Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Ashok Kumar Goel (Since Deceased) on 11 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
CC.NO. : 26/11
Unique Case ID : 02401R0088212003
STATE VS. 1. Ashok Kumar Goel (since deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Bal Mukund Goel
R/o C42, First floor, Pushpanjali
Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi34.
2. Sarvjeet Singh Rana
S/o Late Sh. Vijay Singh
R/o VPOKhera Kalan, Delhi.
3. Vijay Goel
S/o Late Sh. Bal Mukund Goel
R/o C42, First floor, Pushpanjali
Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi34.
4. Pradeep Goel
S/o Late Sh. Bal Mukund Goel
R/o C42, First floor, Pushpanjali
Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi34.
5. Jitender Singh
S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh
R/o VPO Kazama Bad Goon, Distt.
Meerut (UP).
6. Sudha Goel
W/o Pradeep Goel
R/o C42, First floor, Pushpanjali
Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi34.
C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 1 of 100
7. Vicky Gupta
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan Gupta
R/o A97, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
8. Anil Kumar Goel
S/o Sh. Balu Ram Goel
R/o D2/19, Krishna Nagar,Delhi51.
9. Gulshan Kumar Sahney
S/o Sh. M.D. Sahney
R/o D13/A/26, Model Town, Delhi.
10. Rakesh Mittal
S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder
R/o 508, Haveli Hider Quli, Chandni
Chowk, Delhi6.
11. Kishore Dhingra,
S/o Late Sh. Mana Ram Dhingra,
R/o 5/1A, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi15.
12. Ramesh Chand @ Nanu Ram
S/o Sh. Ram Kishan
R/o AB33, 2nd floor, Mian Wali Nagar,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
13. Ashok Khasera,
S/o late Sh. Gopi Lal Khasera
R/o B1, Bhaden Apartment, 9, Raj
Narain Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi.
14. Mahavir Prasad (since deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Ram Chander,
R/o H.No.54, Shankar Nagar, Krishna
Nagar, Delhi.
C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 2 of 100
15. Bhagat Singh Chaudhary
S/o Late Sh. Bhika Ram
R/o 91, Gazipur, Delhi96.
16. Sanjay Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Jagan Nath
R/o Plot No.104, Flat No.314, Ashirwad
Enclave, Patparganj, Delhi.
17. Suman Goel
W/o Sh. Ashok Goel,
R/o C42, First floor, Pushpanjali
Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi34.
18. Jagjit Singh Sikka
S/o Late Sh. S. Attar Singh
R/o 2nd floor, H.No.90/36,
Malviya Nagar, Delhi.
FIR NO. : 33/02
U/S : 13 (1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 r/w Sec. 420/409/120B IPC and
Section 7/10/55 E.C. Act, 1955
P.S. : AntiCorruption Branch, Delhi
Date of Institution 16.01.2003
Judgment reserved on 05.07.2014
Judgment delivered on 11.07.2014
C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 3 of 100
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 31.05.2002 Sh.R.C.Meena joined as General Manager of Delhi Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Store Ltd. (to be referred hereinafter as DCCWS Ltd.) which is a cooperative organization under the control of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and he was apprised by the existing staff of said DCCWS Ltd. to the effect that the record of Sugar was not being properly maintained. Sometime after his joining in said DCCWS Ltd., Sh.R.C.Meena received a telephone call from some unknown person that there was heavy shortage of sugar in the godown of DCCWS Ltd. On the basis of the said information, Sh.R.C.Meena got the stocks of sugar in different godowns of DCCWS Ltd. physically verified on dt. 2.7.2002 and then it transpired that thousands of quintals of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. were missing from the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. Said Sh.R.C.Meena then got reported the matter to the local police on 4.7.2002 and on 6.7.2002 another complaint was got lodged as more shortage of sugar was detected. In all 15324 quintals of sugar was found by Sh.R.C.Meena, General Manager vanished from the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint dated 8.7.2002 of B.S.Mann, Manager (Vigilance), DCCWS Ltd. , FIR bearing No.33/02, U/S C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 4 of 100 409/420/120B IPC, U/S 13(1) (c) of POC Act, 1988 and U/S 7/10/55 of E.C.Act was registered at PS Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi on dated 10.07.2002.
2. During the course of investigation, the IO recorded the statement of several PWs namely, B.S. Maan, Sh. R.C. Meena, Sh. Narinder Singh @ Nakli Singh, Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Sh. Yashpal Singh, Puran Singh, Suresh Mishra, Vinay Kumar Rampal, B.D Masiwal, Smt. Shailja Purohit, Shiv Singh Chaudhary etc. During the course of investigation, the IO also seized various documents i.e., stock register of PDS Sugar Moti Nagar godown w.e.f 1.4.2002 onwards, stock register of PDS Sugar of M/s Mahamaya godown w.e.f 1.4.2002 onwards, stock register of free sale sugar for the godown w.e.f 1.4.2002, copy of the order no. DCCWS/EST/PRES/ 2001/722726 dated 20.3.2002 (3 P.Ps) along with physical verification statement of free sale sugar dt. 31.3.2002 regarding stock sugar 7326.58 Quintal and levy PDS Sugar 6826.03 along with note sheet (4 P.Ps), photocopy of order No. DCCWS/EST/PRES/ 2002/7983 dt. 25.6.2002 (3 P.Ps) along with physical stock verification report with note sheet (3 P.Ps) and later on IO also seized the documents/file vide seizure memo dated 13.08.2002 from Sh. B.S. C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 5 of 100 Mann, Manager, Vigilance in the presence of Sh. Naresh Kumar, Manager. During the course of investigation, matter was transferred to Crime Branch for further investigation. The accused Ashok Kumar Goel, one of the partner of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. was arrested on 19.10.2002 and his disclosure statement was recorded. Thereafter, on 26.10.2002, his second disclosure statement was recorded. In pursuance of said disclosure statements of accused Ashok Kumar Goel, 42 sugar bags were seized from the premises of M/s Goel Brothers, 22 sugar bags were seized from the premises of M/s Sawhney and Company, 27 sugar bags were seized from the premises of M/s Ram Krishan Ramesh Chand, Nangloi, Delhi, 215 sugar bags were seized from the premises of M/s Suraj Bhan Satya Prakash, Rui Mandi, Delhi. However, proprietors of M/s Goel Brothers, M/s Sawhney and Company, M/s Suraj Bhan Satya Prakash and M/s Ram Krishan Ramesh Chand submitted the Invoices / purchase bills of various sugar mills claiming the seized quantity of sugar bags from their premises to be left out stock of the genuine purchases made by them from the concerned sugar mills. The Invoices / bills as submitted by them were counter verified from the concerned sugar mills and after verification it was found that almost all the purchases were made by these firms in the month of October 2002 from the mills wherein the DCCWS Ltd. C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 6 of 100 had not made any purchase of sugar from mills of private sector after June 2002. Since sugar is a perishable item and it was not found justifiable to hold the sugar bags as seized from these firms and therefore an application U/S 6 A of Essential Commodities Act (E.C. Act) was filed by the IO on 6.1.2003 in the court of Collector (North) Food & Supply Department, GNCT, Delhi and subsequently a Report of verification of the Invoices/Bills with the request for release of the sugar bags to the concerned firms was made by the IO. After verification, the sugar bags as seized from the premises of these firms were not found to be the sugar bags belonging to DCCWS Ltd. and therefore, no action against any of these firms could be taken as the sugar bags seized from their premises were found to be the left out stock of genuine purchases made by them as per Invoices/Bills from the concerned Sugar Mill.
3. During the course of the investigation, the IO also seized certain Bank Record of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. including the copy of the Partnership Deed from which it is revealed that M/s Mahamaya Transport Company was a partnership firm owned by three partners, namely, Ashok Kumar Goel, Vijay Goel and Sudha Goel. Said M/s Mahamaya Transport Company had an agreement with C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 7 of 100 DCCWS Ltd. for transportation of the Sugar from the Sugar Mills and providing the storage facilities for the same at its godown near Apsara Border, UP till the sugar bags were distributed to the FPS/Outlets of DCCWS Ltd. in Delhi. Ambey Transport Co. of which Pradeep Goel is the sole proprietor and he had also an agreement with DCCWS Ltd. to deliver the sugar bags of DCCWS Ltd. to FPS / Outlets in Delhi from the godown of DCCWS Ltd. at Moti Nagar and from M/s Mahamaya Godown at UP Border.
4. During the course of the investigation, IO arrested the accused Sarvjeet Singh Rana on 30.11.2002 and recorded his disclosure statement. IO collected certain Bank Record on dt. 23.12.2002 as produced by Sh. V.K. Hans, Manager, PNB, through seizure memo Ex.PW19/A. IO further took into possession certain documents on dt. 30.1.2003 vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/B and on dated 31.1.2003 vide seizure memo Ex.PW31/A. On 4.2.2003, IO also took into possession certain documents as produced by Sh. V.K. Rampal vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/A. On 10.2.2003, IO also seized certain documents as produced by Comrede Iqbal which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/K. On 14.5.2003, Ramesh Chand Verma handed over certain documents to the IO which C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 8 of 100 were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW58/D. During investigation, IO also collected relevant documents from different sources. During the course of investigation, IO arrested accused Jitender Singh on 19.05.2003, arrested accused Pradeep Goel on 29.05.2003, arrested accused Vijay Goel on 30.05.2003, arrested accused Ashok Kasera on 19.07.2003, arrested accused Ishwar Dhingra on 19.07.2003, arrested accused Anil Goel on 19.07.2003, arrested accused Vicky Gupta on 19.07.2003, arrested accused Gulshan Kumar on 19.07.2003, arrested accused Rakesh Mittal on 19.07.2003, arrested accused Ramesh Chand on 19.07.2003, arrested accused Sudha Goel on 22.07.2003, arrested accused Sanjay Kumar on 13.11.2003, arrested accused Jagjit Singh Sikka on 14.11.03 and arrested accused Suman Goel on dt. 12.01.2004 and completed the necessary formalities during the course of investigation.
5. Initially, the IO filed the main chargesheet relating to two accused persons, namely, Ashok Kumar Goel and Sarvjeet Singh Rana on dt. 16.1.2003 and thereafter, filed the supplementary chargesheet relating to 12 accused persons namely, Vijay Goel, Pradeep Goel, Jitender Singh, Sudha Goel, Vicky Gupta, Anil Kumar Goel, Gulshan Kumar Sawhney, Rakesh Mittal, Kishore Dhingra, Ramesh Chand, C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 9 of 100 Ashok Kasera, Mahavir Prasad on dt. 28.07.2003 and thereafter filed supplementary chargesheet relating to accused B.S. Chaudhary on dt. 28.10.2003 and thereafter, filed the last supplementary chargesheet relating to three accused persons namely, Sanjay Kumar, Suman Goel and Jagjit Singh Sikka on dt. 16.08.2004. All the said 3 supplementary chargesheet were ordered to be amalgamated with the main charge sheet vide order dt. 21.10.2003, 17.02.2004 and 3.9.2004.
6. The case proceedings against accused Mahavir Prasad stood abated due to his death vide order dt. 29.10.2003.
7. That during the course of hearing vide order dt. 10.08.2005, seven more persons namely, Comrede Iqbal, Surinder Kumar Garg, Pushp Raj, Ramesh Chand Verma, Om Prakash Shokeen, Vinod Goel and Balraj Arya who were earlier cited as PWs were summoned as accused.
8. However, as accused Balraj Arya challenged the said summoning order before the Hon'ble High Court, case proceedings against the accused Balraj Arya was quashed by the Hon'ble High court vide order dt. 25.08.2006.
C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 10 of 100
9. On hearing both sides on the point of charge vide order dt. 8.5.2008 as passed by Ld. Predecessor, 13 accused persons namely, Vicky Gupta, Anil Kumar Goel, Gulshan Sawhney, Rakesh Mittal, Kishore Dhingra, Ramesh Chand, Ashok Kasera, Comrede Iqbal, Surinder Kumar Garg, Pushpraj, Ramesh Chand Verma, Om Prakash Shokeen and Vinod Goel were ordered to be discharged and only 9 accused persons namely Ashok Goel, Vijay Goel, Pradeep Goel, Sudha Goel, Suman goel, Sarvjeet Singh Rana, B.S. Chaudhary, Jitender Singh and Jagjit Singh Sikka were ordered to face the trial after framing the charge. However, the case proceedings as against the accused Ashok Goel stood abated due to his death vide order dt. 24.10.2013.
10. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 420/409 IPC and U/S 13 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against 9 accused persons namely Ashok Goel, Vijay Goel, Pradeep Goel, Sudha Goel, Suman Goel, Sarvjeet Singh Rana, Bhagat Singh Chaudhary, Jagjeet Singh Sikka, Jitender Singh and for offence punishable U/S 409/420 IPC r/w Section 120 B IPC was framed as against 5 accused persons C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 11 of 100 namely Ashok Goel, Vijay Goel, Pradeep Goel, Sudha Goel, Suman Goel and for offence punishable U/S 13 (1) (c) of Prevention of corruption Act r/w Section 120 B IPC and for offence punishable U/s 420 IPC r/w Section 120 B IPC and for offence punishable U/S 409 IPC r/w Section 120 B IPC as against four accused persons namely Sarvjeet Singh Rana, Bhagat Singh Chaudhary, Jagjeet Singh Sikka, Jitender Singh were framed on dated 05.07.2008 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 60 prosecution witnesses as under:
1. Ct. Suresh Chand, a formal witness as PW1.
2. Sh. Shiv Singh Chaudhary, the then Salesman in PDS Sugar Section, DCCWS Ltd., a formal witness as PW2.
3. Sh. Suresh Singh Sharma, the then Sales Incharge, Baghpat Cooperative Sugar Mills, a formal witness as PW3.
4. Sh. Ajay Tirpathi, the then Sr. Manager (Godown), Triveni Sugar Mill, Khatoli, Mujjafarnagar, UP, a formal witness as PW4,
5.Sh. Kamal Sethi, the then Deputy Manager, Mawana Sugar Mills, a formal witness as PW5.
6 Sh.Radhey Shyam Aggarwal, a formal witness who was again C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 12 of 100 inadvertently examined as PW5.
7.Sh.Ram Gopal Sharma, an Exemployee of M/s Mahamaya Transport Company, a formal witness as PW6.
8. Sh. Chiranji Taneja, the then Accountant in DCCWS Ltd. , Moti Nagar, a formal witness as PW7.
9. Sh. Irfan Ali, the then Sales Clerk in Simboli Sugar Mills, Ghaziabad, a formal witness as PW8.
10.Sh. B.S. Mann, the then Manager (Vigilance), DCCWS Ltd. , Moti Nagar, who is complainant in this case as PW9.
11.Sh. R.C. Meena, the then General Manager of DCCWS Ltd. , Moti Nagar as PW10.
12.Ms. Shailja Purohit, an employee of DCCWS Ltd. , Moti Nagar, a formal witness as PW11,
13.Sh.Naresh Kumar, the then Manager (Sugar), DCCWS Ltd., Moti Nagar, a formal witness as PW12.
14.Sh.Yashpal Singh, the then Salesman, at Moti Nagar Depot of DCCWS Ltd. , a formal witness as PW13.
15.Sh.Puran Singh, the then Manager, (Drug Department), DCCWS Ltd. , Moti Nagar as PW14.
16.Sh.Suresh Mishra, the then PA to President and General Manager of DCCWS Ltd., a formal witness as PW15.
C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 13 of 100
17. Sh. Nakli Singh @ Narender Singh, the then Deputy Manager, DCCWS Ltd., a formal witness as PW16.
18.Sh. Bansi Dhar Masiwal, the then Assistant Account Officer, DCCWS Ltd., a formal witness as PW17.
19.Sh. Dal Chand, an employee of DCCWS Ltd. , a formal witness as PW18.
20.Sh. V.K. Hans, the then Deputy Manager, PNB, Civil Lines, a formal witness as PW19.
21.B.M Sharma, the then Inspector, EOW, Crime Branch, a formal witness as PW20.
22.Dinesh Kumar Sharma, the then Sub Inspector, EOW, Crime Branch, as formal witness as PW21.
23.HC Gajan Singh, CBT Section, Crime Branch, a formal witness as PW22.
24.Sh. Vinay Kumar Rampal, the then Account Officer in DCCWS Ltd., Moti Nagar as PW23.
25.M.C.Meena, the then Inspector, Crime Branch, a formal witness as PW24.
26.HC Sunil Kumar, Crime Branch, a formal witness as PW25.
27.Neeraj Arora, the then Sub Inspector from EOW, Crime Branch, a formal witness as PW26.
C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 14 of 100
28.Anil Kumar, the then Sub Inspector from EOW, Crime Branch, a formal witness as PW27.
29.Akash Rawat, the then Sub Inspector from EOW, Crime Branch, a formal witness as PW28.
30.Rajeev Kumar, the then Sub Inspector from Interstate Cell, Crime Branch, a formal witness as PW29.
31.Balwan Singh, the then Sub Inspector from CBT Section, Crime Branch, a formal witness as PW30.
32.Sh.Ropak Negi, the then Stenographer, DCCWS Ltd. , Moti Nagar, a formal witness as PW31.
33.Sh.S.H.Zafari, the then Administrator, DCCWS Ltd., Sanctioning Authority as against the accused Jitender Singh, a formal witness as PW32.
34.Sh. Deepak Tiwari, the then Director of Grand Motors and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, a formal witness as PW33.
35.Sh. Surinder Kumar Garg, who is an Elected Member of Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd. as PW34.
36.Sh. B.L.Vasishat, the then Manager, Punjab National Bank, Hari Nagar, Delhi, a formal witness as PW35.
37.Sh. Nand Lal Arora, the then Manager, Punjab National Bank, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, a formal witness as PW36. C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 15 of 100
38.Sh. Mangu Ram, Record Keeper from Transport Authority, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi, a formal witness as PW37.
39.Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal who is a partner of M/s Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal & Co., Chartered Accountant, a formal witness as PW38.
40.Ms.Rafat Begum, Food and Supply Officer from the Office of the Food & Supply Commissioner, ITO, Delhi, a formal witness as PW39.
41.Sh.N. Srinivas, Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, a formal witness as PW40.
42.Sh. Mahinder Singh, Proprietor of M/s Jai Aneja & Transport Co., a formal witness as PW41.
43.ASI Shyam Singh, the then Duty Officer, PS Kalyan Puri, a formal witness as PW42.
44.Sh. Rajinder Prasad Gupta, the then Sr.Manager, UCO Bank, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, a formal witness as PW43.
45.Sh.P.C Mathur, the then Executive Engineer, PWD, GNCTD, a formal witness as PW44.
46.Sh.Ashok Kumar, Assistant Registrar from the Office of Registrar of Societies, Parliament Street, New Delhi, a formal witness as PW45.
47.Anil Kumar Ahluwalia, Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Darya Ganj Branch, Delhi, a formal witness as PW46.
48. Jitender Kumar, the then Head Constable from CBT Section, Crime C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 16 of 100 Branch, Delhi, a formal witness as PW47,
49.Dharamveer Singh, the then Sub Inspector from Crime Branch, Delhi, a formal witness as PW48.
50.Balraj Arya, who is a Nominated Member of the Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd., as PW49.
51.Sh.Pawan Jain, Director of Shree Panchyati Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., a formal witness as PW50.
52.Om Prakash Shokeen who is an Elected Member of the Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd. as PW51.
53.Devinder Singh Nijjer, the then Joint Registrar (Cooperative Societies), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, a formal witness as PW52.
54. P. Runthla, the then Deputy General Manager (Sales), Upper Doab Sugar Mills, Shyamli, UP, a formal witness as PW53.
55. HC Satish, the then MHC(M), PS Civil Lines, Delhi, a formal witness as PW54.
56. V.K. Jain, the then Executive Engineer, PWD, Division XII, a formal witness as PW55.
57.Sh. R.K. Bharani, Practising Cost Accountant in the name and style of M/s R.K.Bharani and Associate as PW56.
58.Shyam Lal Aggarwal, the then Inspector/ SHO, PS Anti Corruption Branch, Initial IO as PW57.
C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 17 of 100
59.Sh. Ramesh Chand Verma who is an Elected Member of the Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd., as PW58.
60.Comrede Iqbal, the then Administrator of DCCWS Ltd., and thereafter posted as Secretary of DCCWS Ltd., as PW59.
61.The then Inspector R.S. Dahiya, Crime Branch, Last IO as PW60.
12. After the examination of aforesaid 60 prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed and thereafter statement of accused persons U/S 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which the accused persons claimed to be innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
13. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. Sanjeev Bhardwaj Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Vijay Goel, Pradeep Goel, Suddha Goel and Suman Goel, Sh.R.P.Khatana Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused B.S.Chaudhary, Sh.Sunil Khana Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Jitender Singh, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Sarvjeet Singh Rana, Sh.Tarun Goomber Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Jagjit Singh Sikka and Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant Record.
14. It is submitted by Sh. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, Adv. Ld. Counsel C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 18 of 100 for the accused Vijay Goel, Pradeep Goel, Sudha Goel and Suman Goel that all these accused persons are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the officials of DCCWS Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the prosecution has failed to establish the charged offence relating to these accused persons and therefore, these accused persons deserve to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise these accused persons cannot be held liable for any shortage of free sale sugar of DCCWS Ltd. in view of the fact that the contract for the transportation and storage was awarded by DCCWS Ltd. in favour of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and M/s Ambey Roadlines, only relating to the levy sugar and not concerning the free sale sugar. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that said facts are also found supported from the Tender Form of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. which is Ex.PW14/X1 and Tender Form of M/s Ambey Roadlines Ex.PW14/X2 which were submitted to the DCCWS Ltd. for award of the contract for transportation/storage of levy sugar only. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that said facts are also found supported from the "Terms and Conditions for transportation of levy sugar" as submitted on behalf of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co., copy of which is Ex.PW10/D11. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as per Office Note of DCCWS Ltd. Ex.PW9/B1, C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 19 of 100 there was stock of 9224.34 bags of levy sugar as on 30.06.2002 as per Book and as per Letter dated 25.06.2002 as issued by B.S.Mann, Manager (Vigilance), DCCWS Ltd., to B.S.Chaudhary Ex.PW9/D1, showing at Para 3 "As per our Sale Register of Levy Sugar for the period from April 2002 to 30th June 2002, M/s Ambey Roadlines had supplied 9244.19 qunitals of levy sugar in various circles" and therefore, there is no shortage of any levy sugar also. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that no Stock Register of sugar prior to 1.4.2002 was being maintained by DCCWS Ltd. and therefore, the same was not supplied to the IO and only the Register of sugar of subsequent period w.e.f. 1.4.2002 to 30.6.2002 was supplied to the IO. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even in Internal Audit Report Ex.PW10/D7 and Ex.PW10/D8, it is found mentioned that the Stock Registers are not being properly maintained. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that in Internal Audit Report Ex.PW10/D9, it is found mentioned that Simbholi Sugar Mills is issuing Invoices in favour of customers directly and treating the DCCWS Ltd., as an agent only whereas DCCWS Ltd. is booking these transactions as purchase and therefore, it is advised that DCCWS Ltd. should obtain the Bills in its own name from Simbholi Sugar Mills Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that though PW16 Nakli Singh in the cross examination by Ld. Counsel on C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 20 of 100 behalf of accused S.S.Rana, has stated that Ashok Goel of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. used to issue Stock position on the letter head and on seeing the same, Mark PW16/DA to DC, added that the same showing the stock details were issued by M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. to their Manager but said documents Mark PW16/DA to DC were never issued by M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. nor seized by the IO and same being forged and fabricated cannot be looked into. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that PW14 Puran Singh who was working as Manager (Sugar), DCCWS Ltd., earlier to the duration of accused S.S.Rana as Manager (Sugar), has clearly deposed that the bungling of the sugar had taken place during tenure of the accused S.S.Rana and said PW14 has deposed in this respect as under: "I was working as Manager in DCCWS Ltd. in Sugar Division during the period 199099. After me accused S.S. Rana took over the said charge as Manager. During the course of my tenure, I was having the duty to look after the purchase, sale, staff & stock. I used to go for checking of the sugar godown of Mahamaya Transport, Sugar godown at Moti Nagar etc. During my tenure, it was running C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 21 of 100 smoothly and there was no bungling of any short. During the tenure of accused S.S. Rana, the bungling relating to the present case had emerged. As the accused S.S. Rana in the capacity of Manager was also having similar duties".
15. It is further submitted by Sh.Sanjeev Bhardwaj, Adv. Ld. Counsel that the Audit Report Ex.PW56/A as prepared by PW56 R.K.Bharani cannot be looked into as the same was prepared by him mechanically at the instance of the IO. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that since said PW56 R.K.Bharani was on the panel of EOW, he has given false and fabricated report at the instance of the IO and therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the case proceedings relating to the accused Ashok Kumar Goel had already been abated due to his death. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the accused Sudha Goel and Suman Goel are ladies and have no concern with the business affairs of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the accused persons of Goel Family have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the officials of DCCWS Ltd. in order to cover their own faults and misdeeds. Thus Ld. Counsel urged for C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 22 of 100 acquittal of these 4 accused persons namely Vijay Goel, Pradeep Goel, Sudha Goel and Suman Goel.
16. Sh.Yogesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Sarvjeet Singh Rana submitted that the said accused was working as Manager (Sugar) of DCCWS Ltd. since 1999 till 2nd July, 2002 and has been discharging his assigned official duties efficiently and effectively. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that this accused has no concern with the misappropriation of huge quantity of sugar bags of DCCWS Ltd. by M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. as well as M/s Ambey Roadlines were awarded a contract for transportation / storage of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. covering both levy sugar as well as free sale sugar and they were responsible for the custody of the said sugar and therefore, clearly liable for the misappropriation leading to shortage of sugar as found on physical verification on dated 2.7.2002 and further physical verification on dated 5.7.2002 in the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the factum regarding the award of the contract for transportation/storage by DCCWS Ltd. in favour of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and M/s Ambey Roadlines relating to both levy sugar as well as free sale sugar C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 23 of 100 also found supported from the various similar undertakings dated 18.6.2001, 15.10.2001, 7.1.2002, 16.4.2002 and 12.6.2002 as given by Ashok Kumar Goel, Partner of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co., copies of which are Ex.PW10/D12, D13, D14, D15 and D16 respectively and said undertakings clearly reflect taking of all the responsibilities by M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. regarding the safe custody of the sugar bags and for providing periodical statement relating to said sugar to DCCWS Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that therefore, M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. was the custodian of sugar bags of DCCWS Ltd. which were transported and stored in the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and hence, liable for misappropriation of the same to the extent of shortage as found on physical verification of godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. on dated 2.7.2002 and 5.7.2002. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that this accused Sarvjeet Singh Rana has no concern with the owners of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and M/s Ambey Roadlines in the misappropriation of sugar bags of DCCWS Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that this accused has no meeting of mind with any other accused persons for entering into any criminal conspiracy for misappropriation and cheating of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. and therefore, this accused deserve to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even in the C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 24 of 100 complaint dated 4.7.2002 Ex.PW9/C as filed by B.S.Mann, Manager (Vigilance) of DCCWS Ltd. to SHO, PS Moti Nagar, Delhi, it is clearly reflected that M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. has been shown as custodian of both levy as well as free sale sugar. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that in compliance of the Order dated 25.6.2002 as passed by V.K.Rampal, Account Officer, DCCWS Ltd., copy of which is Ex.,PW12/F, accused Jitender Singh who was working as LDC in DCCWS Ltd. was directed to conduct the stock verification of the sugar at godowns of DCCWS Ltd. on dated 30.6.2002 and in compliance of the said order, said Jitender Singh has conducted the stock verification of sugar on 30.6.2002 at Moti Nagar godown and has submitted Report Ex.PW12/F1, showing the stock of PDS sugar of 1686.56 bags at Moti Nagar godown and has submitted Report Ex.PW12/F2 regarding stock verification at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and showing the stock of free sale sugar of 5200 bags and stock of PDS/levy sugar as 4900 bags and has filed subsequent Report dated 4.7.2002 Ex.PW12/F3 . It is further added by Ld. Counsel that this accused Sarvjeet Singh Rana on coming to know regarding the shortage of 3600 sugar bags in the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. has lodged complaint dated 1.7.2002 Ex.DX at PS Sahibabad for taking legal action as against the owners of M/s C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 25 of 100 Mahamaya Transport Co.and said fact also reflect the innocence of this accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the said fact of lodging complaint Ex.DX against M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. on dated 1.7.02 at PS Sahibabad also reflect that this accused has no concern with the misappropriation of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. by the owner of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and he is not a party to any criminal conspiracy for misappropriation and cheating relating to the sugar of DCCWS Ltd. by owner of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that on 2.7.2002 on physical stock verification only 2279 sugar bags were found in the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and in pursuance of Letter dated 4.7.2002, Ex.PW9/B6 as given by Ashok Kumar Goel, requesting for reInspection of godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co., reInspection was conducted in pursuance of the Order of General Manager, DCCWS Ltd. on 5.7.2002 and Report was filed in this respect which is Ex.PW9/B4 and B5, showing that there is no stock of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. in said godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. Ld. Counsel also added that said facts are found supported from the deposition of PW14 Puran Singh who has deposed in this respect as under:
"On 05.07.2002 as per the direction of Mr. R.C. C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 26 of 100 Meena, the then GM, I had again inspected the godown of Mahamaya Transport alognwith Mr. Naresh Sharma/Manager and two helpers. On checking of the godown, no sugar was found there. The report in this regard is already exhibited as Ex.PW9/B4 and B5, the report runs into three pages.The Report bears my signature at point Y. The sugar which was lying on 02.07.02 in the Mahamaya Godown of Mahamaya Transport Company was not found on 05.07.02. I had asked from the labour of the godown of the godown owner, the labour informed me that the abovesaid sugar bags were got removed by the Owner of Mahamaya Transport."
17. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused Sarvjeet Singh Rana that in case 2279 sugar bags which were found available on dt. 2.7.2002 at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport as per Stock Verification Report Ex.PW14/A, were lifted from the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport to the godown of DCCWS Ltd. at Moti C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 27 of 100 Nagar, then the said 2279 sugar bags of DCCWS Ltd. lying in the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport could have been saved from misappropriation by the owner of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even the Stock Verification Report dt. 2.7.2002 Ex.PW14/A is signed by Ashok Goel partner of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and said fact is also found corroborated from the deposition of PW16 Nakli Singh who has deposed in this respect as under: "It is correct that on 2.7.2002, an Inspection Report was prepared in respect of checking of Mahamaya Transport godown, UP Border and same was also signed by Ashok Goel in my presence at the spot."
18. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that monthwise purchase and sale statement of levy sugar from April 99 to June 2002 which is Ex.PW60/DX (colly.) and monthwise purchase and sale statement of free sale sugar from April 99 to June 2002 which is Ex.PW60/DX1 (colly.) were duly prepared and collected by the IO and same were considered by PW56 Sh. R.K. Bharani in preparation of his Audit Report Ex.PW56/A. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that it is the C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 28 of 100 M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. who was awarded the contract by DCCWS Ltd. for transportation / storage of the sugar bags of DCCWS Ltd. and till the distribution of the same to the various parties as per the directions of the DCCWS Ltd., M/s Mahamaya Transport is the custodian of the said sugar relating to the levy sugar as well as free sale sugar and therefore they are liable for the misappropriation / cheating of deficient sugar bags as found on physical Stock Verification on dt. 2.7.2002 and on 5.7.2002. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that this accused has no concern with any other accused persons relating to misappropriation/cheating of said sugar of DCCWS Ltd. and has not entered into any criminal conspiracy with any accused persons in this respect. Thus, Ld. Counsel urged for acquittal of this accused Sarvjeet Singh Rana.
19. Similarly, it is submitted by Sh.R.P.Khatana Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused B.S.Chaudhary that this accused is innocent and has no concern with any other accused persons relating to misappropriation / cheating of sugar bags of DCCWS Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that this accused has taken charge as President of DCCWS Ltd. on 1.7.2001 after being nominated along with 4 other members of Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd. by the then Lt. C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 29 of 100 Governor, Delhi but as the remaining 4 elected members of Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd. having enmity with this accused, had been creating obstacles in the working of Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd. and therefore, this accused had sent a complaint dated 7.11.2001 Ex.DB to then Registrar, Cooperative Society, Delhi. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the copy of the Order dated 5.2.2002 Ex.DD as passed by Lokayukta, Delhi, also clearly reflects that Comrade Iqbal, who was earlier the Administrator of DCCWS Ltd. and was subsequently the Secretary of Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd., was having gross enmity as against this accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that in pursuance of the Resolution dated 14.7.2001 as passed by Managing Committee, copy of which is Ex.PW34/DA, this accused being the President of DCCWS Ltd. had acquired the power of the Secretary Comrade Iqbal till conclusion of the Inquiry against Comrade Iqbal and therefore, this accused cannot be faulted for the same. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the extension of the contract for transportation / storage of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. in favour of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. was done with the approval of Managing Committee and therefore, this accused cannot be held responsible for the same. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there is no evidence as against this accused that he has entered into any C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 30 of 100 criminal conspiracy with any other accused person for misappropriation / cheating of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. and therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as there is no sanction for prosecution as against this accused, therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted. Ld. Counsel for accused B.S.Chaudhary thus, urged for acquittal of this accused.
20. Similarly, it is submitted by Sh.Sunil Khanna, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Jitender Singh that this accused was working as LDC in DCCWS Ltd. and has been rendering his official duties bonafidely. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that in pursuance of the Order dated 25.6.2002 as passed by Sh.V.K.Rampal, Account Officer, copy of which is Ex.PW12/F, this accused has duly conducted the physical stock verification of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. at Moti Nagar godown as well as godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. on dated 30.6.2002 and has prepared the Report Ex.PW12/F1 which is relating to Moti Nagar godown of DCCWS Ltd., showing stock of 1686.50 bags of PDS sugar and has prepared another Report Ex.PW12/F2 which is relating to the godown of M/s Mahamay Transport Co., showing stock of free sale sugar of 5200 bags and PDS/Levy sugar of 4900 bags. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the accused Jitender C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 31 of 100 Singh in pursuance of his physical stock verification conducted on both said godowns on 30.6.2002, has filed the composite Report dated 4.7.2002 which is Ex.PW12/F3. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that from the perusal of said Report Ex.PW12/F2, it is clearly reflected that 5200 free sale sugar bags + 4900 levy sugar bags i.e. total of 10,100 sugar bags were found available at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co., on dated 30.6.2002 on physical stock verification by this accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that however, on stock verification dated 2.7.2002 only 2279 sugar bags of DCCWS Ltd. were found available at godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. as per Verification Report Ex.PW14/A but as per Stock Verification Report dated 5.7.2002, no sugar bags of DCCWS Ltd. were found available at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. as per Report Ex.PW9/B4 and B5. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that it is the Owners of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. who are responsible for the shortage of said sugar bags of DCCWS Ltd. and this accused has no concern for the same. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that PW12 Naresh Kumar who had gone alongwith Sh.Puran Singh and conducted physical stock verification at godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. on dated 5.7.2002, has deposed in this respect as under: C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 32 of 100 "On 5.7.2002 I had gone to Mahamaya Godown as per the instruction of GM Sh.R.C.Meena. I reached there at Mahamaya Godown alongwith Sh.Puran Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ombir Singh. Two Chowkidars namely Babban Singh and Tejpal Singh met us at Godown. Godowns were opened by the Chowkidar but no sugar was found there. I have prepared my Report which is already exhibited as Ex.PW9/B4 and B5 (runs into three pages) and same bears my signature at point X. In this embezzlement, loss of more than one crore rupees was caused to DCCWS Ltd."
21. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused Jitender Singh that PW14 Puran Singh who is a Member of the team which conducted the physical stock verification at godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. on dated 2.7.2002 as well as 5.7.2002, has also deposed in this respect as under: " On 05.07.2002 as per the direction of Mr. R.C. C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 33 of 100 Meena, the then GM, I had again inspected the godown of Mahamaya Transport alognwith Mr. Naresh Sharma/Manager and two helpers. On checking of the godown, no sugar was found there. The report in this regard is already exhibited as Ex.PW9/B4 and B5, the report runs into three pages. The Report bears my signature at point Y. The sugar which was lying on 02.07.02 in the Mahamaya Godown of Mahamaya Transport Company was not found on 05.07.02. I had asked from the labour of the godown of the godown owner, the labour informed me that the abovesaid sugar bags were got removed by the Owner of Mahamaya Transport."
22. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused Jitender Singh that the physical verification of free sale sugar and levy sugar were being officially done periodically by different persons. It is further added by him that this accused has not entered into any criminal conspiracy with any other accused person for C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 34 of 100 misappropriation / cheating of sugar bags of DCCWS Ltd. from the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. It is further added by him that as there is no evidence as against this accused for the charged offence and hence, this accused deserves to be acquitted.
23. Similarly, it is submitted by Sh.Tarun Goomber, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused J.S.Sikka that this accused was initially posted as Addl. Administrator of DCCWS Ltd. from January1999 till June 2001 and thereafter, posted as Vice President of DCCWS Ltd. from July 2001 and has been discharging his official duties efficiently. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there was no complaint as against this accused with regard to any misappropriation / cheating of any sugar of DCCWS Ltd. It is further added by him that none of the PWs have deposed as against this accused relating to the present case. It is further added by him that all the required record relating to the Purchase, Sale, Stock Register etc. of levy sugar as well as free sale sugar were duly maintained in the Office of DCCWS Ltd. It is further added by him that this accused has no concern with the misappropriation / cheating of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. lying at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. It is further added by him that this accused has not entered into any criminal conspiracy with any C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 35 of 100 other accused person for commission of the charged offence. Thus, Ld. Counsel for this accused submitted that as there is no evidence as against the accused J.S.Sikka, this accused deserves to be acquitted.
24. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 60 prosecution witnesses have clearly established its case as against the accused persons and therefore, all these 8 accused persons deserve to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by him that from the perusal of deposition of various PWs including PW9 B.S.Maan, Manager (Vigilance) of DCCWS Ltd./ complainant, PW10 R.C.Meena, General Manager of DCCWS Ltd., PW14 Puran Chand, Manager, DCCWS Ltd., PW23 V.K.Rampal, AAO, DCCWS Ltd., PW56 R.K.Bharani, PW57 the then ACP Shyam Lal Aggarwal/Initial IO and PW60, the then ACP R.S.Dahiya/Main IO coupled with related documents, it is clearly established that the accused persons of Goel Family by entering into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons who are the officials of DCCWS Ltd. have misappropriated and cheated the DCCWS Ltd. for 13737 sugar bags lying at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. thereby causing loss to DCCWS Ltd. for amount of Rs.1,87,14,684/ and therefore, all these accused persons C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 36 of 100 deserve to be convicted for the charged offence. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that there is no reason to disbelieve the depositions of various PWs specifically when their deposition are found corroborated from the contents of the related documents which have been duly proved by the prosecution during course of trial. Thus, Ld. Addl. PP urged for conviction of all these accused persons for the charged offence.
25. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that Delhi Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Store Ltd. (DCCWS Ltd.) is a Co operative Organization under the control of Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The principle object of DCCWS Ltd. was to organize, assist and aid Consumer Cooperatives and to do wholesale and retail business in consumers good including sugar etc. M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. was the regular transporter for transportation / storage of levy as well as free sale sugar of DCCWS Ltd. since 1995. Said DCCWS Ltd. was earlier running by Comrade Iqbal as Administrator and Jagjit Singh Sikka as Addl. Administrator since 1999. Vide Resolution dated 14.05.99 as passed by Comrade Iqbal, Administrator of DCCWS Ltd., copy of which is Ex.PW14/X4, Jagjit Singh Sikka, Addl. Administrator was empowered to handle the daytoday functioning and was made responsible for working of the Department relating to free sale as well C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 37 of 100 as PDS/levy sugar besides certain other Departments. It is further revealed from the record that accused Sarvjeet Singh Rana (S.S.Rana) was posted as Manager, (Sugar) w.e.f. 17.5.99 and was made responsible for said sugar business and said fact is found reflected from Office Notings by Sh.V.K.Rampal, Account Officer Ex.PW14/X3 which interalia state as under : "All Managers are responsible for whole work related to their Branch. Sh. S.S. Rana was posted as Manager (Sugar) vide Order No.17176 dated 17.5.99. So he is responsible for sugar business."
26. It is further reflected from the record that vide Office Notings dated 21.6.99, the accused S.S.Rana, Manager (Sugar) had put the proposal for empowering him for negotiation and for placing order for supply of sugar from various Sugar Mills and said proposal was approved by accused Jagjit Singh Sikka (J.S.Sikka), Addl. Administrator on dated 24.6.99 which is found established from Ex.PW14/X5. Said facts clearly established that the accused S.S.Rana was given complete power by accused J.S.Sikka, Addl. Administrator of DCCWS Ltd. to negotiate and to place order for supply of sugar C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 38 of 100 without any approval of Addl. Administrator. Thus, the accused S.S.Rana was made the Incharge for the Sugar Section by the accused J.S. Sikka and therefore, he was responsible for the same.
27. It is further revealed from the record that vide Order dated 26.8.2000 as passed by Sh.R.N.Vats, Manager (Personnel), DCCWS Ltd., copy of which is Ex.PW14/X7, the accused S.S.Rana was directed to hand over the charge relating to levy sugar to Sh.Rajesh Panwar, Deputy Manager, DCCWS Ltd. but the accused J.S.Sikka, Addl. Administrator vide Order dated 29.8.2000, copy of which is Ex.PW14/X8, has cancelled the earlier Order dated 26.8.2000 as passed by Sh.R.N.Vats, Manager (Personnel), copy of which is Ex.PW14/X7 with immediate effect directing that the accused S.S.Rana, Manager will continue to do the work of Manager, FPS and levy sugar as usual till further order, which clearly reflect the nexus between accused J.S. Sikka and accused S.S. Rana.
28. It is further revealed from the record that vide Order dated 5.9.2001 as passed by Sh.V.K.Rampal, Account Officer, copy of which is Ex.PW14/X9, the accused S.S.Rana was directed to hand over the charge of free sale sugar to Sh.Nakli Singh, Deputy Manager and to C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 39 of 100 hand over the charge relating to levy sugar to Sh.Satish Yadav, Deputy Manager and the accused S.S.Rana was directed to handle the work as Manager, FPS only but again said Order dated 5.9.2001 Ex.PW14/X9 was cancelled with immediate effect vide Order dated 11.9.2001 as passed by the accused B.S.Chaudhary, which clearly reflect the nexus between accused B.S. Chaudhary and accused S.S. Rana.
29. It is further revealed from the record that vide Minutes of Meeting dated 28.08.2001 of Sub Committee (Sugar), copy of which is Ex.PW14/X20, the Resolution was passed to the effect that the purchase of the sugar shall be made after the approval of Purchase Sub Committee and to the effect that 500 sugar bags are to be procured at wholesale godown in order to make immediate supply as and when requirement is made in this respect but it is stated that despite the passing of the said Resolution dated 28.8.2001, the accused S.S.Rana, Manager (Sugar) continued to purchase / procure sugar in violation of the said Resolution.
30. Election to the Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd.was held in June 2001 and 4 Members namely Surinder Kumar Garg, Ramesh Chand Verma, Om Prakash Shokeen and Pushpraj were C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 40 of 100 elected to the Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd. 5 Members namely Bhagat Singh ChaudharyPresident, J.S.SikkaVice President, Comrade IqbalSecretary, Vinay Kumar GoelMember and Balraj AryaMember were nominated to the Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd. vide Order dated 29.6.2001 as passed by Sh.D.S.Nijjer, Deputy Secretary, Cooperative on behalf of Lt. Governor, Delhi and copy of said Order is Ex.PW52/A and thereafter, the DCCWS Ltd. started working under the Managing Committee led by its President accused Bhagat Singh Chaudhary.
31. It is further revealed from the Record Ex.PW10/D1 that M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. was regular transporter of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. since 1995 and got continuance contract for transportation / storage of sugar up to 31.12.2001. The accused S.S.Rana, Manager, (Sugar) put up the proposal for extending this contract up to 31.3.2002 before the Committee of 4 Directors on the same terms and conditions and it was approved. During the month of March 2002, Tender for the period 01.4.2002 to 31.03.2003 was again invited for carrying and transportation of levy sugar to FPS in Delhi from the godowns of DCCWS Ltd. at Moti Nagar as well as M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. godown at UP Border, Ghaziabad and M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 41 of 100 was awarded the contract for lifting of sugar from Mills and M/s Ambey Roadlines was given the contract for lifting of levy sugar for local distribution. It is also noted that Tender Form relating to M/s Ambey Roadlines and M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. were purchasedby Ashok Kumar Goel, Partner of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co., so it appears that both said firms are sister concerns.
32. It is further revealed from the record i.e. Partnership Deed dated 1.4.1995, copy of which is Ex.PW19/F that said M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. is a Partnership Firm being owned by 3 partners namely Ashok Kumar Goel (Accused No.1) S/o Late Bal Mukund, Vijay Kumar Goel (Accused No.2) S/o Late Bal Mukund and Sudha Goel (Accused No.6) W/o Pradeep Kumar Goel (Accused No.4) and said M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. came into existence w.e.f. 1.4.95 for carrying out the business of transportation / storage of sugar etc. Clause 9 of said Partnership Deed clearly provide that all the partners will be the working partners as it state as under: "9. That all the parties to the Deed will be working partners and they will devote their full time and energy to the conduct of the business of Partnership Firm." C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 42 of 100
33. From the perusal of the deposition of PW19 Sh.V.K.Hans, the then Manager, officiating PNB Branch, Shakti Nagar, Delhi coupled with the copy of the Account Opening Firm of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. Ex.PW19/B, it is clearly reflected that said M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. had applied for opening of the Account at PNB, Shakti Nagar and said Account Opening Form is duly found signed by all the 3 partners i.e. Ashok Kumar Goel, Vijay Kumar Goel and Sudha Goel and is found annexed with copies of their Election I Cards which are Ex.PW19/C, Ex.PW19/D and Ex.PW19/E.
34. It is further revealed from the Record that in pursuance of the award of the contract for transportation/storage of sugar by DCCWS Ltd. in favour of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co., the accused Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel, partner of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. has submitted several similar undertakings dt. 18.6.2001, 15.10.2001, 7.1.2002, 16.4.2002 and 12.6.2002 on behalf of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co., copies of which are Ex.PW10/D12, D13, D14, D15 & D16 respectively and said undertakings clearly reflect regarding taking of all the responsibilities by M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. with regard to the safe custody of sugar bags of DCCWS Ltd. as para 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 of said similar undertakings state as under: C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 43 of 100 "1. That we are the approved transporter of Delhi Consumer's Cooperative Wholesale Store Ltd., Karampura Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi110015.
2. That we have been given the contract on the specified terms and conditions as stated in the agreement for lifting levy sugar from the various sugar mills located in U.P. and transporting the same to Delhi.
4. That all the stock lifted from the mills are unloaded and stored in the godown either maintained by DCCWS at its Head Office at Moti Nagar, New Delhi or in the godowns maintained by Mahamaya Transport Co. at U.P. Border or elsewhere.
5. That we are responsible for stored stock for its safe custody of damaged.
8. That the details of distribution of levy sugar to FPS will be supplied to Manager, DCCWS on daily basis or as C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 44 of 100 desired by the Manager (PDS) DCCWS."
35. It is further revealed from the Record that the accused Pradeep Goel is the brother of accused Ashok Goel and Vijay Goel and is the husband of accused Sudha Goel and is the proprietor of M/s Ambey Roadlines. It is further revealed from the Record that said accused Pradeep Goel has subsequently started running business of sugar as proprietor of M/s Nupur Enterprises and had obtained cash credit limit of Rs.25 lacs from PNB by providing as collateral securities the stock of sugar DCCWS lying in godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co.
36. From the perusal of Record, it is further reflected that Sh. R.C. Meena was appointed as General Manager of DCCWS Ltd. in May 2002 and on receipt of information regarding shortage of sugar in the godown of DCCWS Ltd. in pursuance of which, he passed order Ex.PW10/A for physical stock verification and thereafter, the team after conducting the Inspection on 2.7.2002 submitted Inspection Report Ex.PW9/B1. PW10 R.C. Meena has deposed in this respect as under:
C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 45 of 100
"In the year 2002 I was posted as General Manager DCCWS Limited, Moti Nagar, N. Delhi. I received a telephonic call that there was huge shortage of sugar in godowns. Accordingly, I prepared an order Ex.PW10/A and decided to get the physical verification of stock done. A team was constituted comprising of Sh. V.K. Rampal, Sh. Puran Singh Manager to conduct the physical checking of stock in the godown and Dy. Manager Sh. Nakli Singh was directed to assist the team. The team went to the godowns and the information was leaked and I was pressurized to withdraw the Inspection team. The team conducted the Inspection on 2.7.2002 and filed Inspection report Ex.PW9/B1. I ordered for lodging of FIR. I directed Sh. B.S. Mann to lodge an FIR in P.S. Moti Nagar and he sent two letters to SHO P.S. Moti Nagar regarding the shortage of levy sugar and free sale sugar. Later on the matter was taken up by Anti Corruption Branch. Finally the complaint was lodged by Sh. B.S. Mann. The documents Ex.PW9/B1 to B10 bear my signature at point A."
C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 46 of 100
37. It is further revealed from the Record that thereafter on 4.7.2002, the accused Ashok Kumar Goel had submitted letter to the General Manager, DCCWS Ltd., which is Ex.PW9/B6, stating therein that the Inspection carried out on 2.7.2002 at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. was not done properly and therefore re Inspection may be conducted assuring that they will be liable for any deficiency in the stock of sugar. In pursuance of said request letter of accused Ashok Kuamar Goel of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co., Sh. R.C. Meena, General Manager passed further order on dt. 4.7.2002, directing Sh. Puran Singh and Sh. Naresh Kumar for further Inspection at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and they conducted reInspection at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. on dt. 5.7.2002 and submitted their Verification Report Ex.PW9/B4 & B5, stating therein that no sugar stock was found there. Said facts are also found corroborated from the deposition of PW14 Puran Singh Manager DCCWS Ltd. who had carried out the Inspection on dt. 2.7.2002 and thereafter, further Inspection on dt. 5.7.2002 in the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. in pursuance of the order of R.C. Meena, General Manager, as said PW14 Puran Singh had deposed in this respect as under: C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 47 of 100 " On 02.07.2002 I was posted as a Manager in a Drug Department of DCCWS. As per the direction of the R.C. Meena, the then GM, I had gone to the Mahamaya Godown for checking the stock alongwith Mr. V.K. Rampal/Account Officer and Mr. Narender Singh/ Deputy Manager. I had prepared a detailed Report after checking the godown of Mahamaya Transport and said Report though form part of Ex.PW10/D2 and presently exhibited as Ex.PW14/A and the Report bears my signature at point X. On checking 2279 sugar bags were found. I had submitted my Report Ex.PW14/A on next day to the then GM Sh. R.C. Meena.
On 05.07.2002 as per the direction of Mr. R.C. Meena, the then GM, I had again inspected the godown of Mahamaya Transport alognwith Mr. Naresh Sharma/Manager and two helpers. On checking of the godown, no sugar was found there. The report in this regard is already exhibited as Ex.PW9/B4 and B5, the report runs into three pages.The Report bears my C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 48 of 100 signature at point Y. The sugar which was lying on 02.07.02 in the Mahamaya Godown of Mahamaya Transport Company was not found on 05.07.02. I had asked from the labour of the godown of the godown owner, the labour informed me that the abovesaid sugar bags were got removed by the Owner of Mahamaya Transport.
On 02.07.02 I had also inspected godown of DCCWS in Moti Nagar. Sugar of Moti Nagar godown was found as per the Stock Book."
38. The factum regarding conducting the Inspection on dt. 2.7.2002 in the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. also found corroborated from the deposition of PW16 Nakli Singh @ Narinder Singh, Deputy Manager, DCCWS Ltd. who had also gone for said Inspection and he has deposed in this respect as under: "On 2.7.2002 I was present in the Head Office. On that date Sh.Puran Singh, previous Manager and Sh.Vinay Kumar Rampal, Accounts Officer met me and informed C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 49 of 100 me that we have to check the godown of Moti Nagar and godown of Mahamaya Transport, UP Border as per the directions of senior G.M. We all three reached at Moti Nagar and godown were checked and thereafter, godown of Mahamaya Transport was checked in the presence of Ashok Kumar Goel, (accused present in the court). We had prepared the Report Ex.PW14/A which bears my signature at point M, detail of stock was given in this Report and this Report was addressed to G.M. Ex.PW14/A was also signed by V.K.Rampal at point N and Puran Singh at point X. I identified the signature of V.K.Rampal as I have seen him writing and signing. The godown of Moti Nagar and the godown of Mahamaya Transporter were under the control of the then Manager, S.S. Rana, present in the court."
39. The factum regarding conducting Inspection of godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. on 2.7.2002 as deposed by PW14 Puran Singh and PW16 Nakli Singh is also found corroborated from the deposition of PW23 Vinay Kumar Rampal who is also a member of C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 50 of 100 Raiding Team as he has deposed in this respect as under:
"On 2.7.02 I was posted in DCCWS Ltd. Karam Pura Road, Moti Nagar as Account Officer. On that date Mr.R.C.Meena, the then General Manager given me written order to check the godowns of Mahamaya Transport and godown of Moti Nagar. He has also directed Sh.Puran Singh, the then Manager, Sh.Nakli Singh, Deputy Manager to join me. In pursuance of the said order, I alongwith the above stated officials reached at both the godowns one by one and counted the stock and we prepared our Report which is Ex.PW14/A."
40. The factum regarding conducting the reInspection on dt. 5.7.2002 at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. by Sh. Puran Singh, Manager and Sh. Naresh Kumar, Manager also found supported from the deposition of PW12 Naresh Kumar, Manager who has deposed in this respect as under: "On 5.7.2002 I had gone to Mahamaya Godown as per the C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 51 of 100 instruction of GM Sh.R.C.Meena. I reached there at Mahamaya Godown alongwith Sh.Puran Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ombir Singh. Two Chowkidars namely Babban Singh and Tejpal Singh met us at Godown. Godowns were opened by the Chowkidar but no sugar was found there. I have prepared my Report which is already exhibited as Ex.PW9/B4 and B5 (runs into three pages) and same bears my signature at point X. In this embezzlement, loss of more than one crore rupees was caused to DCCWS Ltd.
Said PW12 in his cross examination has added as under: "It is correct that alongwith the physical verification report dated 30.6.2002 which was submitted by Jitender on 4.7.02, there was a covering letter with the said Report which is already exhibited as Ex.PW12/F3. It is correct that the Chowkidar namely Tejpal had met me on dated 5.7.02 and I had also asked the Chowkidar and he informed me that the concerned party had removed this C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 52 of 100 sugar on 4.7.02 from the said Godown."
41. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW10 R.C.Meena General Manager of DCCWS Ltd., PW12 Naresh Kumar, Manager, of DCCWS Ltd., PW14 Puran Singh, Manager, DCCWS Ltd., PW16 Nakli Singh, Deputy Manager, DCCWS Ltd. and PW23 Vinay Kumar Rampal, Account Officer of DCCWS Ltd. coupled with Inspection Order dated 2.7.2002 Ex.PW10/A as passed by Sh.R.C.Meena, Inspection Report dated 2.7.2002 Ex.PW14/A and Inspection Report dated 3.7.2002 Ex.PW9/B1, Request Letter dated 4.7.2002 as written by the accused Ashok Kumar Goel of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. to the General Manager Ex.PW9/B6 requesting for reInspection and re Inspection Report dated 5.7.2002 Ex.PW9/B4 and B5, it is clearly reflected that in pursuance of the Order dated 2.7.2002 Ex.PW10/A as passed by PW10 R.C.Meena, GM, DCCWS Ltd., PW23 Vinay Kumar Rampal, Acount Officer, PW14 Puran Singh, Manager and PW16 Nakli Singh, Deputy Manager have conducted the physical stock verification of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. at Moti Nagar godown as well as M/s Mahamaya Transport godown and have submitted the Verification Report Ex.PW14/A stating therein the availability of 2279 bags of sugar in the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and have further C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 53 of 100 submitted the detailed Verification Report dated 3.7.2002 Ex.PW9/B1, showing shortage of free sale sugar of 4886.20 and shortage of PDS sugar of 6471.84 (total shortage of 11358.04 sugar bags). It is further found reflected that on the receipt of the Request Letter dated 4.7.2002 of accused Ashok Kumar Goel of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co., PW10 R.C.Meena, General Manager has passed Order on 4.7.2002 in pursuance of which PW14 Puran Singh, Manager and PW12 Naresh Kumar, Manager have visited the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. on 5.7.2002 and conducted reInspection but surprisingly found no stock of sugar there and have submitted the Report dated 5.7.2002 in this respect which is Ex.PW9/B4 and B5. PW14 Puran Singh as well as PW12 Naresh Kumar have also deposed that during their re Inspection on dated 5.7.2002, they came to know that the sugar bags as found lying during Inspection on 2.7.2002 were got removed by the Owner of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and therefore, no stock of sugar was found during reInspection on dated 5.7.2002. As PW14 Puran Singh has specifically deposed in this respect as under: "The sugar which was lying on 2.7.2002 in Mahamaya godown of Mahamaya Transport Co. was not found on 5.7.2002. I had asked from the labour of the godown of C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 54 of 100 the godown owner, the labour informed me that the aforesaid sugar bags were got removed by owner of Mahamaya Transport."
42. Similarly, PW12 Naresh Kumar, Manager has deposed in this respect as under: "It is correct that the Chowkidar namely Tejpal had met me on dated 5.7.2002 and I had also asked the Chowkidar and he informed me that the concerned party had removed the sugar on 4.7.2002 from the said godown."
43. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW12 Naresh Kumar, Manager as well as PW14 Puran Singh, Manager coupled with the Request Letter dated 4.7.2002 as given by accused Ashok Kumar Goel on behalf of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. requesting the General Manager for reInspection and assuring for their liability of any deficiency in the stock of sugar, it is clearly reflected that even 2279 sugar bags which were found lying in the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. during physical stock verification on dated 2.7.2002 as C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 55 of 100 reflected from Stock Verification Report Ex.PW14/A, were also found removed by the Owners of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. unauthorisedly and therefore, no stock of sugar was found available in the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. during reInspection carried out on dated 5.7.2002 which is found reflected from the second Stock Verification Report Ex.PW9/B4 and B5.
44. It is further revealed from the record that in pursuance of the directions given by PW10 R.C.Meena, GM, PW9 B.S.Maan, Manager (Vigilance) of DCCWS Ltd. had initially sent complaint dated 4.7.2002 Ex.PW9/C and additional complaint dated 6.7.2002 Ex.PW9/D to SHO, PS Moti Nagar, Delhi for taking legal action against the accused persons. Said PW9 B.S.Maan has further lodged complaint dated 8.7.2002 Ex.PW9/A, on the basis of which FIR relating to the present case was registered at PS Anti Corruption Branch on dated 10.7.2002 and further investigation was taken up by the IO.
45. It is further revealed from the record that PW56 R.K.Bharani, Cost Accountant after carrying out forensic Investigation with regard to the vanishing of 13,737 bags of sugar lying at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. has submitted the detailed C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 56 of 100 Audit Report Ex.PW56/A which bears his signatures at point A as said PW56 R.K.Bharani has deposed in this respect as under: "In December 2003, I was working as a practicing Cost Accountant with the name and style of M/s R.K. Bharani & Associates. EOW of Delhi Police appointed me to carry out Forensic Investigation and Audit Report of DCCWS Ltd. in respect of vanishing of 13,737 bags of sugar kept at godown of Mahamaya Transport Company. I had carried the Forensic Investigation and thereafter I prepared my typed detailed report which runs into 34 pages which is Ex.PW56/A which bears my signatures at point A. This document was sent to the office of EOW Delhi Police after Forensic Investigation."
46. Said PW56 in his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused S.S.Rana has added as under: "(vol. I have scrutinized approximately 9000 GRs used by C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 57 of 100 the Mahamaya Transport Company during the period March 2001 to July 2002 evidencing the movement of approximately 2 lac bags of sugar and as per the details available, this godown was keeping the sugar of other Traders also and as per the Stock Statements submitted to Punjab National Bank by Nupur Enterprise, they were also keeping their sugars in the said godown of Mahamaya Transport Company. But I have not found any evidence of purchasing the sugar by Nupur Enterprise). I have given my Report Ex.PW56/A on scrutinizing the documents provided to me by the police and on the basis of statement of Ashok Goel. I had not recorded any separate statement of Ashok Goel. (Vol. But I scrutinized the documents provided by the police and corelated with the statement of Ashok Goel and found that the documents seized by the police depicting the correct picture of siphoning)."
47. Said PW56 R.K.Bharani in his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Pradeep Goel, Vijay Goel, Sudha Goel and C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 58 of 100 Suman Goel has further deposed as under: "(I have gone through the relevant record produced before me and on scrutinizing the same, I have prepared my report. I cannot say if there is no stock register prior to 01.04.2002. (Vol. I have gone through the stock register provided by the IO for the period December 1999 onwards). I had seen the record showing the entrustment of the sugar by DCCWS Ltd. to the Mahamaya Transport Co. It is wrong to suggest that no record or register was produced before me showing such entrustment or that no register prior to 1.4.2002 in existence or gone through by me."
48. Said PW56 R.K.Bharani on examination of the detailed relevant record has submitted his Audit Report Ex.PW56/A and certain material facts as found mentioned on the said Report at various Paras are as under:
1. DCCWSL appointed a transporter named C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 59 of 100 Mahamaya Transport Co. (MTC) for transporting the sugars from various mills to Delhi and to deliver the same as per direction of the DCCWSL.
2. DCCWSL was having the storage problem for keeping the surplus sugar quantity which was resulting due to mismatch of demand and supply of sugar.
3. DCCWSL, therefore, entrusted the job of storage to the said MTC, who was having adequate storage capacity in Ghaziabad at the border at Delhi.
4. DCCWSL was not having the proper arrangement of physical verification of sugar.
5. Freight bills were paid by DCCWSL on receiving the challans note of the sugar mills from the MTC of arrival of sugar.
6. DCCWSL used to instruct the MTC to deliver the C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 60 of 100 sugar to various outlets as per schedule.
7. The partners of MTC and other family members were engaged in creating capital by showing profit from the sale of shares and by arranging accommodation from others thus bringing unaccounted money into business transaction as genuine transactions. Following persons were found to be in this type of arrangement:
1. Ashok Goel
2. Manju Goel
3. Nupur Goel
4. Pradeep Goel
5.Sarla Devi
6. Sudha Goel
7. Suman Goel
8. Vijay Goel
8. In the year 1998, Sh. Pradeep Goel, proprietor of Nupur Enterprises (NE) decided to take out the license for trading in the sugar. For this purpose, he applied C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 61 of 100 for the license in the month of August 98 and got the same. At the time of making application, it was declared by him that he would operate from K4, Sawan Park, Delhi. Site plan and statement of the licensee were submitted before the concerned authorities (FSO) under the Delhi Government and was approved by them. Certain conditions were attached to the said license. Storage capacity of the outlet was examined and found that approx. 250 bags of sugar can be kept at any given time. License was used to renew every year. The trading activities started in the year 2001 as appears from the application for the renewal license for the year 2002 in which he declared that he had dealt with 6060 bags of sugar in the year 2001. No dealing prior to it was declared in any renewal.
12. There was far exceed purchase of sugar than the delivery and son the stock of sugar begin to climb up to 25922 bags in April 2000, than reduced to 13950 bags in October 2000 and began to move upward from C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 62 of 100 November 2000 and soon reached to 25627 bags in the month of February 2001.
13. In this perfect setting of stock position and no physical verification, MTC began to misappropriate the sugar by unauthorized selling of it into market thru some wholesale traders.
15. We found the disappearance of 1st and 2nd copy of the GR at the periodic interval from the regular GR books. Only 3rd and 4th copies were left in the GR books. Some containing the name of the party and some were found blank. A total of 627 GRs were found in such condition. In some of the GRs, truck numbers are also mentioned. Besides it, nothing is written in those GRs. These GRs are treated differently than the GRs, which were regularly used to transport the sugar. Since mostly the transportation of the sugar was by mini trucks, hence approximation of 22 bags per GR were taken for calculation. It was found to be perfectly matching with C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 63 of 100 the diversion of sugar slowly and in balancing way. Monthly misappropriation of sugar bags from those 627 GRs were noted down. We find that approx. 66 bags of sugar were misappropriated in the month of January 2001 and then removal began from the month of March 2001 onwards. It was the time of stock taking. There was no noticeable shortages at the end of the March 2001 and was perfectly camouflaged. Since physical stock verification process of DCCWSL was almost non existent, sugar began to remove from the warehouse of the MTC. It also appears that no prudent steps were taken at the end of March 2002 to physical verification of the stock. Than we find that June 2002, complete siphoning of sugar took place and nothing left as stock for DCCWSL. Up to February 2001, there was regularly purchase of huge quantity of levy sugar, which was not prudent but might be under compulsion from the authorities to purchase levy sugar in regular manner. However, it benefited to MTC because they were getting the loading, unloading charges as well as C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 64 of 100 the rent for keeping the sugar in the warehouse. They have also charged of keeping those vanished stock from their warehouse from the DCCWSL. Thus, they got premium on their misappropriation.
16. We have also found that the partners of MTC and Proprietor of NE were working together as one entity. In this direction, the focus was put to the NE account opened with PNB and its corelation, with the stock declaration to the bank at one end and the GRs used during the period at other end. Since the bank insisted on returning the CC amount taken in the month of January 2002, they stopped operating from it and at the same time they further misappropriated Rs.25 lacs granted by the bank as CC limit and not returned. The close corelation between the MTC and NE can be seen from the interconnection. Wife of Proprietor of NE is the partner of MTC. Further two partners of the MTC are the real brother of Proprietor of NE. Even collateral securities offered to the bank to get the CC C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 65 of 100 limit were by mortgaging the warehouse of MTC. Storage centre for the sugar of NE was declared to be at this warehouse belonging to MTC at Ghaziabad though no license was obtained by the NE in U.P. for warehousing and trading the sugar from Ghaziabad thus the activities taken up by the NE was without the license. The license obtained from Delhi was used to obtain the CC limit.
21. It is also clear that unless MTC could have provided those sugars to wholesale sugar trader, they could not have got it and at the same time the MTC could not have sold the sugar directly in the market to retailers as it would have exposed them immediately and thus NE provided the complete solution to it.
22. By going thru the bank account of NE with PNB, we find that all the transactions are corelated to the extent of presenting a valid transaction for circulation of cash. We extended this concept to both end of the period of C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 66 of 100 that account and merged with other saving accounts of the partners and others of the MTC's. The inference can be drawn that all the other transactions in cash with matching accommodating cheques are two distinct operations and were used to legitimize the transaction. In fact, the cash deposited in the bank is nothing but part of the cash received used to circulate and legitimize the transaction. When we addup all those cash transactions, we find it comes to nearly Rs.1.73 Crores which is very much near to amount of sugar i.e. Rs.1.89 Crores diversification.
25. This is the whole findings in this case. Negligent Officials at DCCWSL, poor management of purchase and distribution, too much relying on the MTC's for warehousing the stock, no prudent and proper verification of stock at regular interval, builtup of the stock to very high level led to a tempting effect on the MTC and NE. Another cycle of conversion of unaccounted money to white money was carried out C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 67 of 100 with the help of NE by the wholesale traders (black money to white money) and legitimizing the transactions of money and quantity, benefiting all of them jointly and thus vanishing of 13737 bags of sugar.
32. Since the quantity reported is near to detailed scrutiny hence the reported loss was noted to 13737.32 Quintals.
33. The value of the loss to the DCCWSL was calculated as under:
Valuation of loss Particulars Quantity Av. Rate per Total Amount Qtl.
Free Sale 6,199.48 1,400.00 86,79,272.00 Levy 7,537.84 1,350.00 1,01,76,084.00 Total 13,737.32 1,372.56 1,88,55,356.00
Thus the loss was noted as valuing Rs.1,88,55,356/ i.e Rs.1.89 Crores.
41. These 627 GRs shows diversion of DCCWSL Sugar C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 68 of 100 to other channel and the bills and cheques transaction shows that the bills issued by the traders are not genuine ...........................................................................
43. When we found that all the operations in the various saving bank accounts were abruptly stopped when the dealing started with the NE and again began to functioning when the PNB determined to call their monies back, we are of the opinion that the other saving accounts are nothing but the extension of the NE. those accounts are either connected backward or forward.
Further, we calculated total withdrawals in the form of cash or thru cheques payment to sugar traders and combined with the deposits made in cash, we comes to total which is very much near to value of DCCWSL's sugar diversion. There is a perfect nexus between all those accounts. .................................................................... Thus they played with Rs.1.73 crores as evidenced here which is very near to Rs.1.89 crores of DCCWSL. The genuineness of the transactions is totally sham. C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 69 of 100
45. Thus we find the activities of wholesale sugar traders are not related to actual trading activities with the NE but are in fact is accommodation. This is the way, unaccounted money are brought into main stream as white money. It shows that their business transactions as a whole is not of sugar trade but also used for this type of activities and invites the attention of the Income Tax Authorities for special audit of their firms for the activities.
47. From these activities, it becomes clear that the following persons were involved actively from the NE and MTC and other relatives to earn money from dubious means. All are actively participated in the transactions, whether thru shares or thru saving bank account. Housewives were also doing large cash transactions as can be seen from the merged saving accounts of cash transactions mentioned above and share transactions. The name emerges as followed:
1. Ashok Goel C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 70 of 100
2. Manju Goel
3. Nupur Goel
4. Pradeep Goel
5.Sarla Devi
6. Sudha Goel
7. Suman Goel
8. Vijay Goel
51. We find that this arrangement of issuing ficititious bills benefited all of them jointly and severally. The businessman got converted their unaccounted money into legitimate money, NE and MTC got the diversion in such a way so as to give the impression that all the activities were in legitimate way which were earlier was being done by using the saving bank account to provide otherwise legitimacy. Unaccounted money was also converted to legitimate money by showing it as generated thru profit from the sale of the shares.
52. Thus the cash rotation gave them strength to C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 71 of 100 manipulate the transactions and diversion of sugar without any problem. Till NE came on the scene, all the person names as above were taking part in the operation jointly and helping each other to achieve the objectives.
53. The last such challan was used on 29.6.2002.
54. While sanctioning the CC limit for NE, the warehouse of MTC was mortgaged on equitable mortgage basis with the bank. The photocopy of it is enclosed. It shows deep interrelations between them.
55. Thus we find all the family members of Sh. Ashok Goel, Sh. Vijay Goel and Sh. Pradeep Goel were jointly involved to carry out the diversion activities of sugar.
SUMMARY
56. Unaccounted money brought into circulations by showing profit from shares. All the family members C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 72 of 100 were involved.
57. The entire operation of diversion the sugar was carrying out thru the saving bank accounts of the family members and as soon as NE enters into business, other transactions stopped.
58. The statement given to bank for stock, debit and credit entries in the bank account of NE clearly indicates that all these entries and statements are fictitious in nature and giving rise to absurd situation.
59. The unaccounted 627 GRs take care of all the diverted sugars of DCCWSL.
60. The purchase bill issued by the Sugar Wholesale Traders to NE and other transactions are mere book entries and not the real one.
61. These entries benefited all of them in one way or C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 73 of 100 another as analyzed above.
62. Sugars were diverted by these persons as mentioned above for their gain by violating all the rules.
63. There is no other inference other that the observed. There is only one inference emerging from the accounts documents/papers/statements etc. which is the diversion of sugar by those incomplete challans submitted to us. Hence, we conclude our finding with this report."
49. It is further revealed from the record that PW49 Balraj Arya who is also a nominated Member of Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd. has deposed to the effect that despite the irregularities in the Sugar Section were brought to the notice of accused B.S.Chaudhary and requesting him for conducting Inquiry, he has evaded for the same as said PW49 Balraj Arya has deposed in this respect as under: C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 74 of 100 "On 15.12.2001, 18.12.2001 and 21.12.2001, Sh. Ramesh Chand Verma had written letters to accused B.S.Chaudhary and demanded the account of sugar stock and distribution but he had not given any reply. Before this, on 15.11.2001, in pursuance of the order of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel, Member and Comrade Iqbal Secretary were removed but B.S.Chaudhary, President had never demanded the substitute for the said Member and the Secretary.
On 16.03.2002 Sh.Surender Kumar Garg and Om Prakash Shokeen had written a joint letter to Sh.B.S.Chaudhary requesting for constituting a Committee to inquire, check and verify the purchase, distribution of stock upto 30.06.2001. But Sh.B.S.Chaudhary on 29.04.2002 vide PUC Note under his signatures informed that all the stock was complete upto 31.03.2002, as the same has been examined by the Internal Auditor."
C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 75 of 100
50. Said PW49 Balraj Arya has also deposed to the effect that accused B.S.Chaudhary had acted malafidely in favour of the M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and had extended the tender for transportation and storage of sugar to M/s Mahamaya Transport Co.arbitrarily as said PW49 has deposed in this respect as under: "Before this, accused B.S.Chaudhary had extended the tender of transportation and godown of sugar to Mahamaya Transport Company without condition for 3 months and thereafter, new tender was issued to said Mahamaya Transport Company in this respect without verification concerning the levy sugar. The accused B.S.Chaudhary had granted the contract to Mahamaya Transport Company for the transport and godown regarding free sale sugar without the approval of the Board in this respect. Thus, the accused B.S.Chaudhary has acted malafidely in favour of the Mahamaya Transport Company. B.S.Chaudhary, President never obtained approval for any purchase, payments and expenditure. Manager of sugar Sh.S.S.Rana had acted as C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 76 of 100 per direction of B.S.Chaudhary. Once he was transferred but it was got cancelled by someone."
51. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the accused S.S.Rana was posted as Manager (Sugar) vide Order dated 17.5.99 and he was made responsible for the sugar business and at that time the accused J.S.Sikka was the Addl. Administrator of DCCWS Ltd. and was whole sole Incharge of Department of PDS/Levy Sugar as well as Free Sale Sugar of DCCWS Ltd.being empowered vide Resolution dated 14.5.99 as passed by Comrade Iqbal, Administrator and copy of said Resolution is Ex.PW14/X4. It is further revealed from the record that the accused J.S.Sikka, the then Addl. Administrator of DCCWS Ltd. vide his Approval dated 24.6.99, copy of Ex.PW14/X5, approved the proposal of accused S.S.Rana to negotiate and place order for supply of sugar from various Sugar Mills.
52. It is further revealed from the record that vide Order dated 26.8.2000 as passed by R.N.Vats, Manager (Personnel), DCCWS Ltd., copy of which is Ex.PW14/X7, the accused S.S.Rana was directed to hand over the charge relating to levy sugar to Rajiv Panwar, Deputy Manager, DCCWS Ltd. but the accused J.S.Sikka vide Order dated C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 77 of 100 29.8.2000, copy of which is Ex.PW14/X8 cancelled said order dated 26.8.2000 and directed that the accused S.S.Rana will continue to handle the work of Manager, FPS and levy sugar.
53. It is further revealed from the record that vide Order dated 5.9.2001, copy of which is Ex.PW14/X9, the accused S.S.Rana was directed to hand over the charge relating to free sale sugar to Nakli Singh, Deputy Manager and to hand over the charge relating to levy sugar to Satish Yadav, Deputy Manager but again said Order dated 5.9.2001 was cancelled with immediate effect vide Order dated 11.9.2001 as passed by the accused B.S.Chaudhary.
54. It is further revealed from the record that the accused Jitender Singh who was working as LDC in Account Branch of DCCWS Ltd. and he was assigned the job of stock verification of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. at godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. for the period ending on 31.3.2002 and 30.6.2002 but it is stated that the accused Jitender Singh instead of submitting the correct stock position of sugar but by colluding the other accused persons have submitted the fake sugar stock statement and has thereby helped in the process of misappropriation of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. lying at the godown of the C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 78 of 100 M/s Mahamaya Transport Co.
55. I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsels for the accused persons to the effect that the accused persons have not entered into any criminal conspiracy for misappropriation / cheating of any sugar of DCCWS Ltd. lying at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and there is no evidence on record to establish criminal conspiracy against the accused persons. Since, criminal conspiracy is hatched in privacy or in secrecy, it is rarely possible to establish by direct evidence and therefore, the same can be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. While dealing with the requirement of criminal conspiracy as contemplated U/S 120 A IPC and punishable U/S 120B IPC, some of the broad principles governing the Law of conspiracy was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as 1999 (5) Supreme Court Cases 253 State through Superintendent of Police CBI / SIT Vs. Nalini & Ors. (also known as Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case.
"A. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in
secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a
conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both
C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 79 of 100
the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
B. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.
C. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with knowledge of a conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 80 of 100 consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with other conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active part in the crime."
56. In another case, reported as AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1062 Mohd. Usman Hussain Vs. State of Maharashtra, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with Section 120B IPC, in last part of para 17 as under: "It is true that there is no evidence of any express agreement between the appellants to do or cause to be done the illegal act. For an offence under Section 120B the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act: the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In this case, the fact that the appellants were possessing and selling explosive substances without a valid C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 81 of 100 licence for a pretty long time leads to the inference that they agreed to do and/or cause to be done the said illegal act for, without such an agreement the act cold not have been done for such a long time."
57. Furthermore, while dealing with the requirement of criminal conspiracy, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2748 "Ram Narain Poply Vs. CBI" as under: "The essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in S. 120B read with the C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 82 of 100 proviso to subsection (2) of S. 120A, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under S.120B and proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. The provisions, in such a situation, do not require that each and every person who is a party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfilment of the object of the conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established, the act would fall within the trapping of the provisions contained in S. 120B. Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics 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 by either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is not always possible to C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 83 of 100 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. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient. A conspiracy is a continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity. During its subsistence whenever any one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts he would be held guilty under S. 120B of the I.P.C."
58. By taking the cue from the aforesaid Judgment as rendered C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 84 of 100 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the above referred incriminating material as available on the record, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that all the accused persons namely Vijay Goel, Pradeep Goel, Sudha Goel, Suman Goel, Sarvjeet Singh Rana, Jagjit Singh Sikka, B.S.Chaudhary and Jitender Singh have entered into criminal conspiracy for the misappropriation of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. lying at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. which has ultimately resulted in the misappropriation of total 13737 bags of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. amounting to Rs.1.88 Crores approximately.
59. I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused B.S.Chaudhary to the effect that as no Sanction for prosecution as against this accused has been obtained and therefore, this accused B.S.Chaudhary deserves to be acquitted on this count itself. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the cognizance for the offence as against this accused B.S.Chaudhary has been taken by Ld. Predecessor vide Order dated 29.10.2003. It is further revealed from the record that vide Order dated 4.3.2003 as passed by Sh.N.Diwakar, Registrar, Cooperative Societies, copy of which is Ex.PW45/A, the Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd. was C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 85 of 100 superceded and Sh. Syed Hussain Jafri was appointed as Administrator to run the affairs of DCCWS Ltd. and the Managing Committee/Secretary of DCCWS Ltd. was directed to hand over the charge of DCCWS Ltd. along with the record to said Administrator. In view of aforesaid Order dated 4.3.2003 as passed by the Registrar, Co operative Societies, it is clearly established that as the Managing Committee of DCCWS Ltd. has already been superceded, the accused B.S.Chaudhary was no more the President of said DCCWS Ltd. No doubt, a Cooperative Department works as per provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 and Rules 1973 and therefore, the authorities/employees of DCCWS Ltd. are public servant being duly covered U/S 2 (c) (ix) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and therefore, the accused B.S.Chaudhary, the then President of DCCWS Ltd. was a public servant from the date of his posting i.e. 29.6.2001 as President of DCCWS Ltd. but said accused B.S.Chaudhary has ceased to be a public servant w.e.f. 4.3.2003 and therefore, he was not a public servant on the date i.e. 29.10.2003 when the cognizance was taken by the Court against him. Therefore, I am of the considered view that no Sanction was required for launching prosecution of accused B.S.Chaudhary and my said view is found supported from Judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as AIR 1958 SC C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 86 of 100 107, "S.A.Venkatraman Vs. State". Similar view was also taken in another case reported as 1999 CR.L.J.3696 "State of Kerala Vs.Padmanabhan Nair" where it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "An accused facing prosecution for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot claim any immunity on the ground of want of sanction, if he ceased to be a public servant on the date when the Court took cognizance of the offence."
60. I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused Jitender Singh that as Sanction Authority has passed the Sanction Order for launching prosecution as against the accused Jitender Singh mechanically without proper application of mind and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted on this count itself.
61. In order to prove Sanction concerning the accused Jitender Singh, the prosecution has examined PW32 Sh.S.S.Jafri, the then Administrator, DCCWS Ltd., who has categorically deposed that on 25.7.2003 he was posted as Administrator, DCCWS Ltd. and the C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 87 of 100 documents of the case file was received in their Office and through the office of GM, same were placed before him. He further deposed that on going through the material on record and after applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and being the authority competent to remove the accused Jitender Singh who was posted as LDC in DCCWS Ltd., he accorded the sanction for launching prosecution as against the said accused Jitender Singh and said Sanction Order is Ex.PW32/A bearing his signature at point A. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel, he denied the suggestion that he has not perused any material at the time of grant of Sanction.
62. In the case reported as "2011 V A.D. (Delhi) 1 Kiran Pal Singh Vs. State" while dealing with the similar aspect relating to Sanction, in Para 6 of the Judgment, it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under:
"It is settled legal position that draft sanction order can be placed before competent authority along with the material and if the competent authority after perusing the material signs the draft sanction order, it cannot be said to suffer from non C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 88 of 100 application of mind. In Indu Bhushan Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1958 SC 148, wherein the sanction order was prepared by the police and put before the sanctioning authority by the personal branch of his Office and that before according the sanction he went through all the relevant papers put before him, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be a valid sanction".
63. In the case reported as "State of Maharashtra and Ors. V/s Ishvar Piraji Kelpatri & Ors. 1996 Cri. L.J. 1127", where Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that if the Authority according Sanction makes statement that while signing the order of Sanction, it had personally scrutinized the file and had arrived at required satisfaction, it is not necessary to look for, that there was application of mind or not or that material on record was examined by the concerned Officer or not before according sanction, especially when order prima facie shows that, he had done so.
64. In the case reported in "2011 I AD (CRI.) (S.C.) 1, Kootha C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 89 of 100 Perumal Vs. State (through) Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption", it was held in Para 14 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of law, it would not be possible to conclude that the sanction order in the present case was not valid. Ex.P2 with the present appeal is the copy of the sanction order. A perusal of the same would show that the sanctioning authority has adverted to all the necessary facts which have been actually proved by the prosecution in the trial. Upon examination of the material facts, the sanctioning authority has certified that it is the authority competent to remove the appellant from the Office. It is specifically stated that the statements of the witnesses have been duly examined. Sanction order also states that the other materials such as copy of the FIR as well as other official documents such as the different mahazars were carefully C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 90 of 100 examined. Upon examination of the statements of the witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the appellant should be prosecuted for the offences, as noticed above. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the sanctioning order to prosecute the appellant was not legal".
65. Furthermore, in the case reported as 2013 VI AD (SC) 458 "State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Mahesh G. Jain" while dealing with similar aspect of Sanction of prosecution as against public servant, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after considering various earlier Judgments, in Paragraph 13 as under: "13. From the aforesaid authorities, the following principles can be culled out:
a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 91 of 100 case for sanction has been made out.
b) The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before him and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and his satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him.
d) Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
e) The adequacy of material placed before the C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 92 of 100 sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
f) If the sanctioning authority has perused all the material placed before him and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
g) The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity."
66. Furthermore, in the case reported as "2004 (13) SCC 487, Shankar Bhai Lalji Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat", it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 93 of 100 "So far as the question of Sanction is concerned, in the absence of anything to show that any defect or irregularity therein caused failure of justice, that plea is without substance."
67. By taking the cue from the aforesaid Judgment and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused Jitender Singh to the effect that said Sanction Order Ex.PW32/A is legally Invalid. I am of the considered view that the said Sanction Order Ex.PW32/A concerning the accused Jitender Singh has been validly granted by PW32 on appreciation of relevant material on record.
68. During the course of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused Sarvjeet Singh Rana submitted that this accused S.S.Rana on coming to know regarding the shortage of 3600 sugar bags in the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. has lodged complaint dated 1.7.2002, copy of which is Ex.DX at PS Sahibabad for taking legal action against the Owners of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co.and said fact reflects the innocence of this accused. It is further added by him C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 94 of 100 that said fact of lodging complaint Ex.DX on dated 1.7.2002 at PS Sahibabad also reflects that this accused has no concern with the misappropriation of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. by the Owners of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused as in the said complaint Ex.DX, the accused S.S.Rana claimed that on approval of the General Manager, he had personally visited the godown on 1.7.2002 and confirmed regarding shortage of 3600 bags of sugar but the said claim of accused S.S.Rana is found contradicted from the deposition of PW10 R.C.Meena. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused S.S.Rana, said PW10 has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that on 1.7.2002 I directed S.S.Rana to physically verify the Report filed by Jitender Singh. It is wrong to suggest that Mr.Rana physically verified the Report submitted by Jitender Singh................................................................... It is wrong to suggest that accused S.S.Rana has informed me that he has lodged complaint in PS Sahibabad regarding shortage of 3600 bags of sugar as per information received from checking staff vide C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 95 of 100 Report dated 30.6.2002."
69. I do not see any reason to disbelieve the said deposition of PW10, R.C.Meena, GM. Even otherwise, the claim of accused S.S.Rana regarding his physical verification at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. on dated 1.7.2002 does not appear to be trustworthy as he has not filed any such Verification Report. Furthermore, from the bare perusal of copy of said complaint Ex.DX, as claimed by accused S.S.Rana to have been lodged on 1.7.2002 at PS Sahibabad, do not found bear any Receipt Number/Endorsement Number of PS Sahibabad and therefore, it appears that said complaint might have been sent afterwards in order to create a piece of evidence in favour of accused S.S.Rana and therefore, the same can be of no help for this accused.
70. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused S.S.Rana that this accused has been discharging his duty efficiently and is not a party to any criminal conspiracy for misappropriation and cheating relating to sugar of DCCWS Ltd. by Owners of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Counsel in view of the C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 96 of 100 discussion as already made earlier.
71. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Vijay Goel, Pradeep Goel, Sudha Goel and Suman Goel that these accused persons cannot be held liable for any shortage of free sale sugar of DCCWS Ltd. in view of the fact that the contract for the transportation / storage was awarded by DCCWS Ltd. in favour of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and M/s Ambey Roadlines only relating to levy sugar and not relating to free sale sugar. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that said facts are also found supported from the Tender Form of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. which is Ex.PW14/X1 and Tender Form of M/s Ambey Roadlines Ex.PW14/X2. I do not find any force in said submission of Ld. Counsel as I am of the considered view that the factum regarding the award of the contract for transportation / storage by DCCWS Ltd. in favour of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. relating to both levy sugar as well as free sale sugar are found supported from the deposition of PW14 Puran Singh, Manager, PW16 Nakli Singh, Deputy Manager and PW23 Vinay Kumar Rampal, Account Officer who have conducted the physical verification at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. on dated 2.7.2002 in pursuance of the Order dated C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 97 of 100 2.7.2002 Ex.PW10/A as passed by PW10 R.C.Meena, GM and they have submitted the Inspection Report Ex.PW9/B1 showing certain stock of free sale as well as PDS sugar in the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. Furthermore, the accused Jitender Singh who has conducted the physical verification on dated 30.6.2002 at godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. and filed his Report Ex.PW12/F2 showing stock of 5200 bags of free sale sugar at godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. Therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused in this respect.
72. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Vijay Goel, Pradeep Goel, Sudha Goel and Suman Goel that as per Office Note of DCCWS Ltd. Ex.PW9/B1, there was stock of 9224.34 bags of levy sugar as on 30.06.2002 as per Book and as per Letter dated 25.06.2002 as issued by B.S.Mann, Manager (Vigilance), DCCWS Ltd., to B.S.Chaudhary Ex.PW9/D1, showing at Para 3 "As per our Sale Register of Levy Sugar for the period from April 2002 to 30th June 2002, M/s Ambey Roadlines had supplied 9244.19 qunitals of levy sugar in various circles" and therefore, there is no shortage of any levy sugar also. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Counsel in view of the fact that M/s Ambey C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 98 of 100 Roadlines was awarded the contract for merely transportation of sugar and not for storage of the same whereas M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. was awarded the contract for transportation and storage of sugar by DCCWS Ltd. As per record, the stock of levy sugar at the end of June 2002 is 9224.34 bags as found reflected from Ex.PW9/B1 as well as Ex.PW60/DX (colly.). From the perusal of the Statement of levy sugar as well as free sale sugar Ex.PW10/D5, it is clearly reflected that the total shortage of free sale and levy sugar of DCCWS Ltd. was found to be 13737 bags amounting to Rs.1,88,35,048/ . Therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons in this respect.
73. In view of the aforesaid discussion and incriminating material as available on the record, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsels for the accused persons for their acquittal.
74. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that all the 8 accused persons namely Vijay Goel, Pradeep Goel, Sudha Goel, Suman Goel, Sarvjeet Singh Rana, Bhagat Singh Chaudhary, Jagjit Singh Sikka and Jitender Singh are held guilty and stand convicted for offence punishable U/s 120B IPC r/w Section 409 IPC and 13 (1) (c) of C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 99 of 100 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for entering into criminal conspiracy for misappropriation of 13737 bags of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. lying at the godown of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co. I have also convicted accused Vijay Goel and Sudha Goel (Partners of M/s Mahamaya Transport Co.) for offence punishable U/s 409 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC for misappropriation of 13737 bags of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. in pursuance of criminal conspiracy entered with other accused persons. I have also convicted 4 accused persons who were public servants namely Sarvjeet Singh Rana, Bhagat Singh Chaudhary, Jagjit Singh Sikka and Jitender Singh for offence punishable U/s 13 (1)
(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 120 B IPC for allowing / facilitating the misappropriation of 13737 bags of sugar of DCCWS Ltd. by other accused persons.
75. Let the accused persons be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on this 11th day of July, 2014 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi C.C. No. 26/11 Page No. 100 of 100