which does not require proof of mens rea. There can be many acts of a public servant, which result in pecuniary advantage, or obtaining of a valuable thing to someone else; typically these may relate to payment of royalty, grant of license or concessions, issuance of permits, authorizations, etc. Yet, such grants, concessions, or other forms of advantages to third parties would not criminalize the public servants actions, so long as they have an element of public interest. They (acts of the public servant) are outlawed, and become punishable, if they are "without public interest".
In view of the above caselaw, it is evident that if the public servant knew that his act or omission, by overlooking or disregard to the precautions, would be injurious to public interest, he would come within the purview of section 13 of PC Act. This knowledge of public interest has to be gathered from the facts of the case. In the instant case, the allotment of land to the society would be an act in the public interest, however if the said land is managed to be given on the basis of FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 90/93 91 fake list of members, it would be injurious to the public interest.
In the present case, the public servant i.e. A10 connived with A1, A3, A5 and A7 to do an illegal act i.e to cheat the office of RCS and DDA by dishonestly and fraudulently getting approved the freeze list of 300 members of Bhagwati CGHS for getting land from DDA at subsidized rates. In these circumstances , in view of the material on record, it is evident that accused persons have caused wrongful loss to the DDA and have caused wrongful gain to themselves.
Hence, in view of the evidence on record, it is clear that the acts of the public servant i.e A10 cannot be said to be acts of mere negligence or dereliction of duty. In fact , this public servant was actively involved with A1,A3, A5 and A7 and they were helping each other in achieving the common object of the approval of freeze list of 300 members of Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents, for getting land from DDA at subsidized rates. In these circumstances, the accused public servant i.e A10 has misused and abused his official position and the abovesaid acts of this public servant were meant to drive pecuniary advantage either for himself or for A1,A3, A5 and A7. Accordingly, 'criminal misconduct' has been committed and the offence U/s 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988 stands proved in the instant case.
37. Thus, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case and in view of the evidence and material on record, the prosecution/CBI has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons: A1,A3, A5, A7 and A10 that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the object to cheat the office of RCS and DDA by dishonestly and fraudulently getting approved the freeze list of 300 members of FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 91/93 92 Bhagwati CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents and in pursuance thereof, A10 while working as Dealing Assistant in the office of RCS, Delhi processed the file of Bhagwati CGHS for approval of freeze list of 300 members and put up false and fabricated notings and vide his said false notes and by ignoring the irregularities in the enrollment of members and in the absence of audit report on record, A10 recommended for the enhancement of membership strength of the Bhagwati CGHS from 150 to 300 without any verification of the documents of the said society. A10 also knowingly and dishonestly did not recommend for physical verification/field inspection of the members of the society, whose names were included in the freeze list, although the members mentioned in the freeze list were in fact either nonexistent or were falsely mentioned and thus A10 induced RCS Officials/Officers to approve the said false and fabricated list and in pursuance to the fraudulent approval of freeze list of 300 members, the land was allotted by the DDA to the Bhagwati CGHS at subsidized rates. Further, A1,A3, A5 & A7, in furtherance of the abovesaid conspiracy, prepared and signed false records/ proceeding registers etc. of the management committee of Bhagwati CGHS showing resignation and enrollment of large number of members, who either denied having applied for the membership of the society or denied having resigned from the membership of the said society and the signatures/writing of these accused persons on the forged documents/record have been confirmed by the GEQD.
Accordingly, I hold the accused A1, A3, A5, A7 & A10 guilty and convict them as under :
(i). Accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3),Vijay Singh Lunia (A5), Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) & Karamveer Singh (A10) are held guilty and convicted u/s 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC & u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .
FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 92/93 93
(ii). Accused Karamveer Singh (A10) is held guilty and convicted for substantive offences u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(iii). AccusedAshok Kumar Chauhan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) & Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) are held guilty and convicted for substantive offences u/s 420 IPC, u/s 468 IPC and u/s 471 IPC.
Further, as far as accused Rajesh Nagpal (A4) and Padma Rai (A8) are concerned, the prosecution/ CBI has failed to prove the guilt of the said accused (A4 & A8) on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I hereby acquit the accused Rajesh Nagpal (A4) and Padma Rai (A8) of the charged offences, giving them the benefit of doubt.
PB and SB of A4 &A8 are cancelled. Their sureties are discharged. The order u/s 437A Cr.PC in respect of accused Rajesh Nagpal (A4) and Padma Rai (A8) have been passed separately in the ordersheet of even date.
Now to come up for arguments on the point of sentence qua convicts:
A1, A3, A5, A7 & A10 on 31.10.2017.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh) (court on 27.10.2017) Special Judge ( PC Act) CBI03 NorthWest District Rohini Courts, Delhi 27.10.2017 FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 93/93 94 FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 94/93 95 FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 95/93 96 CBI Case No. 08/16 CBI Vs. A.K.Chuahan & Ors. ( Bhagwati CGHS) 27.10.2017 Present: Sh. N. P. Srivastava, Sr. PP for the CBI.
Accused A.K.Chauhan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3) , Rajesh Nagpal (A4) &Padma Rai (A8) are present on bail with their counsel Sh.Sandeep Kumar.
Accused Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) is present on bail with his counsel Sh. M.K.Gupta.
Accused Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) & Karamveer Singh (A10) are also present on bail with their counsel Sh. R.P.Shukla. Accused Krishna Kumari (A2) & Pawan Kumar Rastogi (A6) are reported to have expired.
AccusedAnju Malik (A9) is reported to have been discharged. Vide separate judgment, announced in the open court, accused Ashok Kumar Chauhan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3),Vijay Singh Lunia (A5), Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) & Karamveer Singh (A10) have been held guilty and convicted u/s 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC & u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . Accused Karamveer Singh (A10) has been further held guilty and convicted for substantive offences u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
AccusedAshok Kumar Chauhan (A1), Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3), Vijay Singh Lunia (A5) & Akshay Kumar Jain (A7) have also been held guilty and convicted for substantive offences u/s 420 IPC, u/s FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 96/93 97 468 IPC and u/s 471 IPC.
PB and SB of the abovesaid convicts: A1, A3, A5, A7 & A10 2 are cancelled. They are taken into custody and are sent to JC till 31.10.2017.
Further, accusedRajesh Nagpal (A4) and Padma Rai (A8) have been acquitted of the charged offences.
PB and SB of A4 & A8 are cancelled. Their sureties are
discharged.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 437A Cr.PC, the acquitted accusedRajesh Nagpal (A4) and Padma Rai (A8) have been directed to furnish PB & SB in the sum of Rs. 30,000/each and accordingly, the said PB & SB have been furnished on behalf of the Rajesh Nagpal (A4) and Padma Rai (A8) and the same are considered and are accepted for six months in terms of the provisions of Section 437A of Cr.PC.
Now to come up for the arguments on the point of sentence qua convicts: A1, A3, A5, A7 & A10 on 31.10.2017, as requested.
(Paramjit Singh ) Special Judge ( PC Act) CBI03 NorthWest District Rohini Courts, Delhi 27.10.2017 FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 97/93 98 IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH:SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI03 (NORTHWEST DISTRICT), ROHINI COURTS:DELHI Case No. CBI08/2016 ( Old Case No. CBI119/2011) CNR No. DLNW010000062009 CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors.
( Bhagwati C.G.H.S.) FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI U/s 120B r/w - 420 / 468/471 IPC & 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act and U/s420/468/471 IPC and u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE In the present case, convicts Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Piyush Kumar Sharma, Vijay Singh Lunia, Akshay Kumar Jain & Karamveer Singh have been convicted u/s 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC & u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .
Convict Karamveer Singh has been convicted for substantive offence u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
ConvictsAshok Kumar Chauhan, Piyush Kumar Sharma, Vijay Singh Lunia & Akshay Kumar Jain have also been convicted for substantive offences u/s 420 IPC, u/s 468 IPC and u/s 471 IPC.
2. I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence put forward by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Ld. defence counsels for the convicts .
FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 98/93 99
3. It has been submitted by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that the convict Karamveer Singh is a public servant and the public servant, who commit offences, in particular the offences relating to Prevention of Corruption Act, do not deserve any leniency. It is further submitted that the remaining convicts Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Piyush Kumar Sharma, Vijay Singh Lunia & Akshay Kumar Jain are the main culprits , who had manipulated/forged the record of the society as a result of which the land/flat could not be allotted to the original/genuine members . It is submitted that on account of the fraudulent acts and omissions on the part of the convicts , the government policy to provide land/flat to the public at subsidized rates got frustrated as the original/genuine members could not get the land/flat to which they were actually entitled. It is also submitted that in view of the above acts/omissions , the convicts do not deserve any leniency and he prays that in view of the nature and gravity of offences, maximum punishment prescribed for the respective offences may be imposed upon the convicts.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel for convicts Ashok Kumar Chauhan and Piyush Kumar Sharma submits that the said convicts are not previous convicts and are having clean antecedents. It is further submitted that convictAshok Kumar Chauhan is aged about 66 years and is a BAMS Doctor and was also Municipal Councilor from Mandawali , Delhi . It is submitted that convict Ashok Kumar Chauhan is a senior citizen and has been suffering from various diseases including Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy, which is a genetic cardiovascular diseases, angina on exertion, hypertension, lumbosacral spondylolisthesis, left sensineural hearing loss, restricted lung disease, morbid obesity and has been on continuous medicines from the past several years. It is further submitted that the wife of the convictAshok Kumar Chauhan is also senior a citizen and is suffering from various FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 99/93 100 medical ailments. Ld. Defence counsel further submits that convict Piyush Kumar Sharma is aged about 65 years and has been running a shop of dry cleaners for the last about 35 years. It is further submitted that convict Piyush Kumar Sharma is a senior citizen and is suffering from various medical ailments. It is submitted that wife of the convict Piyush Kumar Sharma is a retired school teacher and is suffering from various diseases and there is none else to lookafter the abovesaid shop as well as wife of the convict as their only son is residing in Dubai. Ld. Defence counsel also submits that both the convictsAshok Kumar Chauhan & Piyush Kumar Sharma have never been involved in any other criminal case and he prays that a lenient view may be taken qua these convicts.
Further, Ld. Defence counsel for convictVijay Singh Lunia submits that the said convict is not a previous convict and is having clean antecedents. It is further submitted the convict Vijay Singh Lunia is a senior citizen , aged about 67 years and is afflicted with various old age infirmities and has undergone open heart surgery in the year 2007 and PTCA + STENT in the year 2009. It is submitted that said convict is a patient of depression since the year 1994 and is also suffering from various old age related ailments. It is further submitted that the wife of the said convict is also suffering from Cirrhosis of Liver and there is noneelse to lookafter her as the son of the convict has been residing separately. Ld. Defence counsel for convict Vijay Singh Lunia also submits that the said convict is not involved in any other case and he prays that a lenient view may be taken qua this convict in the instant case.
Ld.defence counsel for convictsAkshay Kumar Jain & Karamveer Singh submits that the said convicts are also not previous convicts. It is further submitted that the convictAkshay Kumar Jain is aged about 45 years and is suffering from intestinal ulcer. It is submitted that the said convict is the sole bread earner of FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 100/93 101 his family consisting of wife and two minor children. Ld. Defence counsel further submits that the convict Karamveer Singh is a public servant and is suffering from various medical ailments, including diabetes and he is also the sole bread earner of his family. Ld. Defence counsel also submits that both these convicts Akshay Kumar Jain & Karamveer Singh are having clean antecedents and he prays that a lenient view may be taken qua both these convicts also in this case.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Ld. defence counsels for the convicts and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully perused the written arguments/submissions on the point of sentence filed on behalf of the convicts Ashok Kumar Chauhan , Piyush Kumar Sharma & Vijay Singh Lunia as well as medical documents/ record filed on behalf of the convicts Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Vijay Singh Lunia & Akshay Kumar Jain .
6. Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case and having regard to the nature and gravity of offences committed by the convicts , I am of the considered opinion that they are not entitled to lenient view, however, in view of the old age, medical condition and family circumstances of the convicts, I hereby sentence the convicts as under: (1) Convicts Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Piyush Kumar Sharma, Vijay Singh Lunia, Akshay Kumar Jain & Karamveer Singh are hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/ each in default SI for five months each u/s 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC & u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 101/93 102 (2) Further, Convict Karamveer Singh is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.5 lacs in default, SI for one year for substantive offence u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(3) Further, convicts Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Piyush Kumar Sharma, Vijay Singh Lunia & Akshay Kumar Jain are hereby sentenced as under:
(i) Rigorous imprisonment for four years each and to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh each in default, SI for nine months each u/s 420 IPC.
(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.5 lacs each in default, SI for one year each u/s468 IPC.
(iii) Rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.5 lacs each in default, SI for one year each u/s 471 IPC.
All the sentences shall run concurrently .
Benefit u/s 428 Cr.PC be also given to all the convicts.
Conviction warrants be prepared accordingly.
Copies of the judgment and order on the point of sentence be supplied to all the convicts, free of cost.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh) (court on 31.10.2017) Special Judge ( PC Act) CBI03 NorthWest District Rohini Courts, Delhi 31.10.2017 FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 102/93 103 CBI Case No. 08/16 CBI Vs. A.K.Chuahan & Ors. ( Bhagwati CGHS) 31.10.2017 Present: Sh. N. P. Srivastava, Sr. PP for the CBI.
ConvictsA.K.Chauhan & Piyush Kumar Sharma (A3) are present in JC with their counsel Sh.Sandeep Kumar.
ConvictVijay Singh Lunia is present in JC with his counsel Sh. M.K. Gupta.
ConvictsAkshay Kumar Jain & Karamveer Singh are also present in JC with their counsel Sh. R.P.Shukla.
Accused Krishna Kumari & Pawan Kumar Rastogi have expired. Accused Anju Malik has been discharged as is evident from the order dated 09.7.2012 passed by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court. Accused Promila Sardar is ' Proclaimed Offender ' as is evident from the order dated 19.5.2012 passed by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
Accused Rajesh Nagpal & Padma Rai have been acquitted vide judgment 27.10.2017 .
Arguments on the point of sentence, heard.
Vide separate order on the point of sentence, announced in the open court, the convictsAshok Kumar Chauhan, Piyush Kumar Sharma, Vijay Singh Lunia, Akshay Kumar Jain & Karamveer Singh have been sentenced to undergo RI for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/ each in default SI for five months each u/s120B r/w 420 / 468 / 471 IPC & u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Further, Convict Karamveer Singh has been sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.5 lacs in default, SI for one year for substantive offence u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
ConvictsAshok Kumar Chauhan, Piyush Kumar Sharma, Vijay Singh Lunia & Akshay Kumar Jain have also been sentenced to undergo RI for four years each and to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh each in default, SI for nine months each u/s 420 IPC, RI for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.5 lacs each in default, SI for one year each u/s FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 103/93 104 468 IPC and RI for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.5 lacs each in default, SI for one year each u/s 471 IPC.
2 All the sentences shall run concurrently .
Benefit u/s 428 Cr.PC be also given to all the convicts.
Conviction warrant be prepared accordingly.
Copy of the judgment and order on the point of sentence be supplied to the convicts, free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to page and book mark the file so as to enable the digitization of the entire record.
Copy of this order be also given 'Dasti' to Ld. Senior PP for CBI, as prayed.
File be consigned to record room and it be resummoned as and when accused Promila Sardar , who is 'Proclaimed Offender', is arrested.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh) (court on 31.10.2017) Special Judge ( PC Act) CBI03 NorthWest District Rohini Courts, Delhi 31.10.2017 FIR No. RC 61 (A)/2006/CBI/MDMA/DLI CBI Vs. A.K.Chauhan & Ors. 104/93