Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Amarjeet Chhabra Etc. (Sarvesanjhi ... on 10 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHANT CHANGOTRA
SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C. ACT) (CBI)-22, ROUSE AVENUE
COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
CC No. : 109/2019
CBI Vs : Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors
RC No. : 14 (S)/2006/SCR-I/CBI/ND
U/s : 120B/420/465/468/471 IPC
& 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC
Act, 1988.
CNR No. : DLCT11-000490-2019
Date of Institution : 31.07.2008
Date of Judgment reserved on : 26.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 10.12.2025
Brief Details Of The Case
Offences complained of : 120B/420/465/468/471 IPC
& 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of
PC Act, 1988.
Names of the accused :
1 Amarjeet Chhabra S/o 2 Satpal Grover S/o Sh.
Late Sunder Das Chhabra B. D. Grover R/o
R/o E-969, 1st Floor, C R 416/H, Kucha Brij
Park, GK-I, New Delhi. Nath, Chandani Chowk,
Delhi.
3 Suresh Kumar S/o Khushi 4 Man Singh
Ram R/o 58, Punjabi (Proceedings Abated)
Colony, Narela, Delhi.
5 Gopal Singh Bisht S/o 6 Rajiv Navani S/o Harsh
Inder Singh Bisht R/o Patil Navani R/o 160,
Village Bachhani, P. O. Punjabi Bagh Apt, SFS
Jakhani (Chopta), Distt. Flats, Rohtak Road,
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 1 of 105
Rudraprayag, Uttrakhand. New Delhi.
7 Pradeep Kansal S/o Late 8 Amit Saxena
Prem Prakash Kansal R/o S/o R. K. Saxena R/o
C-6/9, Rana Pratap Bagh, C-303, Unique Apt.
Near Kamla Nagar, Delhi. Plot no. 38, Sector-6,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
9 Mahesh Kumar Singh 10 Sandeep Saini
S/o Late Ram Singh R/o S/o B. R. Saini R/o 565,
Flat no. 8334, Sector C-8, Air Force Naval
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Officers Enclave, Plot
no. 11, Sector-7,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
11 Ajay Arora 12 J. C. Bhardwaj
S/o Late R. D. Arora R/o (Proceedings Abated)
102, Som Apartments,
Sector-6, Dwarka, New
Delhi.
13 Ranjit Singh
S/o Waryam Singh
(Discharged vide order dated 01.11.2013)
Plea of the accused : All accused pleaded not
guilty.
Final order : All accused have been
acquitted.
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts-
1. The brief facts of the case as enunciated in the chargesheet are that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide orders dated 02.08.2005 and 13.02.2006 in CWP No. 10066/2004 CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 2 of 105 directed CBI to conduct Preliminary Enquiry. Accordingly, Preliminary Enquiry no. 2 (S) / 2006-SCU-I was registered against five Cooperative Group Housing Societies including the Sarve Sanjhi Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., New Delhi (hereafter referred to as Society).
2. In the course of Preliminary Enquiry, it was revealed that prima facie offences u/s 120-B r/w 167/420/467/468/471 IPC and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act had been committed by Sh. Amarjeet Chhabra (President of Society), Satpal Grover (Vice-President of Society), Suresh Kumar (Clerk of Society), Narayan Diwakar (the then RCS), Man Singh (then Asst. Registrar, South), J. S. Sharma (then Asst. Registrar, South-West), Gopal Singh Bisht (then Clerk, South Zone, RCS) and other unknown officials of the office of RCS. Accordingly, on 04.10.2006 on the basis of complaint dated 04.10.2006 submitted by Sh. Naresh Talwar, Inspector of Police/ CBI/SCR-I/New Delhi the present FIR u/s 120-B r/w 167/420/467/468/471 IPC and 13 (1)
(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered.
3. During the course of investigation, it was found that Sarve Sanjhi Cooperative Group Housing Society was registered vide registration no. 1424 (GH) on 31.01.1984. It had 78 promoter members under Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 and as on 12.03.1985 the freeze strength of the Society was fixed at 135. At that time, the registered address of Society was 4E/14, Jhandewalan Extn., Cycle Market, New Delhi. Sh. J. C. Bharadwaj was the founder President and Sh. Ranjeet Singh was the Secretary of the Society.
4. It is alleged that as per record of Registrar of CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 3 of 105 Cooperative Societies (herein after referred as RCS), in the month of March, 1988, Ranjeet Singh forwarded a list of resignations of 80 members to the office of RCS. However, approval vis-a-vis resignation at serial no. 1 to 17 and 72 was not required because the same had taken place prior to directive of RCS dated 17.06.1986. Whereas, the approval of resignation of remaining 62 members was not given as the Society had claimed having made payments to all the resigned members and the competent authority directed the said resignations to be randomly verified. Subsequently, on the basis of record produced by Society in the month of December, 1988, the office of RCS approved the expulsion of 22 promoter members.
5. It is also alleged that as per communication sent by the Society to the office of RCS, till the year 1996, 100 freeze strength members had resigned and 33 members had been expelled and new members had been enrolled in the Society in their place. However, the formal approval of RCS for acceptance of resignations of the aforesaid members remained pending due to non-production of relevant records like copies of proceedings, resignation letters, genuineness of payment of refund and proof of residence etc.
6. In the meanwhile, Sh. Vinod Kapoor was appointed as the Honorary Chief Executive of the Society vide Annual General Meeting dated 29.09.1996 for the timely execution of the project of Society. After 29.09.1996, the Society continued to have its office at C-2/G, Railway Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi i.e. residence of Sh. J. C. Bharadwaj and it had its sub-office at 643, Gandhi Cloth Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi i.e. at the office of Vinod Kapoor. Later, vide AGM dated 24.10.1999 the office was CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 4 of 105 shifted to 643, Gandhi Cloth Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and the aforesaid decision was communicated to the office of RCS by Sh. Vinod Kapoor vide letter dated 28.10.1999.
7. Sh. Vinod Kapoor was the Chief Executive and Patron of Society and Sh. J. C. Bharadwaj continued to remain President of Society till the year 1999. Thereafter, accused no. 1 Amarjeet Chhabra took over as the President and accused no. 3 Suresh Kumar got associated with the Society in the capacity of a clerk. Sh. Vinod Kapoor died on 06.09.2000 and after his death the registered office of the Society was shifted to 416-H, Kucha Brijnath, Chandni Chowk, Delhi i.e. at the shop of accused no. 2 Satpal Grover.
8. After the resignation of J. C. Bharadwaj, a new Managing Committee headed by Sh. Amarjeet Chhabra took over with accused no. 2 Satpal Grover as Vice President, Smt. Veena Khanna as Secretary and Ms. Nidhi Kansal as the Treasurer.
9. On 03.06.1998, the Society was offered land which was allotted to it on 25.08.2000 on the receipt of total payment of Rs. 2,64,53,338/- at the rate of Rs. 3533/- per sq. meter vide three installments i.e. of Rs.1,21,69,500/- on 14.07.1998, Rs. 1,03,53,375/- on 30.05.2000 and Rs. 39,74,625/- on 26.07.2000. Subsequent thereto, the Society constructed 135 flats and on 12.06.2004 the same were allotted to its members through draw of lots in the presence of representatives of RCS and Delhi Development Authority (i.e. DDA).
10. No communication was made between the Society and office of RCS between October, 2000 and January, 2004. On 15.01.2004, accused no. 2 Satpal Grover i.e. Vice President of CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 5 of 105 Sarve Sanjhi CGHS sent a letter alongwith affidavit of President of Society and necessary certificate qua verification of the list of members for draw of lots. Accused no. 5 Gopal Singh Bisht i.e. Dealing Clerk submitted a note to accused no. 4 Man Singh (proceedings abated), the then Asst. Registrar for asking the Society to furnish requisite documents alongwith original records of Society for the purpose of verification.
11. After receiving the documents from the Society, on 28.01.2004 accused no. 5 Gopal Singh Bisht put up a proposal for "clearance of list of members" for draw of lots of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS whereby he sought approval of the competent authority for the following actions i.e. (a) acceptance of resignations of 102 members; (b) approval of 135 new enrollments; (c) for retaining 3 cases on account of default of payment; and (d) for clearance for draw of lots.
12. In support of proposal, the Managing Committee of Society submitted certified photocopies of resignation letters, certified photocopies of proof of return, certified photocopies of resolutions of the Managing Committee (wherein the resignation letters had been approved) and other relevant record including affidavits of new / present 135 members.
13. Accused no. 5 Gopal Singh Bisht put up a note stating that the Managing Committee of Society had requested RCS to condone any lapses on its part. Dr. Sarangi i.e. the then J. R. (S) marked the para of noting as "X" and asked his subordinates to elaborate the lapses. Thereupon, accused no. 5 G. S. Bisht (LDC) submitted a note dated 03.02.2004 that the societies generally submit condonation certificate for any lapses on the part CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 6 of 105 of Managing Committee due to ignorance of rules / directives issued by RCS from time to time. He further stated that in the present case, the Society had made procedural lapses at the time of enrollment and resignation of the members in violation of Rule 30 and 31 of The DCS Rules, 1973. He further mentioned that the RCS was the competent authority for condonation of such lapses u/s 34 of DCS Act, 1972 and therefore it was submitted for approval of RCS.
14. Thereafter, Dr. Sarangi sought a detailed date-wise analysis of resignation of 102 promoter members, expulsion of 33 promoter members and for physical verification report with regard to past and present members. In response thereto, accused no. 5 Gopal Singh Bisht submitted the random physical verification report of the past and present members and submitted it alongwith other details which were sought by Dr. Sarangi. Later on, the accused no. 5/ dealing hand was asked to furnish a list of enrollments made and resignations of members showing the date- wise position. At that time, accused no. 5 Gopal Singh Bisht got promoted and he was transferred.
15. Thereafter, Smt. Sunanda Malik, Gr. II put up the file with respect to list of members enrolled against the vacancy created due to resignations / expulsion of each of the members with the remark that Society had enrolled members in excess of its approved freeze strength which was in violation of the directive dated 07.06.1990 issued by the RCS and thereby the Society had requested for condonation of such lapses on the part of Managing Committee. She opined that in such cases RCS being the competent authority may condone such procedural lapses.
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 7 of 105
16. Accused no. 4 Man Singh (proceedings abated) also sought condonation of lapses by the competent authority i.e. RCS u/s 34 of DCS Act and also for considering the proposal for approval of resignations, enrollment and for draw of lots etc. At that time, Dr. Sarangi, the then J. R. (S) raised the issue of violation of Rule 34 (2) of DCS Act and sought explanation in this regard. According to him, the said Rule was in force after 08.01.2003 i.e. when Writ Petition with regard to it was disposed and on account of the fact that there was no stay on the notification dated 68.97 and qua which Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS had issued a directive dated 02.04.2004.
17. Accused no. 4 Man Singh gave reply to the effect that no enrollments were made after 02.04.2004 and enrollments were also not made during the period between 06.08.1997 to 03.10.1997 due to which provisions of the directive did not apply to this Society. However, Dr. Sarangi was not satisfied with the reply of accused no. 4 Man Singh and he sought further examination of the issue and also sought explanation of the Society.
18. The President of Society gave reply dated 26.04.2004 stating that the Society was not aware about the date of disposal of Writ Petition with regard to Rule 24 (2) and it came to know about it only after receiving the directive dated 02.04.2004 from the RCS and he also sought condonation of such lapses.
19. Accused no. 6 Rajiv Nawani put up a note dated 26.04.2004 alongwith aforementioned reply and requested the competent authority to condone the lapses. The file was marked to Man Singh, AR (S), but Jitender Sharma, the then AR (SW)/ LO CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 8 of 105 wrote "AR (S) on leave" and marked the file to JR (S) on 27.04.2004. Dr. Sarangi forwarded the said file to Narayan Diwakar i.e. RCS for appropriate orders and he approved "X" on 28.04.2004 with direction that no such cases shall be entertained in future. The point "X" on P61/N (Old) meant "Managing Committee of the Society had requested the office to condone any lapses on its part." Therefore, the then RCS had only condoned the lapses on the part of Managing Committee, but he did not give approval for resignations of 102 members nor he gave approval of the present 135 enrollments and clearance of names of 132 members for draw of lots. However, despite that accused no. 6 Rajiv Nawani, the then clerk and dealing hand and accused no. 4 Man Singh, then AR (S) sent a letter to Dy. Director (GH), DDA forwarding a list of approved members for draw of lots. Accordingly, as directed by DDA, accused Man Singh i.e. AR (S) directed accused no. 6 Rajiv Nawani to attend the draw of lots on 12.06.2004.
20. Upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court on 31.07.2008 against the accused persons and the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 03.11.2009 took cognizance of offences and accused persons were summoned to face trial. Subsequently, compliance of Sec. 207 Cr.PC was done.
21. Thereafter, the ld. predecessor court vide detailed order dated 01.11.2013 discharged accused no. 13 Ranjeet Singh and charges u/s 120-B r/w sections 420/468/471 IPC and u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act were framed against remaining accused persons i.e. Amarjeet Chhabra (A-1), Satpal Grover (A-2), Suresh Kumar (A-3), Gopal Singh Bisht CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 9 of 105 (A-5), Rajiv Navani (A-6), Pradeep Kansal (A-7), Amit Saxena (A-8), Mahesh Kr. Singh (A-9), Sandeep Saini (A-10) and Ajay Arora (A-11). The accused pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges and claimed trial.
22. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that accused Man Singh (A-4) and J. C. Bharadwaj (A-12) had expired prior to the filing of the chargesheet/ order on charge and proceedings qua them stood abated.
Prosecution evidence:-
23. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined a total of 64 witnesses. A brief account of the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses is given herein below:-
24. PW-1 Sh. M.P. Sharma deposed that from April, 2006 to September, 2007 he was posted as Asstt. Registrar (South). He had issued a letter dated 04.08.2006 Ex.PW1/A (D-11) to the SP-CBI vide which he had provided file of the office of RCS to CBI. The said file pertained to Sarve Sanjhi CGHS Ltd. having registration no. 1424 i.e. Ext.PW1/PA (D-8). Vide another letter dated 05.10.2007 Ex.PW1/B (D-12), he also informed the CBI that the original registration certificate of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS was not available in the file of Society and the proceedings u/s 32 of DCS Rules was also not found available in the office.
25. PW-2 Sh. Suresh Philip deposed that he alongwith his wife Ms. Mary Philip obtained the membership of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS, Plot No.8, Sector-9, Dwarka, Delhi through one agent i.e. accused M.K. Singh who was property dealer. He had paid Rs.16 lacs approximately for obtaining the membership of aforesaid CGHS and he also paid Rs.75,000/- as commission to accused M. CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 10 of 105 K. Singh vide cheque bearing no. 744697 dated 12.09.2001 drawn on ICICI Bank New Friends Colony i.e. Ext.PW2/A (D-16). He identified accused M.K. Singh present in the court.
26. PW-3 Sh. V.C. Jain deposed that from 16.11.2005 to 31.03.2006 he was posted in the office of RCS as Asstt. Registrar (with Addl. Charge of South Zone). He handed over files pertaining to Sarve Sanjhi CGHS to CBI vide letter dated 08.03.2006 Ex.PW3/A (D-10). He proved the said files on record as Ex.PW3/PA (Vol. I, D-4), Ex.PW3/PB (D-7); Ex.PW3/PC (D-6), Ex. PW1/PA (D-8), Ex.PW3/PD (D-5).
27. PW-4 Dr. Rana Mukhopaudhyay deposed that in the year 2003 he became member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS through M/S property Mahavir Enclave, Palam, Dabri Road, New Delhi. He was residing in a rented accomodation at H3/100, Mahavir Enclave and Sh. Ashok Arora (who was a Chemist) introduced him to M/s Property which was handled by M.K. Singh and one Mr. Saxena. He identified accused Mahesh Kumar Singh and Amit Saxena in the court. He further deposed that he gave his option for C-Block under construction building of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS Apartment, Dwarka and filled up a form for membership of the Society in the office of M/S Property. He paid sum of Rs.1,63,000/- to Sarve Sanjhi CGHS. He also paid sum of Rs.50,000/- and 60,000/- to M.K. Singh through two separate cheques i.e. Ex.PW4/H (D-15) and Ex.PW4/G (D-14) respectively. After 4-5 months, he received the share certificates from M/s Property and then he also paid Rs.20 thousands in cash to them. Thereafter, he made requisite payments in the account of Society.
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 11 of 105 PW-4 Dr. Rana Mukhopaudhyay identified his particulars in the membership register of Society at serial no.247 Ex. PW-4/A (D-26). He stated that his particulars were written in his own handwriting and he filled up the same in the office of the Society. He also identified his signature on affidavit dated 19.12.2003 (D-5) i.e. Ex. PW-4/B. He identified his particulars/ name in the list of members at serial no. 129 Ex. Ex.PW4/C (D-5) and in the list of draw of flats dated 12.06.2004 Mark PW4/D at serial no. 32.
PW-4 Dr. Rana Mukhopadhyay further deposed that he was allotted Flat No. C-14 by DDA. He handed over receipt dated 08.03.2003 (Ex. PW4/F) to the IO vide receipt memo dated 31.03.2007 (Ex. PW4/E, D-19). The said receipt dated 08.03.2003 was issued by M.K. Singh of M/s Property having address at RZ-71, Mahavir Enclave, Main Dabri Road, Palam Road, New Delhi after having received Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 1,63,000/- through cheques in favour of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS. He also identified cheque No. 141542 dated 08.03.2003 for the sum of Rs. 60,000/- issued in favour of M.K. Singh as Ex. PW4/G, and cheque No. 497972 dated 10.03.2003 for the sum of Rs. 50,000/- issued by him as Ex. PW4/H. PW-4 Dr. Rana Mukhopadhyay did not completely support the case of prosecution and he was cross-examined by Ld. PP for CBI. In his cross-examination, the witness denied the contents of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex. PW4/PA from points B to B and C to C respectively.
28. PW-5 Sandeep Pahuja deposed that he became member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS and also paid some cost. He CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 12 of 105 identified his particulars and signature on affidavit Ex.PW5/A (D-5 Ex.PW3/PD) which was submitted by him. He also identified his particulars and signatures at in the membership register of Society at serial No. 485 Ex. PW5/B (D-26). He further identified his particulars and initials in the proceedings of Special General Body Meeting held on 28.11.2004 at serial no. 33 Ex. PW5/C (D-35). He also identified his particulars in the list of members of Society at serial No. 133 Ex.PW4/C (D-5(IV)).
29. PW-6 Sh. Jaswant Rai deposed that he became member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS and Flat no. B-53, Sarve Sanjhi Apartments, Plot no. 8, Sector-9, Dwarka was allotted to him in the year 2004. He had made initial payment of Rs. 1.22 lakhs by way of cheque. He identified his particulars and signatures in the membership register at serial no.215 with membership no. 459 i.e. Ex. PW6/A (D-26). He also identified his particulars and signatures on the affidavit submitted by him i.e. Ex. PW6/B (D-5). He further identified his specimen signature Ex. PW6/D. The said witness also turned hostile and he was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI. In his cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI, PW-6 Jaswant Rai deposed that he did not know that accused G. S. Bisht had ever visited his house in February, 2004. He also denied all the suggestions given to him by ld. PP for CBI.
30. PW-7 Ashok Chopra deposed that in the year 1999 he took membership of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS and his membership number was 399. At that time, Vinod Kapoor was dealing on behalf of the Society and one Mr. Grover was one of the office bearers till the allotment of flats in the year 2004. The office of the Society was in a shop at a Koocha in Chandni Chowk. An official from the CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 13 of 105 office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies had taken some papers from him qua membership in the said Society. He identified his particulars in the membership register at serial no. 399 Ex.PW4/A He also gave a letter / report Ex. PW7/A (D-5) to the aforesaid official of RCS. He also identified his affidavit dated 17.12.2003 Ex. PW7/B (D-5). During investigation, he also gave his specimen signatures i.e. Ex. PW7/C (D23) to the IO. He also deposed that the flat allotted to him was in his possession.
31. PW-8 Sh. Ram Niwas Bagaria deposed that in the year 2000-2001, he took membership of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS and at that time accused Satpal Grover was one of the office bearers of the Managing Committee of the Society. Someone from the office of Registrar of co-operative Societies visited him prior to allotment of plots to confirm his membership of the Society and he had given him one letter written and signed by him i.e. Ex. PW8/A (D5). The flat allotted to him by the Society was in his possession. He identified his particulars and signatures in the membership register at serial no. 436 Ex.PW4/A. He also identified his affidavit dated 27.12.2003 Ex.PW8/B. He also deposed that during investigation, he also gave his specimen signatures i.e. Ex.PW8/C (D-23) to the IO.
32. PW-9 Sh. Rajiv Bagaria deposed that in the year 2000-2001, he took the membership of the Sarve Sanjhi CGHS on asking of late Vinod Kapoor. Later on he came in contact with accused Amarjeet Singh Chhabra i.e. President of above-said Society. He identified his particulars in the membership register Ex.PW4/A (D-26) at serial no. 435. He also handed over a letter/report Ex.PW9/A (D-5) to one official of RCS who visited his office. He also identified his signature on affidavit dated CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 14 of 105 27.12.2003 Ex.PW9/B (D-5). He also deposed that on 25.08.2002, he attended the proceedings Ex. PW9/C (D-40) which bear his signatures at serial no.36. On 28.11.2004, he also attended the proceedings Ex.PW5/C (D-35) which bears his signature at serial no.41. During investigation, he also gave his specimen signatures Ex.PW9/D (D-23).
33. PW-10 S.L. Sachdeva deposed that in the year 2001, he became member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS. He identified his particulars and signature in the membership register Ex. PW4/A at serial no. 426. He also handed over a letter / report and Ex. PW10/A to one official of RCS who visited his office. He identified his affidavit dated 27.12.2003 Ex. PW10/B and signature on it as well. He attended the proceedings dated 25.08.2002 and identified his signatures at serial no. 49 Ex. PW10/C. He also attended the proceedings dated 28.11.2004 Ex. PW5/C and he identified his signature on it at serial no. 36. He also gave his specimen signatures Ex. PW10/D to the IO.
34. PW-11 Smt. Geeta Shangle deposed that she took membership of the Sarve Sanjhi CGHS through one Vinod who was known to her through some acquaintance. The said Vinod was member of Managing Committee of the Society and he used to manage the affairs of the Society. The office of said Society was in Chandni Chowk and Vinod used to be present there and she met him once or twice in the said office. She identified her particulars and signatures in membership register of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS at serial no. 384 Ex.PW11/A (D-26). She further identified her letter / report Ex.PW11/B (D-5) as per which she was member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS and had remitted the amount called by the Society from time to time. She also submitted an affidavit dated CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 15 of 105 17.12.2003 Ex.PW11/C (D5) to the said Society at the time of becoming member. She also identified signatures of her husband on the proceedings relating to the meeting of the Society dated 23.04.2000 and 28.11.2004 Ex. PW11/D (D-32) and Ex.PW11/E (D35). During investigation, she gave her specimen signatures Ex. PW11/F (D-23) to the IO.
35. PW-12 Ms. Navjyoti Ahluwalia deposed that in the year 2001 she became member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS through Vinod Kapoor. Sh. Vinod Kapoor used to visit their office with reference to other Society. She also knew accused Amarjeet Chhabra and Satpal Grover as they were members of the managing committee of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS. Her membership number was 419 and she had paid membership fee and share money in the year 2000. She identified her particulars and signature in the membership register of Sarve Sanhi CGHS at serial no. 419 Ex. PW12/A (D-26). She identified her letter / report Ex. PW12/B (D-5) which bears her particulars and signature. As per said report, she was member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS and she had remitted the amount called by the Society from time to time. She also submitted an affidavit dated 23.12.2003 Ex.PW12/C (D5) to the said Society at the time of becoming member. She identified her signatures on the proceedings relating to the meeting of the Society dated 28.11.2004, 21.10.2001 and 25.08.2002 i.e. Ex. PW12/D to Ex. PW12/F. During investigation, she gave her specimen signatures Ex. PW12/G (D-23) to the IO.
36. PW-13 Bhushan Khanna deposed that in the year 1998, he became member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS through Vinod Kapoor who was chief executive of said Society. He knew Vinod Kapoor as he was cloth merchant in Chandni Chowk. He also CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 16 of 105 knew accused Amarjeet Chhabra and accused Satpal Grover who were President and Vice President respectively of the Society. He had paid membership fee of the Society and his membership number was 374. He identified his particulars and signature in the membership register of Sarve Sanhi CGHS at serial no. 130 Ex. PW13/A (D-26). He identified his letter / report Ex. PW13/B (D-5) as per which he was member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS and he had remitted the amount called by the Society from time to time. He also submitted an affidavit dated 17.12.2003 Ex.PW13/C (D5) to the said Society at the time of becoming member. He also identified his signature on the proceedings relating to the meeting of the Society dated 15.10.2000 Ex. PW13/D (D-33), 25.08.2002 Ex. PW13/E (D-40). During investigation, he also gave his specimen signatures Ex. PW13/F (D-23) to the IO.
37. PW-14 Smt. Shashi Gupta deposed that in the year 1998/2000 she became member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS through one Vinod Kapoor. Sh. Vinod Kapoor used to visit Punjab National Bank, Chandni Chowk, where her husband was working. She had paid membership fee of Rs. 100 for becoming member of the Society and her membership number was 298. She identified her particulars and signature in the membership register of Sarve Sanhi CGHS at serial no. 54 Ex. PW14/A (D-26). She identified her signature on letter / report Ex. PW14/B (D-5). She had also filed an affidavit dated 17.12.2003 Ex.PW14/C (D5) to the said Society at the time of becoming member. She identified signatures of her husband on the proceedings relating to the meeting of the Society dated 23.04.2000 Ex. PW14/D (D-22). During investigation, she also gave her specimen signatures Ex. PW14/E (D-23) to the IO.
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 17 of 105
38. PW-15 Sh. Bhupesh Aneja deposed that in the year 2002 he took membership of Sarve Sanjhi Society. His membership number was 442. Accused Amarjeet Chhabra was President of the said Society and Smt. Veena Khanna was secretary of the Society. He also knew accused Suresh Kumar who was the office bearer of the Society. He identified his particulars and signature in the membership register of Sarve Sanhi CGHS at serial no. 198 Ex. PW15/A (D-26). He further identified his letter / report Ex. PW15/B (D-5) as per which he was member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS and he had remitted the amount called by the Society from time to time. He also filed an affidavit dated 29.12.2003 Ex.PW15/C (D5) to the said Society at the time of becoming member. During investigation, he also gave his specimen signatures Ex. PW15/D (D-23) to the IO.
39. PW-16 Sh. Ranveer Singh Rana, Computer (Birth & Death) proved the copy of death certificate of Sh. Jagdish Chander Bharadwaj as Ex. PW16/A-1. He deposed that as per said certificate Sh. Jagdish Chander Bharadwaj died on 01.10.2003 at C2/G, Railway Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He also identified the signature of Sh. S. C. Gupta and seal of Sub- Registrar concerned on the aforementioned death certificate.
40. PW-17 Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj deposed that his father late Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj was the founding member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS. He took membership of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS after paying membership fee of Rs.110/- and his membership number was 91. After taking membership of the Society, he had deposited some further amount with the Society towards part cost of land. He had resigned from the Society on 17.09.1996 and submitted his resignation letter Mark-PW17/C to his father, who was President CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 18 of 105 of the Society at that time. He identified his particulars and signature in the membership register of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS i.e. PW17/A at serial no. 91. He further deposed that he had not given the letter/report (D-5) Ex.PW17/B and his signature upon the same was forged and he had not signed the same. He further deposed that no person from the office of RCS came to him in connection with any inquiry related to the Society. He identified his specimen signatures obtained by the IO i.e. Ex.PW17/D (colly).
41. PW-18 Rajinder Krishan Gaur deposed that he took membership of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS in the year 1987 through Ashok Bhardwaj, his brother-in-law. He had paid Rs.30-35,000/- to the Society in installments. He identified his particulars in the membership register at serial no.71 Ex.PW18/A. He resigned from the aforesaid Society in the year 1990. He further deposed that his signature on the photocopy of resignation letter dated 12.08.1996 Mark PW18/B did not belong to him. No official from office of RCS, Delhi had visited at his house or office in connection with inquiry regarding Sarve Sanjhi Society and he had not given any report with regard to his membership in the said Society. He further deposed that somebody had forged his signature on the report/ letter Ex. PW18/C and he had not submitted any such letter/ report to any officer of RCS at any point of time.
PW-18 also deposed that he had attended about 8-10 General Body Meetings of the Society and was also a member of the Managing Committee. He further deposed that the signatures appearing on the proceedings of the meetings dated 05.03.1989, 15.04.1989, 19.08.1989, 01.06.1986, 15.06.1989, 28.04.1987, 12.05.1987, 15.06.1987, 10.08.1986, and 26.11.1988 (marked as Mark PW18/D to PW18/P, respectively) did not belong to him. He CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 19 of 105 also deposed that during the course of investigation, his specimen signatures Ex. PW18/Q (colly.) were obtained by the IO.
42. PW-19 Smt. Ram Rati deposed that her husband Sh. Ram Dular was working in IIT Delhi and on the advice of their relative Hori Lal she became member of Sarve Sanjhi Society and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as membership fee. Due to financial constraints, they had to withdraw her membership from the said Society. Her husband retired from service in the year 2002 and about six months later they shifted to their village Lokapur, District Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. She identified her signatures on the resignation letter dated 04.04.1993 Ex. PW19/A. She further deposed that the signature appearing on the document marked PX did not belong to her and was not in her handwriting.
PW-19 further deposed that she had never met the accused or any person by the name of G.S. Bisht for the purpose of preparation of report regarding her membership or resignation from the aforesaid Society nor she had ever given such report to any person including accused G.S. Bisht. She also deposed that CBI officials obtained her specimen signatures Ex. PW19/B for comparison. She identified her signature in the membership register of the Society at serial no. 40 Ex. PW19/C. She further admitted that she became a member of the Society in 1984 and had resigned therefrom in the year 1993-94.
43. PW-20 Chander Prakash Pahuja deposed that on 30.09.2003 he had retired from Ministry of Defence as Chief Draftsman. At the time of his retirement, he was looking for a house and for that purpose he visited different places alongwith his son Sandeep Pahuja.
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 20 of 105 The said witness did not support the case of prosecution and was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI. During his cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI, he denied all the suggestions given to him as per his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC i.e. Ex. PW20/A. However, he admitted that his son Sandeep Pahuja became member of Sarve Sanjhi Society and he might have signed certain documents for becoming member in the Society. He also identified particulars of his son in the membership register of Sarve Sanjhi Society having membership number 485. He also identified signatures of his son on Ex. PW5/E. He also admitted that office of the aforementioned Society was situated at Chandni Chowk and he came in contact with the person Suresh when he handed over membership certificate of the Society of his son to him. He also admitted that he used to visit the construction site of the Society and one person namely Ajay was the site incharge. He also admitted that on 20.11.2003, his son gave a cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs towards the membership of the Society. He also admitted that his son also gave another cheque of Rs. 3.30 lakhs on 19.12.2003 and cheque of Rs. 15,000 on 19.12.2003 towards equalization money. He admitted that his son took loan of Rs. 6 lakhs from Vijaya Bank, Hauz Khas Branch and entire amount was credited in the account of Society as final payment. He further admitted that he used to visit Chandni Chowk to deliver the cheques towards the payment of membership fee of Society. He admitted that he had received communication from the Managing Committee for the first time by way of letter received in July or August, 2004 regarding payment towards electricity/ water etc. He also admitted that draw of lots was conducted by DDA in the presence of Amarjeet Chhabra as President, Satpal Grover as Vice President and Veena CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 21 of 105 Khanna, Secretary of Sarve Sanjhi Society. His son took possession of the flat in the Society on 06.09.2004. He also identified affidavit of his son Ex. PW5/A and also identified signatures of his son on the said affidavit. However, PW-21 Chander Prakash Pahuja denied the suggestion that premium amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was given towards the membership of his son.
44. PW-21 Sh. Naresh Talwar, DSP, CBI deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted as Inspector, CBI, SCR-1, New Delhi. In pursuance of orders dated 02.08.2005 and 13.02.2006 passed by Hon'ble High Court in writ petition no. 10066/04, CBI number of preliminary inquiries were registered to inquire into irregularities in respect of different Societies. One of the preliminary inquiry was marked to him by S.P. Sh. Vineet Vinayak in respect of irregularities in five Societies including Sarve Sanjhi Society. He conducted the preliminary inquiry in this regard. As inquiry officer, his role was limited to look into if there was commission of offence which warranted registration of FIR. Accordingly, after conducting his inquiry he gave his complaint dated 04.10.2006 Ex PW21/A (D-1) for registration of FIR against the office bearers of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS as well as against the officers of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi. Thereafter, on the basis of said complaint, FIR bearing RC No. 14(S)/2006/SCU-I/SCR-I/CBI dated 04.10.2006 Ex. PW21/B was registered.
45. PW-22 Sh. R.K. Srivastava, Retd. Chief Secretary, Government of Goa deposed that in July, 2008 he was working as Secretary, SC/ST and OBC Welfare Department, Government of GNCT, Delhi. He had accorded sanction for prosecution of accused Gopal Singh Bisht, the then UDC, Dept. of SC/ST CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 22 of 105 Welfare, Government of Delhi vide sanction order dated 23.07.2008 Ex. PW22/A (D3). He also proved the forwarding letter Ex. PW22/B. He further deposed that since he was appointing/disciplinary authority of above mentioned Mr. Gopal Singh Bisht, therefore, he had accorded the aforementioned sanction after taking into consideration all the material placed before him.
46. PW-23 Paras Nath, Deputy Director, Licence Property Cell, DDA, deposed that in June 2004, he was working as an Assistant in the Group Housing Society Branch of the DDA. This branch of DDA was responsible for allotting land to various Cooperative Group Housing Societies (CGHS) as recommended by the Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS), New Delhi. The list of members of a CGHS was required to be verified and duly approved by the RCS office and only then it was recommended to the DDA for allotment of land. Prior to the year 1991, land used to be allotted to cooperative societies on a first- come, first-served basis. However, after the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kaveri CGHS, in the year 1991 DDA started allotting land on the basis of seniority of the Society's registration numbers. The area of land allotted to a Society was approximately 57.14 square meters per unit per member. As per the Nazul Rules of the DDA, every Society had to deposit 35% of the predetermined value of the land. Thereafter, DDA used to issue offer letter and upon acceptance, the Society was required to deposit the remaining amount in two installments. After receiving 35% of the land value, DDA would conduct a draw of plots among different Societies to allot specific plots of land. Once the plots were allotted, DDA would issue a demand for the CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 23 of 105 balance amount to be paid in two installments-50% and 15%. Upon full payment, possession of the land would be handed over to the Society by the DDA's Survey Department with due intimation to the concerned Society. The verification of members in any Cooperative Society and verification of payment of premium was to be done by the RCS office. After such verification, the final list of members would be forwarded to DDA. If any discrepancy or objection was raised by a member regarding the list of members, DDA would stay the land allotment process and refer the matter back to the RCS for due verification and correction, if necessary. If it was established that genuine members had been deprived and ineligible or favorable members had been included by the Management of the Society, then DDA upon discovery of such fraud would inform the RCS and higher authorities to take necessary action. Until then, the further process of land allotment would remain stayed by DDA.
PW-23 Paras Nath also deposed that as per file No. 7(34)98/GH/DDA (D-9) pertaining to "Sarve Sanjhi CGHS Ltd." having registration No. 1424 (GH) dated 31.01.1984 i.e. Ex. PW23/A on 03.06.1998 land was offered to the said Society in the area of Dwarka under Group Housing Scheme for Dwarka and Narela. After receiving complete payment from the Society the land was allotted on 25.08.2000 to Ms. Veena Khanna who was Secretary of above said Sarve Sanjhe Society. The token payment of Rs.2,64,53,338/- was paid by the Society in three installments at the rate of Rs.3533/- per square feet. He further deposed that he had dealt with aforementioned file Ex. PW23/A in his ordinary course of duties while working in DDA. As per record, the aforementioned Society had constructed 135 flats which were CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 24 of 105 allotted to its members through draw of lots in the year 2004 in the presence of representatives of RCS and DDA. He also deposed that vide letter dated 29.04.2004 (D-5), Sh. Man Singh, Assistant Registrar (South), RCS forwarded list of 132 eligible members of above said Society.
47. PW-24 K.S. Wahi, Retd. Secretary, Government of NCTD deposed that in the year 2008 he was working as Secretary, Department of Labour & Employment, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. A file was put up before him on behalf of CBI alongwith material and evidence collected during the investigation. After considering the entire material and facts, he accorded the sanction dated 17.10.2008 Ex. PW24/A (D-43) for prosecution of Sh. Rajiv Navani who was working as LDC in Department of Employment. He also deposed that vide letter dated 21.10.2008 EX. PW24/B Sh. R. C. Gupta, Employment Officer, Vigilance had sent his aforementioned sanction order to CBI. He identified signatures of Sh. R. C. Gupta on the said letter as he had seen him writing and signing during official course of his duties.
48. PW-25 Ms. Mary Suresh Philip deposed that she took membership of M/s Sarve Sanjhi Group Housing Society Ltd., Plot no. 8, Sector 9, Dwarka, Delhi through accused M.K. Singh who was a property agent working at Dwarka, Delhi. Her flat measured 1680 square feet in area and consisted of 3 bed rooms and one kitchen. For the purpose of becoming member of aforesaid Society she had paid sum of Rs. 75,000/- to accused M.K. Singh by way of cheque no. 744697 dated 12.09.2001 Ex. PW2/A drawn on ICICI bank, New Friends Colony. She also deposed that the above-said cheque was issued from the account which was in the joint name of herself and her husband. She also CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 25 of 105 identified signatures of her husband in the membership register at serial no. 434 Ex. PW25/A. She also admitted that the registered office of aforementioned Society was in Chandni Chowk.
49. PW-26 Shailender Singh Gahlot deposed that he took membership of M/s Sarve Sanjhi Group Housing Society Ltd, plot no.8, Sector 9, Dwarka without paying any commission. The registered office of the said Society was situated at 416-H, Kucha Brij Nath, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. Accused Amarjeet Chhabra was the President and accused Satpal Grover was the Vice President of the Society at the time when the flats were being allotted in year 2004. Accused Suresh Kumar was clerk in the office of the Society. He identified his signatures in the membership register at serial no. 449 Ex. PW26/A (D-26) in respect of flat no. A-82. He also submitted his affidavit Ex. PW26/B (D-5) to the office of Society. He identified accused persons namely Amarjeet Chhabra, Satpal Grover and Suresh in the court.
The said witness turned hostile and was cross- examined by ld. PP for CBI. In his cross-examination by ld. CBI, he denied the suggestion that he took the membership in the Society through broker/ dealer Amit Saxena by paying Rs. 50,000/- as commission. He also identified accused Amit Saxena in the court by stating that he came in contact with said accused through colleague of his father when he used to visit Dwarka in search of a house.
50. PW-28 Smt. Kulwant Kaur deposed that she never became member of M/s Sarve Sanjhi CGHS at any point of time nor she had ever deposited any money for becoming member of CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 26 of 105 Sarve Sanjhi CGHS. She had never moved any application for becoming member of said Society. She never signed in English and she used to sign only in Hindi. She also deposed that the signatures in register at serial no. 13 Ex. PW28/A was not her signature. She had never put any such signature on the said document. She also denied having signed resignation letter dated 25.07.1986 Ex.PW28/B.
51. PW-29 Bharat Bhushan Kohli deposed that in the year 2007, he joined the investigation of this case. Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj and Sh. Ranjit Singh used to reside in Azad Apartments where his family was residing. His father had informed him that one Society was being formed by the name of Sarve Sanjhi. He signed the documents relating to abovesaid Society on the instructions of his father. His brother Ajay Kumar Kohli had also signed the documents relating to said Society. He identified his particulars and signature in the membership register at serial no. 55 Ex. PW29/A. He deposed that he signed the above said register on the instruction of his father as his father told him that they will get allotment of flat being member of the Society. Thereafter, they never came to know about the affairs of Society and also did not receive any communication. He also did not receive any letter to show that his membership in the Society had been cancelled. He also did not receive any refund with respect to the aforesaid Society.
52. PW-30 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur deposed that in the year 2006 he joined the investigation of this case. The witness turned hostile and during her cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI, she admitted that a person had met her and her brother and he demanded Rs.100/- from her for making her a member of Sarve CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 27 of 105 Sanjhi Cooperative Housing Society. Accordingly, she gave the said amount to him. She stated that she was not aware if sum of Rs. 100/- was returned to her or not. She admitted that she was not known to Mr. Bharadwaj, Mr. Amarjeet Chhabra, Mr. Grover as well as Cashier of Sarve Sanjhi Cooperative Society namly Ms. Nidhi. She stated that she did not have concern with the above- mentioned Society and the persons who took her signatures on different documents for becoming member in the said Society. She also stated that the signature in English appearing at serial no. 90 in membership register Mark PZ did not belong to her and she used to sign in Hindi language only.
53. PW-31 V.B.V. Pani Sekhar Gupta deposed that in the year 2003 he became member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS and his membership number was 478. This witness also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. He was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI and in his cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI, he admitted that his statement was recorded by a CBI Officer. He also admitted that in his statement he told that no person by name of G. S. Bisht, an official of RCS had met him either at his office or at his residence in the month of February regarding inquiry for Sarve Sanjhi CGHS. He further admitted that in his statement to the IO, he told that he neither met above person namely G. S. Bisht from RCS office or anybody on his behalf for any report regarding Sarve Sanjhi CGHS nor he gave any report/ letter by stating that he was the member in the said Society or that he had remitted amount called by the Society. He also deposed that the letter Mark PY does not bear his signatures at any point. He also stated that he never gave any such letter / report to any official of RCS including Mr. G. S. Bisht. The affidavit dated 28.01.2004 Mark PY-1 also does not CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 28 of 105 bear his signatures. He also deposed that although his particulars were mentioned at serial no. 478 in the membership register Mark PY-2, but his signature appearing on it did not belong to him. He further deposed that during investigation IO had taken his specimen signatures i.e. Ex. PW31/A.
54. PW-32 Anand Agarwal, Chartered Accountant deposed that in the year 1983 his employer Sh. O.P. Gupta had offered him a membership in one residential Society namely Sarve Sanjhi CGHS. Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj was President of said Society. For the purpose of becoming member of said Sarve Sanjhi CGHS he had paid sum of Rs.110/-. Thereafter, he kept on depositing money as per demands raised. He had deposited total sum of Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- with Mr. Bhardwaj by way of cheques. Since he was not sure if the aforesaid Society would be allotted any plot, therefore, he resigned from the said Society. He handed over his resignation to Mr. J.C. Bhardwaj who returned his money through cheque. Thereafter, he had no concern with the developments relating to said Sarve Sanjhi CGHS.
PW-32 Anand Agrawal further deposed that in February, 2007 he had joined investigation of this case. In the year 2004, no person with the name of G. S. Bisht, Clerk from Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies had ever met him nor any official of RCS met him. He never gave any report regarding his resignation of membership in the aforesaid Society to any person with the name of G. S. Bisht, Official from RCS or to any other government officer. He also did not give any letter attached with the report dated 16.02.2004 Mark PX-1 to Mr. G. S. Bisht nor he signed on the said letter. IO had also taken his specimen signatures Ex. PW32/A for the purpose of comparison.
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 29 of 105
55. PW-33 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur deposed that her father late Sh. Sewa Singh had booked a membership in Sarve Sanjhi Cooperative Society, Dwarka in her name. Accused Ranjeet Singh had booked membership in her name. She had given money to her father for membership in the above said Society, but she did not pay directly to the above said Society. Her father had deposited money with the said Society. She deposed that although her particulars were mentioned at serial no. 8 in the membership register Ex. PW33/A, but the signature appearing on the same did not belong to her. She also stated that she cannot say as to who had put signatures in the said register in her name.
56. PW-34 Smt. Asha Devi deposed that in the year 1983, her husband Hori Lal Bharti was working in Azad Apartment as an electrician and one Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj was working as Secretary in the said Azad Apartment. Mr. J. C. Bhardwaj had formed one housing Society with the name Sarve Sanjhi CGH Society. On the request of Mr. J. C. Bhardwaj, she became promoter member of said Society. Most of the members in the said Sarve Sanjhi CGHS were in fact employees of Azad Apartment or relatives of those employees or employees of IIT. She paid sum of Rs.110/- for becoming member in the aforesaid Society. She remained member in Sarve Sanjhi CGHS till the year 2002 and till then she had deposited sum of Rs.2,10,000/-. During the time she remained member of the Society, land was allotted to the Society in Dwarka, however, construction work had not started by then. She resigned as a member in the Society as they had no sufficient funds to deposit with the Society. On her resignation the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- deposited by her was refunded through a cheque which she deposited in the joint account with her husband. She CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 30 of 105 joined the investigation in this case with CBI. She identified her name as Treasurer of Society on the documents i.e. Proceedings dated 14.01.1986, 20.07.1986, 10.08.1986, 18.09.1986, 25.10.1986, 21.11.1986, 16.12.1986, 10.02.1987, 15.03.1987, 25.10.1986, 15.06.1987, 22.10.1987, 13.11.1988, 06.01.1988, 22.07.1988, 19.03.1988, 16.04.1988, 18.05.1988, 07.06.1988, 15.06.1988, 16.07.1988, 20.08.1988, 07.09.1988, 26.11.1988, 13.12.1988, 13.11.1987, 06.01.1988, 22.07.1988, 19.03.1988, 16.04.1988, 18.05.1988, 07.06.1988, 15.06.1988, 16.07.1988, 20.08.1988, 07.09.1988, 26.11.1988, 31.12.1988, 31.01.1988, 18.02.1989, at page no. 670 to 713. She stated that she did not sign the said documents, but her husband signed the aforesaid documents in her name. She also identified her name as Treasurer on the documents i.e. proceedings dated 06.01.1988, 13.11.1987, 15.06.1987, 12.05.1987, 28.04.1987, 15.03.198, 16.12.1986, 25.10.1986, 18.09.1986, 10.08.1986, 20.07.1986, 15.06.1987 and 01.06.1986 (D-8) i.e. Ex. PW34/A. She also stated that these documents were signed by her husband in her name.
PW-34 Smt. Asha Devi also deposed that though she was member of the Society, however, her husband used to look after the affairs relating to Sarve Sanjhi CGHS. The signature at point X on the documents Ex. PW34/B (D-5) was neither done by her nor by her husband. No officer from the office of RCS had ever visited her residence in connection with enquiring about her resignation from Sarve Sanjhi CGHS. The resignation letter dated 07.11.2002 (D-6) Ex. PW34/C was written by her husband and was signed by him. She also identified her specimen signatures Ex. PW34/D. She also deposed that the her husband signed in the membership register at serial no. 37 Ex. PW34/E. CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 31 of 105 PW-34 Asha Devi was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the document Ex. PW34/F (D-6) bears signatures in her name, but those signatures were neither done by her or by her husband.
57. PW-35 Ms.Radhika Saxena, Regional Head, ICICI Bank deposed that in the year 2007 she was working as Branch Manager of Vasanj Kunj branch of ICICI. Vide letter dated 16.06.2006 documents i.e. cheque no. 744697 dated 12.09.2001 for sum of Rs. 75,000/- and statement of account w.e.f. 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002, 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, 01.04.2003 to 30.06.2003 and 01.04.2004 to 16.06.2007 of account no. 000701057625 were provided to CBI. She proved the said letter and documents as Ex. PW35/A (colly). She also stated that the aforesaid cheque no. 744697 was issued from account no. 004601013654 of ICICI Bank, New Friends Colony branch, in the name of Suresh Philip. The cheque was drawn on ICICI Bank with the payee name M.K. Singh and was deposited in account no. 000701057625 at the ICICI Bank Connaught Place branch. The above-said account statements were of account no. 000701057625 in the name of Mr. Mahesh Singh. She further deposed that the cheque bearing no. 497972 dated 10.03.2003 for sum of Rs. 50,000/- Ex. PW4/H was issued by Rana Mukhopadhyay from his account no. 12984 of Vijaya Bank and the same was withdrawn by M. K. Singh whose signatures on the back of cheque was tallied with the deposit slip dated 12.09.2001 of ICICI Bank.
58. PW-36 Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj deposed that his father late Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj had formed one CGH Society namely Sarve Sanjhi and his father was President of the said Society. He and his brothers namely Ashwani Kumar and Ashok Kumar CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 32 of 105 became members in the above said Society and had deposited Rs.110/- for becoming the member in the above said Society. Later on, they all had resigned from the said Society. He identified his particulars and signature in the membership register at serial no. 100 Ex. PW36/A. He also proved his resignation letter dated 18.09.1996 Ex. PW36/B. He also deposed that he did not know any person by the name of G.S. Bisht, an officer from RCS. Accused G.S. Bisht had never visited his office or residence in February 2004 in connection with the enquiry of CGHS Sarve Sanjhi. He had never met accused G.S. Bisht and had never shown the resignation letter or any other document pertaining to the aforesaid Society to the accused G.S. Bisht. He also denied having affixed his signature on document Mark PW36/PX (D-5). The witness further deposed that his father died on 01.10.2003. He joined the investigation of CBI and his specimen signatures Ex. PW36/C were taken by CBI officials.
59. PW-37 Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj deposed that his father late Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj had formed one CGH Society namely Sarve Sanjhi and his father was President of the said Society. He and his brothers namely Ashok Kumar and Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj had become members of Sarve Sanjhi Society. They deposited a fee of Rs.110/- for becoming the member of aforesaid Society. Later on they resigned from the said Society. He identified his signature in the membership register at serial no. 94 i.e. PW37/A. He also proved his resignation letter dated 23.07.1996 Ex.PW37/B. He also deposed that he did not know any person by CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 33 of 105 the name of G.S. Bisht, an officer from RCS. Accused G.S. Bisht had never visited his office or residence in February 2004 in connection with the enquiry of CGHS Sarve Sanjhi. He had never met accused G.S. Bisht and had never shown the resignation letter or any other document pertaining to the aforesaid Society to the accused G.S. Bisht. He also denied having affixed his signature on document Mark PW37/PX (D-5).
The witness also deposed that his father died on 01.10.2003. He joined the investigation of CBI and his specimen signatures Ex. PW37/C were taken by CBI officials. He further identified signatures/ writing of his father late J.C. Bhardwaj on documents i.e. proceedings/ meetings dated 17.11.1990, 21.07.1990, 06.01.1990, 17.03.1990, 19.08.1989, undated proceedings, 15.04.1989 of Sarve Sanjhi Society i.e. Ex. PW37/D. He also identified his signatures on the proceedings dated 19.08.1989, 17.03.1990, 06.01.1990. He also deposed that the proceedings dated 19.08.1989 and 08.01.1990 Mark PW37/AB do not bear genuine signatures of his father. He also proved resignation letter dated 14.02.2000 of his father Sh. J. C. Bhardwaj i.e. Ex. PW37/E and identified signature of his father on the same.
60. PW-38 Sh. Amritpal Singh deposed that his father late Sh. Swaran Singh and mother late Smt. Nirmal Kaur were members of the Sarve Sanjhi CGHS, Society. They never got their money back from the Society. His father expired on 29.05.2006. His maternal uncle Sh. Dilip Singh was also a member of the said Society and he also expired at Amritsar. The entry at serial no. 97 in the membership register i.e. Ex. PW38/A bears the name of his maternal uncle Dilip Singh.
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 34 of 105 He further deposed that the name and details of his late father Swaran Singh were mentioned at serial no. 76 in the membership register (Ex.PW38/B), but the signature appearing against serial no. 76 did not belong to his father as his father always used to sign in English and not in Hindi. Similarly, the signature of his father on the certified copy of resignation letter dated 13.08.1986 (Ex. PW38/C) was not of his father as he never used to sign in Hindi. The witness identified the particulars and signature of his late mother namely Smt. Nirmal Jaur at serial no. 99 in the membership register Ex. PW38/D. He also deposed that the signature on the resignation letter dated 38/E was not of his mother.
61. PW-39 Sh. Ajay Kumar Kohli deposed that Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj was the President of Sarve Sanjhi Society and Sh. Ranjeet Singh was the Secretary of the said Society. The Sarve Sanhji Society CGHS was formed in 1983. He and his brother Sh. Bharat Bhushan Kohli had become members of the said Society by making payment of Rs.110/- to the Society. He identified his particulars and signature in the membership register at serial no. 7 i.e. Ex. PW39/A. He further deposed that when Sh. Ranjeet Singh left the Society and Sh. Bharadwaj had died, he and his brother did not receive any letter from the said Society or RCS Office. He and his brother were never communicated by RCS Office or the Society that Society has cancelled their memberships. He and his brother never received any refund/ money back from the said Society.
62. PW-40 Ms. Sunanda Malik deposed that she had joined office of RCS on 01.03.2003 and she remained posted there till 31.03.2005. She was posted in South Zone and at that time Sh. CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 35 of 105 Man Singh, the then AR (S) (abated), G.S. Bisht, the then Dealing Assistant, one Mr. Prasad, the then Dealing Assistant and Mr. Rajiv Navani, the then Dealing Assistant were working in RCS office. In the year 2006/2007 she had joined the investigation with CBI. She also deposed that the note dated 18.03.2004 Ex. PW40/A with regard to the list of members enrolled by Sarve Sanjhi CGHS against the vacancies caused due to the resignation was put up by her. She submitted the said note to Sh. Man Singh, the then Assistant Registrar (S). Vide noting Ex. PW40/B, Sh. Man Singh forwarded the aforesaid note to JR (S) for the approval of list of 132 members of the Society. She identified signatures of Sh. Man Singh as she had seen him writing and signing during the course of her duties. She further proved the notings of the then JR(S) and AR(S) exhibited as Ex.PW40/C and Ex.PW40/D. She confirmed the contents of these notings and identified signatures of the concerned officers on it.
She further proved the notings of accused G.S. Bisht (Ex.PW40/E), Sh. Man Singh (Ex.PW40/F, Ex.PW40/G, Ex.PW40/H, Ex.PW40/J, Ex.PW40/L), Sh. Jaidev Sarangi (Ex.PW40/I) and Sh. N. Diwakar, the then RCS (Ex.PW40/K). She confirmed the contents of these notings and identified signatures of the concerned officers on it. She also identified report submitted by accused Gopal Singh Bisht.
63. PW-41 Sh. Anand Singh deposed that he knew one Ram Prasad, who was working in DTC. In the year 1983-84, said Ram Prasad introduced him to Sh. J. C. Bhardwaj who suggested him to become a member of Sarve Sanjhi Society. Accordingly, he deposited a sum of Rs.110/- in cash and became a member of the said Society. On the asking of Sh. Bhardwaj, he used to deposit CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 36 of 105 amounts of Rs.1000/- and sometimes Rs.3000/- as his contribution. In this manner, he had deposited about Rs.20,000/- to Rs.22,000/- with Sh. Bhardwaj. In the year 1992, Sh. Bhardwaj informed him that DDA was not allotting land to the Society and gave him an option to withdraw his money and membership. Therefore, he received back his full amount of about Rs.20,000/- to Rs.22,000/-, but he did not submit any resignation.
PW-41 identified his particulars / signature in the membership register of the aforesaid Society at serial no.104 Ex.PW41/A. He also deposed that the signature appearing on resignation letter dated 12.08.1992 Mark PW41/Y did not belong to him and he had not submitted any such resignation letter.
64. PW-42 Sh. Shyam Sunder deposed that in the year 1985-86, he came to know about Sarve Sanjhi CGHS Housing Society through one driver of DTC and with the reference of DTC driver, he met Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj at Azad Apartment and became member of the said Society in the year 1986 by making payment of Rs.7000/-. He kept on depositing money with the Society and had deposited near about Rs. 30,000/-. After some time, his father met with an accident and he also had some family issues as well as financial problem, therefore, he resigned from the Society and he had withdrawn the money which was deposited to the Society.
PW-42 identified his particulars/ signature in the membership register (D-27) of Sarve Sanjhi Society at serial no.180 Ex.PW42/A. He became member in the said Society on 05.11.1986. He had resigned from the said Society on 14.07.1996 vide his resignation letter dated 14.07.1996. He further deposed that during the year 1988, Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj, President of Society CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 37 of 105 advised him to become member of the Managing Committee as he was an architect, hence, he became a member of Managing Committee and remained a member till he resigned from the Society. During the said period, he attended almost all the meetings of the managing committee. After meeting, Sh.J.C. Bhardwaj used to write the minutes of the meeting and all the present members used to sign the same.
He further deposed that the signatures appearing on certified copy of letters dated 11.05.1991, 15.06.1991, 07.08.1991, 13.12.1991, 18.06.1992, 14.08.1992, 17.04.1993 and 18.07.1993 (Ex. PW42/C to Ex. PW42/J respectively) did not belong to him. He also stated that the signatures of Sh. J. C. Bhardwaj on the aforesaid letters did not belong to Sh. J. C. Bhardwaj and someone had forged these documents. He also stated that he can identify the signatures of Sh. J. C. Bhardwaj as he had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing. He identified his signatures on minutes of meeting dated 15.04.1989, nil, 18.02.1989, 21.05.1988, 30.04.1988, 19.03.1988, 27.02.1988, 220.05.1989, 19.05.1990, 19.08.1989, 17.03.1990, 21.07.1990 and 17.11.1990 (Ex. PW42/K to Ex. PW42/W respectively) and also confirmed the contents of the said minutes of meetings.
65. PW-43 Sh. Kunwar A.K. Singh deposed that in the year 2003, he along with his friends visited the Dwarka area to become a member of a housing Society. He alongwith his wife and her maternal uncle met the construction engineer and supervisor of Sarve Sanjhi Housing Society. They introduced them to an office bearer of the said Society. Thereafter, he filled up the membership form and was informed that a sum of Rs.2,01,000/- would have to be paid for becoming a member of the Society. Accordingly, he CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 38 of 105 issued a cheque for Rs.2,01,000/- in favour of Sarve Sanjhi Housing Society. He received his share certificate through one Suresh Kumar of Sarve Sanjhi Housing Society and collected the same from the office of the Society at the construction site.
PW-43 identified his particulars / signature in the membership register at serial no. 646 Ex.PW43/A. He continued making payment regularly and in the year 2004 he was allotted a flat in the said Society. Accused Amarjeet Chhabra was the President of the said Society and accused Satpal Grover was the Vice President of the said Society at that time. During investigation, IO recorded his statement and he narrated the facts to the IO.
The said witness turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He was cross-examined by the Ld. PP for CBI. In his cross-examination, the witness denied the suggestions put to him by the Ld. PP for CBI and also denied the contents of his statement Mark-43/X. He admitted that the cheque was issued from his account no. 008701005087 of ICICI Bank, Janakpuri. He further stated that the affidavit Ex. PW43/B was submitted by him to Sarve Sanjhi Society. He failed to identify the accused persons namely Amarjeet Chhabra, Sandeep Saini and Amit Saxena.
66. PW-44 Dr. Jayadev Sarangi, the then Joint Registrar deposed that from 27.01.2004 to 10.11.2005 he was posted as Joint Registrar/ Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Society. He was looking after the charge of South Zone as Joint Registrar. He dealt with the file of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS i.e. bearing no. F-47/1424/NGH/COOP/S Ex. PW3/PA (D-4). He had dealt with CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 39 of 105 the file of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS. During the said period, Sh. Man Singh, Assistant Registrar (South), Gopal Singh Bisht, the then LDC, Sh. Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS, Sh. Jitender Sharma, the then Assistant Registrar (South-West) and Sh. Rajiv Navani, the then LDC were also working in the same office. He proved the file bearing no. F-47/1424/NGH/COOP/S pertaining to Sarve Sanjhi CGHS i.e. Ex. PW3/PA (D-3). Vide letter dated 15.01.2004 Ex. PW44/A, Sh. S. P. Grover, Vice-President of Sarve Sanjhi Housing Society had sought verification of list of members of the said Society. He identified signature and endorsement of Sh. Man Singh on the said letter. He also identified signature of Sh. Man Singh, the then Assistant Registrar on the noting i.e. PUC68/AR(S) dated 15.01.2004 Ex. PW44/B. The said note was put up by accused G. S. Bisht to Sh. Man Singh. He identified signature of Sh. Man Singh on the letter dated 22.01.2004 addressed to President/Secretary Sarve Sanjhi Co-Operative Society i.e. Ex. PW-44/C. PW-44 Dr. Jayadev Sarangi further deposed that a noting dated 28.01.2004 Ex. PW4/D was submitted by accused G.S. Bist and Sh. Man Singh, wherein it was mentioned that lapses on the part of the Society be condoned in terms of the resolution dated 10.01.2004 which was signed by accused Amarjeet Chhabra and therein it was also requested that - (a) resignation of 102 members out of the freeze list, (b) enrollment of 135 members to be taken on record, (c) detention of three members and (d) clearance of 132 members for draw of lots. He identified the said noting bearing the signatures of accused G.S. Bist and Sh. Man Singh. He further deposed that upon going through Ex. PW-44/D (colly) and Ex. PW-44/A, it was revealed that while submitting the CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 40 of 105 file, details regarding resignation and date-wise admission or expulsion of members for the preceding three years were not mentioned by the accused and were overlooked by Sh. Man Singh, though such details were required to be submitted. He further deposed that as per the noting of accused G.S. Bist on Ex. PW-44/D, the Sarve Sanjhi CGHS was registered under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, vide registration no.1424 (GH) dated 31.01.1984. He identified that it was noted that the approved freeze strength was 135, thereafter 352 enrollments took place, totaling 487, with 296 resignations and 56 expulsions, leaving present strength of 135 with nil vacancy. He confirmed the contents of the note dated 30.01.2004 (Ex. PW-44/E), which was marked to Assistant Registrar (South) Sh. Man Singh for necessary action. He further confirmed the note dated 03.02.2004 (Ex. PW-40/C) and note dated 10.02.2004 (Ex. PW-40/D), which pertained to verification of the membership records of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS. Vide note Ex. PW-40/E, accused G.S. Bisht proposed that an Area Inspector be deputed to conduct 10% random physical verification of the enrollment and resignation cases and he suggested the name of Mrs. Sunanda, Grade-II for the said purpose. He proved the note dated 16.02.2004 (Ex. PW-44/F) written by accused G.S. Bisht.
PW-44 Dr. Jayadev Sarangi further deposed that the verification report (Ex. PW-44/G) was submitted by accused G.S. Bisht along with annexures and a covering letter. On perusal of the said report, he observed that the verification was not conducted after physically meeting the members as was directed by him on 10.02.2004. He also referred to the extract of minutes of the Managing Committee meeting dated 10.01.2004 (Mark CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 41 of 105 PW-44/X), which bear the signature of the President of the Society wherein the Society had requested condonation of lapses and had authorized the President to file compliance on behalf of the Society. He further confirmed the contents of note dated 18.03.2004 (Ex. PW-40/A) signed by Mrs. Sunanda Malik, Area Inspector and also the note dated 22.03.2004 (Ex. PW-40/H) written by Sh. Man Singh, Assistant Registrar (South). On 09.04.2004, Sh. Man Singh submitted another note (Ex. PW-44/H) alongwith a copy of the directive issued under Rule 77 of the DCS Rules, 1973. He proved and confirmed the contents of his own note (Ex. PW-44/I) which was marked to Assistant Registrar (South) Sh. Man Singh and then to accused Rajiv Navani (LDC).
He also deposed that vide note dated 20.04.2004 (Ex. PW-44/J), accused Rajiv Navani suggested that clarification be sought from the Society regarding the membership details. This note was endorsed by Sh. Man Singh and further marked to him in his capacity as Joint Registrar (South). He marked the said note to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sh. N. Diwakar, on 21.04.2004. He confirmed the contents of notes Ex. PW-44/J and Ex. PW-44/K and identified the signatures of Sh. N. Diwakar (RCS), Sh. Man Singh (AR South) and accused Rajiv Navani (LDC) on the said notes. He also confirmed the contents of note dated 26.04.2004 (Ex. PW-44/L) written by accused Rajiv Navani and stated that the said note dealt with the rule position in reference to the proposal of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS. After discussion, he submitted his noting Ex. PW44/M to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 27.04.2004. Thereafter, Sh. N. Diwakar, RCS passed his order on 28.04.2004 i.e. Ex. PW-40/K. He also confirmed the contents of the said order and identified the signature of Sh. N. CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 42 of 105 Diwakar, RCS.
PW-44 Dr. Jayadev Sarangi also confirmed the contents of note Ex. PW-20/L and identified the signatures of accused Rajiv Navani and Sh. Man Singh on the same. He also further proved the letter dated 29.04.2004 (Ex. PW-44/N) which was addressed to Deputy Director (GH), DDA, Vikas Sadan and was sent by Sh. Man Singh. Upon perusal of the documents Ex. PW-40/K, Ex. PW-20/L, Ex. PW-44/L and Ex. PW-44/N, he clarified that the approval granted by RCS Sh. N. Diwakar vide his note dated 28.04.2004 was only for condonation of lapses and did not extend to approval of the membership list or forwarding of the same to DDA for draw of lots. He categorically stated that letter Ex. PW-44/N was not in conformity with the said approval as no permission had been granted by the RCS either for freeze strength of the Society or for the approved list of eligible members for draw of lots.
67. PW-45 Sh. Amarnath deposed that in the year 1981- 82, his colleagues namely Bhola Ram, Ram Avtar, Mool Chand, Budh Ram etc. told him about the Sarve Sanjhi Co-operative Group Housing Society (CGHS). Accordingly, he alongwith his colleagues/friends went to Azad Apartment and met the president of the said Society and became member of the Society by paying Rs.110/- at that time. He had signed the application form and on the membership register. He was told by Sh. Bhardwaj that he had to deposit Rs.20,000/- to the Society, but he did not pursue the matter further. He had never resigned from the Society. He identified his particulars in the membership register of the Society at serial no. 69 ex. PW45/A. He also deposed that he never gave any resignation letter to the president of the Society and his CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 43 of 105 signature appearing on resignation letter dated 15.02.1988 Ex. PW45/B did not belong to him.
68. PW-46 Nand Lal deposed that in the year 1983 he was working as electrician with a contractor M/s Pummy Electricals. Sh. Hori Lal who was working in Azad Apartment as electrician suggested him to become member of Sarve Sanjhi, CGHS Society. He went to Azad Apartment and met with one person and became member of the aforesaid by paying Rs.110/-. Other persons who were working in IIT were also become member of the said Society. Thereafter, the Society officials started demanding Rs.15,000-20,000/- which was not possible for him and he did not pay any amount to the Society. He did not get any refund from the said Society. He identified his particulars and signatures in the membership register at serial no.34 i.e. Ex.PW46/A. He also deposed that he neither resigned from the aforesaid Society nor he submitted any resignation letter to the president of Society. He never signed the resignation letter dated 27.06.1986 Ex. PW46/B.
69. PW-47 Sh. Beant Singh deposed that he came member of Sarve Sanjhi Society in the year 1984-85 and deposited membership fees of Rs. 110/-. Sh. Bhardwaj was the President of the Society who advised him to become member of Society. On asking of Sh. Bhardwaj he deposited Rs. 25,000/- with the said Society. After some time Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj informed that land had not been allotted to them so they are refunding the money. He had received his money i.e. Rs. 25,000/- back from the said Society. He had never submitted any resignation letter to the aforesaid Society. The Society had also never returned the membership fee of Rs. 110/-. He identified his particulars and particulars of his wife in the CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 44 of 105 membership register at serial no. 230 i.e. Ex. PW47/A. He also deposed that he did not know who had written resigned at serial no. 230 against column 'date of termination'.
70. PW-48 Sh. Nisar Mohd. deposed that he alongwith his father Sh. Shah Mohd became member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS Housing Society on the suggestion/asking of the Sh. Ashok Bhardwaj in the year 1983-84 by paying membership fee of Rs. 110/- each. The Sarve Sanjhi Group Housing Society was promoted by Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj. He identified his particulars and signatures in the membership register of the Society at serial no. 6 Ex. PW48/A and also identified particulars of his father at serial no. 52 Ex.PW48/B. He remained member of Sarve Sanjhi Society upto one year and thereafter he resigned. He also deposed that his signature and handwriting appearing on resignation letter dated 19.03.1988 Mark PW48/1 did not belong to him. He further stated that the signature appearing on resignation letter Mark PW48/2 did not belong to her father.
71. PW-49 Sh. Ghanshyam Meena deposed that in July, 2004 he was posted as Joint Registrar in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, New Delhi. The Registrar did not have powers to condone any of the provisions provided under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 and Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 1973. He joined CBI investigation and some documents were shown to him by the IO of the case. He clarified and confirmed the contents of notings dated 25.11.1983 (Ex. PW49/A), 27.01.1984 (Ex. PW49/B), 12.03.1985 (Ex. PW49/C), 17.03.1988 (Ex. PW49/D), 30.03.1988 (Ex. PW49/E, 21.07.1988 (Ex PW49/F), 26.09.1988 (Ex. PW49/G), 21.06.1989 (Ex. PW49/H), 28.06.1989 (Ex. PW49/I), 19.05.1989 (Ex. PW49/J), CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 45 of 105 12.10.1989 (Ex. PW49/K), 01.11.1989 (Ex. PW49/L), 15.02.1990 (Ex. PW49/M), 22.05.1990 (Ex. PW49/N), 23.05.1990 (Ex. PW49/O), 08.06.1990 (Ex. PW49/P) and 30.07.1990 (Ex. PW49/Q).
PW-49 Sh. G. S. Meena also clarified and confirmed the contents of notings Ex. PW49/R and Ex. PW49/S. He also clarified and confirmed the contents of notings dated 13.08.1996, 26.08.1996, 23.09.1996, 05.11.1996, 21.04.1997, 28.07.1998 and 03.11.1998 i.e. Ex. PW49/T to Ex. PW49/Z respectively. He also clarified and confirmed the contents of letters Ex. PW44/A and Ex. PW44/C and notings Ex. PW3/PA, Ex. PW44/B, Ex. PW44/D, Ex. PW49/Z-1, Ex. PW44/E, Ex. PW40/C, Ex. PW40/D, Ex. PW40/A, Ex. PW44/F, Ex. PW40/G, Ex. PW40/H, Ex. PW40/I, Ex. PW44/J, Ex. PW44/L, Ex. PW44/M, Ex. PW20/L and Ex. PW49/Z-2.
72. PW-50, Sh. Nipun Bansal deposed that he as well as his wife Ms. Navita Bansal had become the member of Sarve Sanjhi Society. In year 2004, they got flat no. A-25 through a draw of lots in Sarve Sanjhi Society and they paid Rs. 19-20 lakh for the same. They had also paid membership fee of Rs. 1100/-. When he had seen a sample flat of Sarve Sanjhi Society which he liked, the official who was present there asked him to pay through cheque near about 2.5 lakhs -2.6 lakhs for the same. He identified his particulars and his wife in membership register at serial no. 450 Ex.PW50/A. He had handed over some documents to the IO vide receipt memo dated 01.04.2007 Ex.PW50/B. As per cheque receipt memo dated 20.09.2002 Ex. PW50/C he paid land money of Rs. 2,63,810/- to Sarve Sanjhi Society through cheques no. 314468 and 50001 drawn on State Bank of Patiala and UTI Bank respectively. He as well as his wife also submitted their affidavits CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 46 of 105 dated 29.12.2003 and 28.01.2004 (Ex. PW50/D & Ex. PW50/E respectively) in Sarve Sanjhi Society.
PW-50 did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. In his cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI stated that for the purpose of purchase of flat she had taken loan of Rs. 18 lakh from Citi Bank, C.P., K.G., New Delhi. Amarjeet Chabbra was the President and Satpal Grover was the Vice President of Sarve Sanjhi Society till the allotment of flats in August 2004 and Suresh Kumar was working with the Society as clerk and he used to look after all the office related work of the Society. He identified accused Satpal Grover and accused Amarjeet Chhabra in the court. However, he denied the suggestions given to him as per his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC Mark A.
73. PW-51 Ms. Nirmal Kaur deposed that her husband namely Tarlochan singh was working in MES as Electrician in Air Force, at Kalpi, Ambala and his brother Trilok Singh had retired from Army who was residing at Hari Nagar, Delhi in Janta Quarters. she had never become member of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS Society. She did not know persons by the name of J. C. Bhardwaj and Ranjeet Singh. She had joined the investigation in the year 2007 and some documents were shown to her by the IO. She also deposed that her particulars and particulars of her husband were mentioned in membership register of Society at serial no. 23 Ex PW51/A, however, she stated that her signature appearing on the said register did not belong to her as she used to sign in English and she never signed in Hindi. She also stated that the signature appearing on resignation letter dated 21.06.1986 Ex. PW51/B also did not belong to her.
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 47 of 105
74. PW-52 Sh. Hori Lal deposed that in the year 1984, he was working in Azad Apartment and Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj was the Secretary of the Society who formed a Group Housing Society in the name of Sarve Sanjhi Society. His wife Smt. Asha Devi became member of the said Society. Most of the members of the Society were employees of Azad Apartment or their relatives and employees of IIT or their relatives. There were about 80 members when the Society was formed. He had deposited Rs.110/- to become a member of the said Society. He had not submitted any document regarding address, age etc. of his wife, nor had she filed any affidavit. His wife remained member of the Society till 2002, thereafter she resigned. They had deposited a total amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. Land was allotted at Dwarka and construction work was to begin. Thereafter, more money was demanded but they could not pay and therefore resigned. They received refund of Rs.2,10,000/- through cheque which he deposited in their joint savings account. Some documents relating to the Society were signed by him in the name of his wife. He joined the CBI investigation in 2007-2008.
The witness denied his signatures as well as his wife's signatures appearing as Treasurer, on the certified copies of the proceedings of managing committee dated 14.01.1986 (Ex.PW34/F - D-6), 20.07.1986 (Ex.PW-52/A), 10.08.1986 (Ex.PW-52/B), 18.09.1986 (Ex.PW-52/C), 25.10.1986 (Ex.PW-52/D), 21.11.1986 (Ex.PW-52/E), 16.12.1986 (Ex.PW-52/F). He further denied signatures of his wife purportedly appearing on the certified copies of the proceedings dated 10.02.1987 (Ex.PW-52/G), 15.03.1987 (Ex.PW-52/H), 28.04.1987 (Ex.PW-52/I), 15.06.1987 (Ex.PW-52/J), 22.10.1987 CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 48 of 105 (Ex.PW-52/K), 13.11.1988 (Ex.PW-52/L), 06.01.1988 (Ex.PW-52/M), 27.02.1988 (Ex.PW-52/N), 19.03.1988 (Ex.PW-52/O), 16.04.1988 (Ex.PW-52/P), 18.05.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Q), 07.06.1988 (Ex.PW-52/R), 15.06.1988 (Ex.PW-52/S), 16.07.1988 (Ex.PW-52/T), 20.08.1988 (Ex.PW-52/U), 07.09.1988 (Ex.PW-52/V), 26.11.1988 (Ex.PW-52/W), 31.12.1988 (Ex.PW-52/X), 13.11.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Y), 06.01.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Z), 27.02.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Z-1), 19.03.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Z-2), 16.04.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Z-3), 18.05.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Z-4), 07.06.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Z-5), 15.06.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Z-6), 16.07.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Z-7), 20.08.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Z-8), 07.09.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Z-9), 26.11.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Z-10), 31.12.1988 (Ex.PW-52/Z-11), 31.01.1989 (Ex.PW-52/Z-12), 18.02.1989 (Ex.PW-52/Z-13). He stated that these signatures were neither appended by him nor by his wife and he cannot say who appended the said signatures. He also denied that his wife signed a letter already Ex.PW-34/B and stated that it is written in English which he cannot read or write. He stated that no official from the office of RCS ever visited their residence in February 2004 regarding their resignation.
PW-52 admitted that the photocopy of the proceedings dated 06.01.1988 (Mark PW-52/Z-14) was signed by him on behalf of his wife on the asking of Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj. He also admitted that the photocopies of proceedings dated 13.11.1987 (collectively Mark PW-52/Z-15), 15.06.1987 (already mark PW-18/M), 12.05.1987 (mark PW-18/L), and 28.04.1987 (mark PW-18/K) were signed by him on behalf of his wife on the asking of Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj. He further admitted signing, on the CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 49 of 105 asking of Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj, the photocopies of proceedings dated 15.03.1987 (Mark PW-52/Z-16), 16.12.1986 (Mark PW-52/Z-17), 25.10.1986 (Mark PW-52/Z-18), 18.09.1986 (Mark PW-52/Z-19), 10.08.1986 (Mark PW-18/N), and 20.07.1986 (Ex.PW-34/A) on behalf of his wife. He further admitted signing the photocopies of proceedings dated 15.06.1987 (mark PW-18/J) and 01.06.1986 (mark PW-18/H) on behalf of his wife on instructions of Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj. He also identified the resignation letter dated 07.11.2002 (Ex.PW-34/C) as being written in his own handwriting and signed by him on behalf of his wife.
75. PW-53 Sh. Bhakti Pad Mishra deposed that he had joined the laboratory of Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents at Kolkata on 10.03.1986 as an Assistant Central Intelligence Office, Grade-I. After receiving his training in the field of handwriting examination and detection for forgery in the laboratory, he had been promoted to the post of Assistant Government Examiner of questioned documents on 10.03.1997 and subsequently to the post of Deputy Government Examiner on 26.09.2007. During this period, he had examined thousands of cases involving lakhs of exhibits and submitted his opinion to various courts and had also tendered his evidence in numerous courts in India.
He further deposed that on 14.05.2007, he was posted in the laboratory of Govt. Examiner of questioned documents, Kolkata as Deputy Government Examiner of questioned documents. One sealed packet from SP, CBI SCR-1, New Delhi related to RC 14 (S)-2006 SCU-I/SCR-1-CBI New Delhi dated 09.05.2007 was received in their office with questioned documents and sample documents along with sample seal and questionnaire CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 50 of 105 for examination vide letter no.1825/3/14(s) 2006-SCU.1 dated 09.05.2007 Ex. PW53/A. The said case was allotted to him for examination and opinion. On receipt of the documents, he had stamped and marked all the documents with the office seal and their case number DXC-201/2007. All the questioned documents and specimen documents were examined under various scientific instruments such as microscopes and magnifiers under different wave lengths by applying the principal of handwriting identification and examination. After careful and thorough examination, he prepared his report no.DXC-201/2007 dated 26.11.2007 Ex. PW53/B. He also deposed that this case was also examined by another expert Sh. Narender Kumar, Assistant Govt. Examiner of questioned documents of the same laboratory who had agreed with the opinion and signed the same sheets of opinion in his presence.
76. PW54 Sh. Vikas Verma deposed that in February, 2007, he was working as LDC in C-1 Hutments Dalhousie Road, New Delhi, (MHA). On asking of CBI, he had joined investigation. In the office of CBI, the specimen signatures and hand writing of some persons were taken in his presence. Sh. Ashok Kumar, the then Junior Account Officer working in his office was also present. He identified his signatures on the specimen signatures/handwriting of Sh. Rajiv Bagaria Ex.PW9/D (colly.); Sh. Ram Niwas Bagaria in Ex.PW8/C (colly.); Sh. V.B.V. Pani Shekhar Gupta Ex.PW31/A (colly.); Sh. Ashok Chopra Ex.PW7/C (colly.); Sh. Sikander Lal Sachdeva Ex.PW10/D (colly.); Smt. Navjyoti Ahluwalia Ex.PW12/G (colly.); Sh. Jaswant Rai Ex.PW6/D (colly.); Smt. Neera Tulsian Ex.PW53/O (colly.); Sh. Bhushan Khanna Ex.PW13/F (colly.); Sh. Bhupesh CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 51 of 105 Aneja Ex.PW15/D (colly.); Sh. Ashwani Kumar Ex.PW37/C (colly.); Smt. Ram Rati Devi Ex.PW19/B (colly.); Sh. Rajender Krishanan Gaur Ex.PW18/O (colly.); Sh. Anand Agrawal Ex.PW32/A (colly.); Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj Ex.PW36/C (colly.); Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj Ex.PW17/D (colly.); Sh. Amit Saxena Ex.PW53/B (colly.); Sh. Mahesh Kumar Singh Ex.PW53/Q (colly.); and Sh. Suresh Kumar Ex.PW53/R (colly.).
77. PW55 Sh. Ashok Kumar stated that in the year 2007 he was working as Junior Accounts Officer in the Pay & Accounts Office, Ministry of Home Affairs, C-1 Hutments, Dulhauzi Road, New Delhi. In February 2007, he joined the investigation with CBI. In the CBI office, specimen signatures and handwriting of several persons were taken and he was called to act as a witness to those proceedings. The specimen signatures and handwriting were taken in his presence and he put his signatures on those documents.
He identified his signatures on the specimen signatures/handwriting of Sh. Rajiv Bagaria Ex.PW9/D (colly.), Sh. V.B.V. Pani Shekhar Gupta Ex.PW31/A (colly.), Sh. Ashok Chopra Ex.PW7/C (colly.), Sh. Sikander Lal Sachdeva Ex.PW10/D (colly.), Smt. Navjyoti Ahluwalia Ex.PW12/G (colly.), Sh. Jaswant Rai Ex.PW6/D (colly.), Smt. Neera Tulsian Ex.PW53/O (colly.), Sh. Bhushan Khanna Ex.PW13/F (colly.), Sh. Ashwani Kumar Ex.PW37/C (colly.), Smt. Ram Rati Devi Ex.PW19/B (colly.), Sh. Rajender Krishanan Gaur Ex.PW18/O (colly.), Sh. Anand Agrawal Ex.PW32/A (colly.), Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj Ex.PW36/C (colly.), Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj Ex.PW17/D (colly.), Sh. Mahesh Kumar Singh Ex.PW53/Q (colly.) and Sh. Suresh Kumar Ex.PW53/R (colly.).
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 52 of 105
78. PW-56 Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma deposed that in year 2007, he was working as LDC in Group Housing Society, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023. A requisition was received by their department from CBI for supplying some documents. Accordingly, he supplied the file no. F.7(34)98/GH/DDA of DDA pertaining to Sarve Sanjhi, CGHS Ltd., Dwarka (Ex. PW23/A) to CBI vide receipt memo Ex.PW56/A.
79. PW-57 Sh. Govind Awasthi deposed that he was working as Sub-Inspector, CBI, ACR-I, New Delhi in June, 2007. He had been directed by Sh. Manoj Pangarkar, the then DSP, CBI to verify two addresses. On the direction of Sh. Manoj Pangarkar, he had verified the addresses and submitted the verification report dated 06.06.2007 i.e. Ex. PW57/A. He visited the address of Smt. Simarjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Prakash Singh R/o H.No.1264/A-2, Rajgarh Colony, Jheel, Delhi-31 and said Simarjeet Kaur told that the above address belongs to Sh. Prakash Singh and they were residing there for last 35 years. He also visited another address i.e. H No. 128/21, Rajgarh Colony, Jheel, Delhi-31, but this address was not located and it was found to be a fake address.
80. PW-58 Mrs. Seema Pahuja deposed that she was posted in CBI, Special Crime-I Branch as Inspector in the year 2006. The present case was endorsed to her for investigation by Sh. Vineet Vinayak, the then SP, CBI, SCR-I, New Delhi. During investigation, she collected records pertaining to the present case from the complainant Sh. Naresh Talwar, the then Inspector CBI, SCR-I, New Delhi. She also examined 2-3 witnesses and recorded their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was transferred to other IO Sh.S.S. Ali, the then DSP, CBI, SCR-I, New Delhi. She admitted/ identified FIR no. CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 53 of 105 14(S)/2006/SCU-I/SCR-I/CBI, New Dehli Ex.PW21/B. She also stated that specimen signature/hand writing of Smt. Neera Tulsian W/o Sh. Sunil Kumar Tulsian i.e. Ex. PW53/O were taken in her presence by Sh. Manoj Pangarkar, the then DSP, CBI, SCR-I, New Delhi.
81. PW-59 Narender Kumar deposed that he was a co- examiner in the opinion/report given in this case. The document of this case were received through messenger on 14.05.2007 vide letter no.1825/3/14/S/2006-SCU-I dated 09.05.2007. The same were allotted to Sh. B.P. Mishra. The questioned documents were compared with the specimen documents by Sh. B.P. Mishra as main expert and also by him as co-examiner. After comparison of questioned document with specimen documents, they came to the conclusion opinion/report bearing no.DXC-201/2007 Ex.PW53/B (colly.). He also confirmed the contents of the said report and identified the exhibits.
82. PW-60 S.S. Ali deposed that in the year 2006, he was working as DSP, CBI, SCR-I, New Delhi. The present case i.e. RC 14(S)/2006/SCU-I/SCR-I/CBI, New Delhi dated 04.10.2006 was transferred to him for investigation. He collected some records pertaining to the present case from Smt. Seema Pahuja, the then Inspector CBI, SCR-I, New Delhi. He also examined some witnesses and recorded their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, case was transferred to some other IO. He stated that he had recorded the statements of witnesses namely Sh. Shailender Singh Gahlot (LW-19, dated 22.12.2006), Smt. Kulvinder Kaur (LW-60, dated 20.12.2006), Smt. Jasvinder Kaur (LW-61, dated 20.12.2006), Sh. Beant Singh (LW-62, dated 12.12.2006), Sh. Surender Singh (LW-63, dated 20.12.2006) and Sh. Kunwar A.K. CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 54 of 105 Singh (LW-84, Mark-43X dated 24.12.2006). He identified the statement of Sh. Kunwar A.K. Singh Ex.PW60/A.
83. PW-61 Ms.Nidhi Kansal deposed that in the year 1998, she was 18 years old and she was studying. Her father i.e. accused Pradeep Kansal was known to Sh. Vinod Kapoor. She had joined the CBI investigation and her statement Ex. PW61/X was recorded by the IO of the case. She did not support the case of prosecution and was therefore cross examined at length by ld.PP for CBI.
84. PW62 Manoj Pangarkar i.e. IO of the case deposed that in the year 2007, he was working as Dy. S.P., CBI Special Crime-I, New Delhi. He had received the investigation of this case in January, 2007 from Sh. S.S. Ali, the then Dy. SP, CBI, SCR-I, New Delhi. After receiving the investigation of this case, he recorded statements of various witnesses. He collected various documents from various persons during investigation. He had sent specimen signatures/ specimen handwriting/ questioned documents to GEQD for opinion. He had also sought sanction for prosecution of accused Gopal Singh Bisht and accused Rajeev Navani through a letter. After receiving the approval, he had filed the chargesheet in the court. He also identified the documents i.e. complaint dated 04.10.2006 of Sh. Naresh Talwar Ex.PW21/A, sanction for prosecution of accused Gopal Singh Bisht dated 23.07.2008 Ex.PW22/A, sanction for prosecution of accused Rajeev Navani dated 17.10.2008 Ex.PW24/A. He also collected the files i.e. file no.F 47/1424/NGH/Coop/S, Vol.-1 of RCS Office with respect to Sarve Sanjhi CGHS Ex.PW3/PA, file no. F 47/1424/NGH/Coop/S, Vol.-IV of RCS Office with respect to Sarve Sanjhi CGHS Ex.PW3/PB, file of M/s Sarve Sanjhi CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 55 of 105 Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Vol.-VII of RCS Office Ex.PW3/PC, file of M/s Sarve Sanjhi Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Vol.-VIII of RCS Office Ex.PW3/PB, file of M/s Sarve Sanjhi Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Vol.-X of RCS Office Ex.PW1/PA, file no.F.7(34)98/GH/DDA of DDA pertaining to Sarve Sanjhi CGHC Ltd., Dwarka i.e. Ex.PW23/A. He also proved letter no.F47/1424/GH/COOP/318 dated 08.03.2006 i.e. Ex.PW3/A. He also stated that vide letter no. F47/1424/S/COOP/237 dated 04.05.2006 Ex.PW1/A, file D-8 was sent to the CBI. Sh. M. P Sharma sent a letter dated 05.10.2007 Ex. PW1/B regarding non availability of original registration certificate of Sarve Sanjhi Society in the RCS office. He also proved documents i.e. letter dated 18.07.2006 Ex. PW62/A, letter dated 08.04.2007 Ex.PW62/B, letter dated 30.04.2007 Ex.PW62/C, letter dated 16.06.2006 Ex.PW35/A. He also identified verification report dated 06.06.2007 i.e. Ex. PW57/A. PW-62 also deposed that vide receipt memo dated 11.04.2007 i.e. Ex. PW56/A, he collected document (D9) from Anil Kumar Sharma, LDC, DDA. He also collected document (D20) from Dr.Rana Mukhopadhyay vide receipt memo dated 31.03.2007 Ex. PW4/E and also collected documents from Sh. Nipun Bansal vide receipt memo Ex. PW50/B. He also identified documents i.e. receipt dated 08.03.2003 Ex.PW4/F, cheque receipt dated 20.09.2002 Ex.PW50/C, specimen signatures of Sh. Rajeev Bagaria Ex. PW9/D, specimen signatures of Sh. Ram Niwas Bagaria Ex. PW8/C, specimen signatures of Sh. V. B. V. Panishekhar Gupta Ex.PW31/A, specimen signatures of Sh. Ashok Chopra Ex. PW7/C, specimen signatures of Sh. Sikandar Lal Sachdeva Ex. PW10/D, specimen signatures of Smt. Nav Jyoti CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 56 of 105 Alhuwalia Ex. PW12/G, specimen signatures of Smt. Shashi Gupta Ex. PW14/E, specimen signatures of Ms. Nidhi Kansal Ex. PW53/N, specimen signatures of Sh. Jaswant Rai Ex. PW6/D, specimen signatures of Smt. Neera Tulsian Ex. PW53/O, specimen signatures of Sh. Bhushan Khana Ex. PW13/F, specimen signatures of Sh. Bhupesh Aneja Ex. PW15/D, specimen signatures of Smt. Geeta Shangle Ex. PW11/F, specimen signatures of Sh. Sunil Uppal Ex. PW53/P, specimen signatures of Sh. Aswani Kumar Ex. PW37/C, specimen signatures of Smt. Ram Rati Devi Ex. PW19/B, specimen signatures of Smt. Asha Devi Ex. PW34/D, specimen signatures of Sh. Rajender Krishan Gaur, Ex. PW18/Q, specimen signatures of Sh. Anand Aggarwal Ex. PW32/A, specimen signatures of Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj Ex. PW36/C, specimen signatures of Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj Ex. PW17/D, specimen signatures of accused Amit Saxena Ex. PW53/P, specimen signatures of accused Mahesh Kumar Singh Ex. PW53/Q, specimen signatures of accused Suresh Kumar Ex. PW53/R. He also stated that these specimen signatures were taken by him during investigation and same were given voluntarily by aforesaid persons in the presence of independent witnesses.
PW-62 further deposed that Sh. Zaki Ahmed, the then SP, CBI sent a letter dated 09.05.2007 Ex. PW53/A to GEQD, Kolkata for seeking opinion in this case. Thereafter, opinion / report dated 26.11.2007 Ex. PW53/B was received from GEQD, Directorate of Forensic Science, Kolkata in the office of CBI. He also stated that during investigation he had collected membership registers of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS i.e. Ex. PW4/A and PW33/A through document Ex. PW62/A. He also collected original register AGM proceedings dated 21.09.1997 Vol-I Ex. PW62/D pertaining CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 57 of 105 to Sarve Sanjhi CGHS from previous IO. He also collected original register of AGM proceedings dated 12.07.1998 Vol.-II Ex.PW62/E, original register of AGM proceedings dated 27.09.1998 Vol.-III, Ex.PW62/F, original register of AGM proceedings dated 24.10.1999 Vol.-IV Ex.PW62/G, original register of SGM proceedings dated 23.04.2000 Vol.-V Ex.PW62/H, original register of AGM proceedings dated 15.10.2000 Vol.-VI Ex.PW62/I, original register of AGM proceedings dated 21.10.2001 Vol.-VII Ex.PW5/C, original register of AGM proceedings dated 28.11.2004 Vol.-VIII Ex. PW62/J. During investigation, he also collected original register of Managing Committee proceedings Vol.-I, (01.04.1996 to 19.02.1997) containing details of minutes of meetings of Sarve Sanjhi CGHS i.e. Ex.PW62/K (Colly.). He also collected original register of Managing Committee proceedings Vol.-II, (01.03.1997 to 31.03.1998) Ex.PW62/L, original register of Managing Committee proceedings Vol.-III (01.04.1998 to 31.03.1999), original register of Ex.PW62/M, original register of Managing Committee proceedings Vol.-IV and V Ex.PW62/N, original register of Managing Committee proceedings Vol.-VI, (01.04.2001 to 10.01.2004) Ex.PW62/O. During investigation, he came to know that accused J. C. Bharadwaj and Vinod Kapoor had expired and therefore he collected death certificates of J. C. Bhardwaj (Ex. PW16/A1) and of Vinod Kapoor Ex. PW62/P. During investigation, he also recorded statements u/s 161 of CR. PC of Sh. Suresh Philip (Ex.PW2/PA), Sh. Nipun Bansal (Mark- A), Sh.Rana Mukhopadhyay (Ex.PW4/PA), Sh. Jaswant Rai (Ex.PW6/X), Sh. V.B.V. Paneshekhar Gupta (Ex.PW31/P-1) and Ms. Nidhi Kansal (Ex.PW61/X).
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 58 of 105
85. PW-63 Insp. Surender Kumar Rohilla deposed that in July, 2006 he had received some documents from Sarve Sanjhi CGHS under signatures of Satpal Grover vide letter dated 18.07.2006 Ex.PW62/A. After receiving the same he had handed over all the documents to the concerned IO.
86. After completion of examination of all the prosecution witnesses PE was closed on 01.04.2024.
Statements of Accused U/s 313 Cr. PC-
87. Upon completion of entire prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence was put to all the accused persons in their respective statements recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC, wherein all accused denied the incriminating evidence. They took pleas that they were falsely implicated in the present case and the allegations made by the prosecution were false. Accused Amarjeet Chhabra, Satpal Grover, Suresh Kumar, Gopal Singh Bish, Rajiv Navani, Pradeep Kansal and Mahesh Kumar Singh opted to lead defence evidence, however, accused Amit Saxena, Sandeep Saini and Ajay Arora opted not to lead defence evidence.
88. Thereafter accused persons namely Amarjeet Chhabra, Satpal Grover, Suresh Kumar, Gopal Singh Bish, Rajiv Navani, Pradeep Kansal and Mahesh Kumar Singh also did not lead any evidence in their defence and closed their defence evidence on 22.08.2024.
89. Later on, additional statements of all the accused u/s 313 Cr. PC were also recorded and all of them denied the incriminating evidence which was put to them. However, on this occasion none of them opted to lead Defence Evidence.
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 59 of 105
90. I have heard the arguments of the ld. PP for CBI as well as the ld. Defence counsels. Now, I shall proceed to deal with merits of the case.
Appreciation of Evidence vis-a-vis Allegations of Commission of Offences by Accused Persons:
91. The case of prosecution is based on the allegations that the earlier Managing Committee of the Sarve Sanjhi Cooperative Group Housing Society consisting of accused J. C. Bharadwaj (abated) and Ranjeet Singh (discharged) formed the Society in the year 1984. They had entered into conspiracy to enroll bogus members at the time of formation of Society and in furtherance of the said conspiracy they got prepared bogus / forged resignation letters of several members with the intention of enrolling new members subsequently i.e. till the year 1996 for the purpose of getting land from DDA at subsidized rate. Thereafter, accused Amarjeet Chhabra, Satpal Grover, Suresh Kumar, Pradeep Kansal, Amit Saxena, Mahesh Kumar Singh, Sandeep Saini and Ajay Arora fraudulently enrolled number of new members after obtaining illegal premium from them between the period 1999 to 2003. Thereby in January, 2004 accused Amarjeet Chhabra and Satpal Grover submitted certified copies of forged proceedings to RCS. Accused Gopal Singh Bisht and Rajiv Navani (being public servant) fraudulently without verifying the original documents submitted a note dated 28.01.2004 for seeking approval of RCS for clearance of draw of lots.
92. Accused Gopal Singh Bisht alongwith Suresh Kumar fraudulently prepared and submitted a false and forged verification report dated 16.02.2004 with respect to present and CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 60 of 105 past members of the Society which was further fraudulently forwarded by accused Man Singh (proceedings abated qua him). Then accused Man Singh and Rajiv Navani sent a letter dated 29.04.2004 to DDA conveying approval of RCS for draw of lots despite the fact that there was no approval of RCS on the note sheet for draw of lots. Thus, as per case of prosecution, the criminal conspiracy began in the year 1984 and it continued till the year 2004 i.e. when draw of lots were finalized.
93. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that vide order dated 01.11.2013, charge was framed against all accused persons except Ranjeet Singh and the period of conspiracy was restricted from the year 1999 to 2004. The relevant portion of the order on charge is as follows:
"51. I would like to add here that in the chargesheet the period of conspiracy has been mentioned from 1984 to 1996 and from 1999 to 2004. I am of the opinion that in view of the material obtaining on the file, it would be appropriate to restrict the conspiracy period from 1999 to 2004."
94. Hence, the charge with respect to allegations of conspiracy committed from 1984 to 1996 was excluded. Therefore, all the accused are facing charge with respect to allegations of criminal conspiracy committed from the year 1999 to 2004.
95. The prosecution theory as stated above now revolves around the allegations that all accused had entered into criminal conspiracy i.e. :
(i) They had forged and fabricated the proceedings of the Society;
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 61 of 105
(ii) They had forged and fabricated the documents pertaining to resignations of certain members;
(iii) They had used the above mentioned forged and fabricated documents as original;
(iv) The public servants i.e. Gopal Singh Bisht and Rajiv Navani conspired with the remaining accused and accepted the forged documents and forwarded the noting for approval for the purpose of sanctioning of land to the Society at subsidized rate from DDA;
(v) Accused Gopal Singh Bisht prepared a false report on the basis of forged and fabricated documents; &
(vi) All of them committed the aforesaid acts with the objective of inducting new members for making unlawful profit by obtaining premium from them.
96. As discussed above, all accused persons have been joined together by a single thread with the allegation of having entered into criminal conspiracy to commit the afore-mentioned offences. It is a settled proposition of law that conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and there can hardly be any direct evidence of existence of conspiracy. In this regard, in Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) 3 SCC 609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that the conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence as well as by direct evidence and that though the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, the prosecution must prove some physical manifestation of agreement although it may not be necessary to prove actual meeting of two persons or the words by which the two persons communicated.
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 62 of 105 Also in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K. Narayana Rao: (2012) 9 SCC 512 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence."
Further, in Ram Sharan Chaturvedi vs. State of M.P., AIR 2022 SC 4002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"22. The principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is an agreement to commit an offence. Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence. Court has to necessarily ascertain whether there was an agreement between the CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 63 of 105 Appellant and A-1 and A-2. In the decision of State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan and Anr.2, this Court noted that an agreement forms the core of the offence of conspiracy, and it must surface in evidence through some physical manifestation:
"12. ...As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. ...A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy...
In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu(2005) 11 SCC 600, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"101. One more principle which deserves notice is that the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances. Of course, each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in regard to the appreciation of evidence relating to the conspiracy, the Court must take care to see that the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution."
It is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between the accused. However, an implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in the cases of circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, in the majority opinion of Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641, it was held:
"354. ... 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..."
97. Thus, in view of the above stated proposition of law, in order to establish the factum of criminal conspiracy between accused persons i.e. who were part of managing committee of the CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 64 of 105 Society (i.e. Amarjeet Chhabra and Satpal Grover), public servants of RCS (Gopal Singh Bisht and Rajiv Navani), accused Suresh Kumar i.e. clerk of Society and the property agents /brokers i.e. accused Amit Saxena, Mahesh Kumar Singh, Sandeep Saini and Ajay Arora, the prosecution had to prove that they had agreed to commit above-stated illegal acts, either by way of direct evidence or by establishing complete chain of circumstantial evidence. In its endeavor to establish the allegations, prosecution relied on two different sets of evidence i.e.:
(a) Documentary evidence for proving allegations of forgery of the documents i.e. proceedings of committee and other documents such as resignation/ receipts of refund/ confirmation letters of certain members allegedly given to accused Gopal Singh Bisht; &
(b) Oral evidence for establishing that several subsequently inducted members had paid premium for allotment of flats to accused persons and public servants had also intentionally and with dishonest intention committed several lapses so as to provide pecuniary advantage to remaining accused.
Now, I will proceed to discuss each of the above set of allegations separately.
Allegations of Forgery: -
98. This part of case of prosecution is based on the premise that :
(i) The proceedings and minutes of meetings of the Society were forged;
(ii) The record of memberships of the Society were CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 65 of 105 also forged;
(iii) The letters of resignations of some of the members were forged; &
(iv) The documents/letters annexed with the report of random survey /verification submitted by accused G.S. Bisht were forged and fabricated.
Forgery of proceedings and minutes of meetings of the Society-
99. In the first set of allegations of forgery, the prosecution alleged that accused persons had forged and fabricated proceedings of Managing Committee of the Society. During investigation, the IO collected several documents relating to proceedings, minutes of meetings and letters etc., with regard to affairs of the Society, however, there is no allegation in the chargesheet as to which part of the said proceedings, letters or minutes of meetings were forged and fabricated. There is also no allegation as to the time, place or person/s who had committed forgery of the said documents.
100. In this regard, the prosecution had examined a total of eleven witnesses. Out of them seven prosecution witnesses deposed that their signatures on the record of proceedings of the society were not forged and they rather admitted their signatures / signatures of their spouses on the minutes of meetings/ record of proceedings of the Society. All these seven witnesses were inducted as members subsequent to the year 2000. The details of the depositions of the above-mentioned seven prosecution witnesses is given below in tabular form:-
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 66 of 105 Dates of PW Witness Admission/Statement Meetings/Proceedings No. Name Regarding Signature Signed (Exhibit/Mark) Identified his particulars and Meeting Dated: 28.11.2004 Sandeep initials in the proceedings of a 5 (Ex. PW5/C, D-35) - Signed Pahuja Special General Body at Serial No. 33 Meeting.
Identified his signature on an Jaswant Affidavit Dated: 27.12.2003 6 affidavit (Ex. PW6/B). Did not Rai (Ex. PW6/B, D-5) mention signing minutes.
Identified his signature on an Ashok Affidavit Dated: 17.12.2003 7 affidavit (Ex. PW7/B). Did not Chopra (Ex. PW7/B, D-5) mention signing minutes.
Ram Identified his signature on an Affidavit Dated: 27.12.2003 8 Niwas affidavit (Ex. PW8/B). Did not (Ex. PW8/B, D-5) Bagaria mention signing minutes.
1. 25.08.2002 (Ex. PW9/C, D-40) - Signed at Serial No. Admitted attending meetings Rajiv 36 9 and signing the proceedings.
Bagaria 2. 28.11.2004 (Ex. PW5/C, Identified his signatures.
D-35) - Signed at Serial No. 41
1. 25.08.2002 (Ex. PW10/C) Admitted attending meetings S.L. - Signed at Serial No. 49 10 and signing the proceedings.
Sachdeva 2. 28.11.2004 (Ex. PW5/C) -
Identified his signatures.
Signed at Serial No. 361. 23.04.2000 (Ex. PW11/D, Identified her husband's Smt. Geeta D-32) 11 signature on meeting Shangle 2. 28.11.2004 (Ex. PW11/E, proceedings.
D-35) Ms. 1. 28.11.2004 (Ex. PW12/D) Identified her signatures on the 12 Navjyoti 2. 21.10.2001 (Ex. PW12/E) proceedings of meetings.
Ahluwalia 3. 25.08.2002 (Ex. PW12/F)
1. 15.10.2000 (Ex. PW13/D, Bhushan Identified his signature on the D-33) 13 Khanna proceedings of meetings. 2. 25.08.2002 (Ex. PW13/E, D-40) Smt. Identified her husband's 23.04.2000 (Ex. PW14/D, 14 Shashi signature on meeting D-22) Gupta proceedings.
101. The remaining four prosecution witnesses i.e. Sh.
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 67 of 105 Rajinder Krishan Gaur, Smt. Asha Devi, Sh. Hori Lal and Sh. Shyam Sunder were the original members of the Society and the proceedings / minutes of meetings relating to them pertained to the period ending in the year 1993. The details of depositions of the above-mentioned four prosecution witnesses is also given below in tabular form:-
Specific Denial Dates of PW Witness Related to Meeting Meetings/Proceedings Additional Context No. Name Minutes/ Denied (Exhibit/Mark) Proceedings Denied his 05.03.1989, 15.04.1989, He admitted signatures on the 19.08.1989, 01.06.1986, attending 8-10 minutes of 15.06.1989, 28.04.1987, meetings and Rajinder multiple 12.05.1987, 15.06.1987, being on the 18 Krishan Managing 10.08.1986, 26.11.1988 Managing Gaur Committee/Gene (Marked as Mark Committee, but ral Body PW18/D to Mark denied these meetings. PW18/P). specific signatures.
She admitted her Denied her husband signed signature on The proceedings many documents some contained in Ex. on her behalf as proceedings Smt. PW34/F (D-6). (Specific Treasurer. This shown to her 34 Asha date(s) not listed in denial implies (Ex. PW34/F).
Devi excerpt, but it is a part of some documents
She stated the
the society's proceeding bearing her name
signature was
records). were forgeries not
neither hers nor
signed by her or
her husband's.
her husband.
Denied his
signatures on
He was an
several
architect and a
letters/certificate 11.05.1991, 15.06.1991,
Managing
s that were 07.08.1991, 13.12.1991,
Committee
Shyam essentially 18.06.1992, 14.08.1992,
42 member. He
Sunder proceedings or 17.04.1993, 18.07.1993
admitted signing
certified copies (Ex. PW42/C to Ex.
many meeting
of resolutions PW42/J).
minutes from
from the society
1988-1990.
for the years
1991-1993.
Sh. Hori Denied his and A long series from Hori Lal admitted
52 his wife's 14.01.1986 to signing some
Lal
signatures on a 18.02.1989. proceedings on his CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 68 of 105 Specific Denial Dates of PW Witness Related to Meeting Meetings/Proceedings Additional Context No. Name Minutes/ Denied (Exhibit/Mark) Proceedings Specifically listed as:
Ex. PW34/F (D-6), Ex.
PW52/A, PW52/B,
PW52/C, PW52/D,
PW52/E, PW52/F,
PW52/G, PW52/H,
vast number of PW52/I, PW52/J,
Managing PW52/K, PW52/L,
Committee PW52/M, PW52/N,
meeting PW52/O, PW52/P,
proceedings PW52/Q, PW52/R,
from 1986 to PW52/S, PW52/T, wife's behalf.
1989. Stated the PW52/U, PW52/V,
signatures were PW52/W, PW52/X,
forged and not PW52/Y, PW52/Z,
appended by him PW52/Z-1, PW52/Z-2,
or his wife. PW52/Z-3, PW52/Z-4,
PW52/Z-5, PW52/Z-6,
PW52/Z-7, PW52/Z-8,
PW52/Z-9, PW52/Z-10,
PW52/Z-11,
PW52/Z-12,
PW52/Z-13.
102. The above shown table shows that PW-34 Smt. Asha Devi and PW-52 Hori Lal admitted that PW-52 used to sign on behalf of his wife. Both of them admitted their signatures on numerous minutes of meetings, but denied the signatures on the other proceedings. On the other hand, PW-18 Rajinder Krishan Gaur and PW-42 Shyam Sunder though denied their signatures on the proceedings /resolutions, but at the same time they stated having attended numerous other meetings.
103. The perusal of above shown evidence shows that the allegations vis-a-vis forgery of record only relates to the record which is prior to the year 1993. As per case of prosecution, accused Amarjeet Chhabra, Satpal Grover and Pardeep Kansal became CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 69 of 105 associated with functioning of the Society in the year 2000 and they did not have any role in it during the period prior to it. It is pertinent to mention that there is not even a whisper of allegation that the forgery of aforementioned record (prior to 1993) was committed later on in the year 2000 or who had committed the forgery in the said record.
104. Even otherwise, in order to establish that the signatures of the witnesses on the resolutions /minutes of meetings were infact not their signatures or were forged, the prosecution had to lead convincing and cogent evidence in the form of opinion of handwriting expert. However, most importantly the above stated i.e. alleged forged proceedings/resolutions were not even sent for expert opinion of handwriting expert during the course of investigation. Therefore, in absence of such vital evidence, there is no cogent believable evidence on record to show that the proceedings/ minutes of meetings /resolutions of the Managing Committee were forged or fabricated.
Forgery of record of memberships of the Society:-
105. Although it is alleged that false entries with regard to memberships were made at the time of formation of Society, but the charge was only framed with regard to commission of offences subsequent to year 2000 and as a result there is no charge with regard to forgery of record of membership. However, still the prosecution examined 33 witnesses with respect to aforementioned allegation. The details of depositions of the 33 prosecution witnesses is given below in tabular form:-
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 70 of 105 Admission/Statement Serial No. in Register PW Witness Regarding Membership (Exhibit) & No. Name Register Signature Membership No. Suresh Philip PW-25 (Mary Philip) identified Serial No. 434 (Ex.
2 (through wife her husband's signatures in the
PW25/A)
PW-25) register.
Identified his particulars and
Dr. Rana
confirmed they were in his own Serial No. 247 (Ex.
4 Mukhopadhy
handwriting, filled in the PW-4/A, D-26)
ay
society's office.
Identified his particulars and
Sandeep Serial No. 485 (Ex.
5 signatures in the membership
Pahuja PW5/B, D-26)
register.
Identified his particulars and Serial No. 215,
6 Jaswant Rai signatures in the membership Membership No. 459
register. (Ex. PW6/A, D-26)
Ashok Identified his particulars in the Serial No. 399
7
Chopra membership register. (Ex.PW4/A)
Identified his particulars and
Ram Niwas Serial No. 436
8 signatures in the membership
Bagaria (Ex.PW4/A)
register.
Identified his particulars in the Serial No. 435
9 Rajiv Bagaria
membership register. (Ex.PW4/A, D-26)
Identified his particulars and
S.L. Serial No. 426 (Ex.
10 signature in the membership
Sachdeva PW4/A)
register.
Identified her particulars and
Smt. Geeta Serial No. 384
11 signatures in the membership
Shangle (Ex.PW11/A, D-26)
register.
Identified her particulars and
Ms. Navjyoti Serial No. 419 (Ex.
12 signature in the membership
Ahluwalia PW12/A, D-26)
register.
Identified his particulars and
Bhushan Serial No. 130 (Ex.
13 signature in the membership
Khanna PW13/A, D-26)
register.
Identified her particulars and
Smt. Shashi Serial No. 54 (Ex.
14 signature in the membership
Gupta PW14/A, D-26)
register.
Sh. Bhupesh Identified his particulars and Serial No. 198 (Ex.
15
Aneja signature in the membership PW15/A, D-26)
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 71 of 105
Admission/Statement Serial No. in Register
PW Witness
Regarding Membership (Exhibit) &
No. Name
Register Signature Membership No.
register.
Sh. Ashok Identified his particulars and
Serial No. 91 (Ex.
17 Kumar signature in the membership
PW17/A)
Bhardwaj register.
Rajinder Identified his particulars in the Serial No. 71
18
Krishan Gaur membership register. (Ex.PW18/A)
Smt. Ram Identified her signature in the Serial No. 40 (Ex.
19
Rati membership register. PW19/C)
Serial No. 449 (Ex.
Shailender Identified his signatures in the 26 PW26/A, D-26) for Singh Gahlot membership register.
Flat A-82 Identified his particulars and Bharat signature in the membership Serial No. 55 (Ex.
29 Bhushan
register, which he signed on his PW29/A)
Kohli
father's instructions.
Identified her particulars in the
Smt. membership register, but denied
Serial No. 8 (Ex.
33 Kulvinder the signature was hers.
PW33/A)
Kaur (Included for context of
identification vs. denial)
Identified her particulars in the
Smt. Asha membership register, signed by Serial No. 37 (Ex.
34
Devi her husband (Hori Lal) on her PW34/E)
behalf.
Identified his particulars and
Vijay Kumar Serial No. 100 (Ex.
36 signature in the membership
Bhardwaj PW36/A)
register.
Ashwani
Identified his signature in the Serial No. 94 (Ex.
37 Kumar
membership register. PW37/A)
Bhardwaj
1. Father (Swaran
Singh): Serial No. 76
Identified his mother's (Smt.
(Ex. PW38/B) -
Amritpal Nirmal Kaur) particulars and
38 Denied Sig.
Singh signature. Denied his father's
2. Mother (Nirmal
signature (in Hindi).
Kaur): Serial No. 99
(Ex. PW38/D)
39 Ajay Kumar Identified his particulars and
Serial No. 7 (Ex.
Kohli signature in the membership
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 72 of 105
Admission/Statement Serial No. in Register
PW Witness
Regarding Membership (Exhibit) &
No. Name
Register Signature Membership No.
register. PW39/A)
Identified his particulars /
Serial No. 104
41 Anand Singh signature in the membership
(Ex.PW41/A)
register.
Serial No. 180
Identified his particulars/
Shyam (Ex.PW42/A, D-27) -
42 signature in the membership
Sunder Member since
register.
05.11.1986
Identified his particulars /
Kunwar A.K. Serial No. 646
43 signature in the membership
Singh (Ex.PW43/A)
register.
Identified his particulars in the Serial No. 69 (Ex.
45 Amarnath
membership register. PW45/A)
Identified his particulars and
Serial No. 34
46 Nand Lal signatures in the membership
(Ex.PW46/A)
register.
Identified his particulars and his
Serial No. 230 (Ex.
47 Beant Singh wife's particulars in the
PW47/A)
membership register.
1. Self: Serial No. 6
Identified his particulars and (Ex. PW48/A)
48 Nisar Mohd. signatures. Also identified his 2. Father (Shah father's particulars. Mohd): Serial No. 52 (Ex.PW48/B) Identified his particulars and his Serial No. 450 50 Nipun Bansal wife's (Navita Bansal) in the (Ex.PW50/A) membership register.
Admitted becoming a member 52 Hori Lal and signing the register.
106. The perusal of above mentioned tabulated version of the depositions of the witnesses shows that all the above shown witnesses except PW33 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur admitted their signatures in the membership register. The said witness also deposed that she had never done anything in relation to her CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 73 of 105 membership and all the documentations and ground work was done by her father. Therefore, her testimony also reveals the possibility of her father signing on her behalf. PW38 Amritpal Singh had admitted his mother signature in the membership register, but he denied his father's signature. Both the original members had died and the witness was identifying their signatures. The said deposition by itself is not sufficient to reach to a conclusion that the signatures of his father were infact forged. It is yet again necessary to mention that the questioned signatures on the record of membership of the Society were not sent for comparison to CFSL etc., nor the specimen /admitted signatures of the persons whose signatures were allegedly forged were taken during investigation. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to reach to a conclusion that the record of membership was fake or forged.
Forgery of Letters of Resignations of the Members:-
107. This set of allegation qua forgery is to the effect that accused persons i.e. specifically accused Suresh Kumar had forged different sets of documents which were used by accused Gopal Singh Bisht in his verification report dated 16.02.2004.
108. It is apparent that the allegation of forgery is the central theme of the case of prosecution. IO of the case had taken specimen signatures and sample handwriting of the persons whose signatures/handwriting were allegedly forged only with respect to these set of documents. IO had also taken specimen signatures/ specimen handwriting of accused Suresh Kumar and he forwarded the aforementioned set of signatures / handwritings as well as the questioned documents for comparison to CFSL.
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 74 of 105
109. PW53 Sh. Bhakti Pad Mishra, Dy. Govt. Examiner, CFSL was the expert who had examined the above-mentioned documents and he had prepared the report (Ex. PW53/B) regarding the afore stated comparison of signatures and handwriting. In his deposition PW-53 stated that he had examined specimen signatures and questioned documents and had prepared his above stated report Ex. PW53/B. However, in his cross-examination the witness admitted that he had not mentioned the basis / reasons for the conclusions arrived at by him in the aforesaid report and he had not submitted any reasoning for giving the conclusions in report Ex.PW53/B.
110. After the completion of deposition of PW53, the prosecution filed an application for bringing on record the reasons of the expert for arriving at the conclusions as stated in his report Ex. PW53/B and thus PW-53 was re-examined.
111. In the course of his re-examination, PW-53 Sh. Bhakti Pad Mishra deposed that he had prepared the reasons for opinion i.e. given in report Ex. PW53/S after receiving the summons for deposing in the court. He admitted that he had received the summons after he had retired from the government service i.e. as handwriting expert of CFSL. The aforesaid deposition of PW-53 reveals that the reasons (i.e. Ex. PW53/S) for arriving at the conclusions given in his report (Ex.PW53/B) were prepared after he had retired from service.
112. It is pertinent to mention that perusal of testimony of PW-53 Sh. Bhakti Pad Mishra shows that originally he had received the documents for the purpose of comparison on 14.05.2007 and he had submitted his original report Ex. PW53/B CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 75 of 105 on 26.11.2007, but the reasons thereof (Ex.PW53/S) were produced in the court on 12.12.2023 i.e. after a gap of 16 years from the date of his earlier report. Thus, the said report / reasons i.e. Ex. PW53/S was not contemporaneous to the preparation of earlier opinion / report Ex. PW53/B vide which his conclusions qua comparison of handwriting / signatures were given.
113. In such circumstances, it becomes all the more important for the court to analyze the validity of report Ex.PW53/S. Perusal of aforesaid report (Ex.PW53/S) shows that it does not bear date of preparation nor it has been forwarded by any official of CFSL.
114. It is obvious that a retired employee would not have had access to the original file by himself and he ought to have been authorized by the superintending official of CFSL for the purpose of inspection/examination of the record or for making copies of the said record. However, no such authorization was annexed alongwith report containing reasons for opinion i.e. Ex. PW53/S. Moreover, in his cross-examination, PW-53 Sh. Bhakti Pad Mishra further stated that he did not remember whether he had given the said report containing reasons (Ex.PW53/S) directly to HIO or the same was given to CFSL office.
115. PW53 in his re-examination deposed that he had examined the rough typed notes / photographs/ other documents which were prepared while examining the questioned documents and the specimen samples and the same were available in the official file in the office of CFSL. However, none of the said documents or the copies thereof were annexed with the report Ex.PW53/S. The prosecution did not bring any document on CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 76 of 105 record to show that PW53 had visited the office of CFSL for preparing the report Ex.PW53/S or there was any official file which contained the rough typed notes / photographs/ other documents.
116. The aforesaid facts when seen in totality create serious doubt qua the truthfulness and authenticity of the report Ex. PW53/S containing reasons for arriving at conclusions given in report Ex. PW53/B. There is a possibility that the said reasons may have been prepared subsequently to justify the original report and the original report may not have been based on the actual findings as stated in Ex.PW53/S.
117. The law with respect to evaluation of evidence of expert / handwriting expert is well settled. The importance of the provision has been explained in the case of State of H.P. v. Jai Lal and Ors. ,[(1999) 7 SCC 280]. It was held that, " Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down, that, when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting, or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.
14) It is not the province of the expert to act as Judge or Jury. It is stated in Titli v. Jones (AIR 1934 All 237) that the real function of the expert is to put before the court all the materials, together with reasons which induce him to come to the CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 77 of 105 conclusion, so that the court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials.
15) An expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.
......17) In the Article "Relevancy of Expert's Opinion" it has been opined that the value of expert opinion rest on the facts on which it is based and his competency for forming a reliable opinion. The evidentiary value of the opinion of expert depends on the facts upon which it is based and also the validity of the process by which the conclusion is reached. Thus the idea that is proposed in its crux means that the importance of an opinion is decided on the basis of the credibility of the expert and the relevant facts supporting the opinion so that its accuracy can be cross checked. Therefore, the emphasis has been on the data on basis of which opinion is formed. The same is clear from following inference: "Mere assertion without mentioning the data or basis is not evidence, even if it comes form expert. Where the experts give no real data in support of their opinion, the evidence even though admissible, may be excluded from consideration as affording no assistance in arriving at the correct value."
118. Thus, in view of the above stated settled proposition of law, in absence of believable and contemporaneous reasoning to support the conclusions given in report Ex. PW53/B, the entire report becomes highly doubtful and since it is shrouded with grave suspicion, therefore, in absence of reasons or material to support CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 78 of 105 the conclusions given in it, the same cannot be relied upon to return the finding of commission of forgery or qua the guilt of an individual on its basis.
119. Besides the above-mentioned documentary evidence, the prosecution also examined several witnesses to establish forgery of their signatures /handwritings in the documents annexed with report of Sh. G.S. Bisht. In order to establish the said allegations, prosecution examined PW's Sh. Ram Niwas Bagaria; Sh. Rajiv Bagaria; Sh. V.B.V. Pani Sekhar Gupta; Sh. Sikander Lal Sachdeva; Ms. Navjyoti Ahluwalia; Smt. Shashi Gupta; Ms.Nidhi Kansal; Smt. Neera Tulsian; Bhushan Khanna; Sh. Bhupesh Aneja; Smt. Geeta Shangle; and Sh. Sunil Uppal.
120. It was alleged that signatures of all the above- mentioned witnesses on the documents submitted alongwith report of accused Gopal Singh Bisht were forged, however, out of the above referred witnesses, PW-8 Sh. Ram Niwas Bagaria, PW-9 Sh. Rajiv Bagaria, PW-11 Smt. Geeta Shangle, PW-12 Ms. Navjyoti Ahluwalia, PW-13 Bhushan Khanna, PW-14 Smt. Shashi Gupta and PW-15 Sh. Bhupesh Aneja deposed that their signatures which were alleged by prosecution to have been forged were infact their own signatures. Thus, these witnesses categorically denied that their signatures were forged.
121. As far as the remaining abovementioned witnesses are concerned, the prosecution could not examine Smt. Neera Tulsian and Sunil Uppal as one of them was not traceable and other had expired. The remaining witnesses i.e. PW-61 Ms.Nidhi Kansal did not support the case of prosecution in totality and she turned CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 79 of 105 hostile and thereby denied the entire case of prosecution and also denied having given specimen signatures. Whereas, PW-6 Jaswant Rai admitted his signatures on remaining documents i.e. affidavit etc., but with regard to letter in question, he did not specifically deny the said signatures but stated that it did not appear to be his signatures. Similarly, in his cross-examination PW-31 Sh. V. B. V. Pani Sekhar Gupta denied that he had given his specimen signatures during investigation. He was confronted with his alleged specimen signatures which were stated to have been sent for comparison to CFSL, but he denied that the said signatures were given by him.
122. Thus, the perusal of aforementioned evidence shows that the expert opinion of PW-53 given by way of report Ex. PW53/B and the oral evidence of the witnesses as referred above are rather contradictory to each other.
123. The prosecution had also examined other set of witnesses vis-a-vis the allegations of forgery of signatures in the resignation letters. In this regard, PW-32 Anand Aggarwal, PW-37 Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj, PW-19 Smt. Ram Rati, PW-34 Smt. Asha Devi, PW-18 Rajinder Krishan Gaur, PW-36 Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj and PW-17 Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj infact deposed that they had resigned from their respective memberships of the Society and they also admitted that they had received their full dues upon tendering of their resignations from the Society.
124. It is also worthwhile to note that amongst the above- mentioned witnesses, PW-17 Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj, PW-36 Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj and PW-37 Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj were the sons of accused J. C. Bharadwaj (qua whom proceedings CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 80 of 105 were abated). Therefore, these witnesses had a reason to depose against the remaining accused even though they admitted that they had resigned from the membership of Society after obtaining their lawful dues. The very fact that all the above-mentioned witnesses unanimously deposed that they had not just resigned from the membership of the Society, but had also received the lawful dues leaves no reason for any of the accused to have forged their signatures on letters of resignations etc. The said aspect also rules out the possibility of fudging of the record of proceedings conducted by Managing Committee of the Society.
125. Therefore, it has to be concluded that in absence of reliable report of handwriting expert and the oral depositions of above stated prosecution witnesses, it has to be concluded that prosecution has failed to prove the allegations of forgery in the documents annexed alongwith report of accused G.S. Bisht.
126. Finally, it has to be concluded that prosecution has failed to prove any of the allegations relating to forgery of record of minutes of meetings and memberships of the Society. It has also failed to prove that resignation letters of the members of the Society were forged and the documents annexed with report of accused G.S. Bisht were also forged and fabricated. Since, the prosecution has failed to establish forgery of the documents beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, consequently it has also failed to prove that the said fake documents were used as genuine documents.
Allegations of Payment of Premium by the Subsequently Inducted Members to the Accused Persons for Becoming Members of the Society : -
127. The second limb of the case of prosecution is based CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 81 of 105 on the premise that accused Amarjeet Chhabra, Satpal Grover and Pradeep Kansal had obtained premium from certain members of Society through property dealers i.e. accused Amit Saxena, M. K. Singh, Sandeep Saini and Ajay Arora and all of them were assisted by accused Suresh in this exercise.
128. In order to establish the aforementioned allegations, prosecution examined witnesses namely PW-2 Suresh Philip, PW-4 Dr. Rana Mukhopadhyay, PW-20 Chander Prakash Pahuja, PW-25 Ms. Mary Suresh Philip, PW-26 Shailinder Singh Gahlot, PW-31 V. B. V. Pani Sekhar, PW-43, Kunwar A. K. Singh and PW-50 Nipun Bansal. The gist of the purpose and object of examining these witnesses and their actual depositions are shown below:-
(a) PW-2 Suresh Philip -
Purpose and Object : To prove the fact that he met accused M. K. Singh and Amit Saxena and paid Rs. 75,000/- for paying premium to President and Vice President of Society. He insisted on meeting a person from management of Society and was told that Amit Saxena had relations with Pradeep Kansal and accordingly meeting was arranged with Pradeep Kansal at his Chandni Chowk Shop. Further accused Pradeep Kansal told that accused Amarjeet Chhabra and Satpal Grover were his friends.
Deposition of the Witness in the Court: He did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. He deposed that he met accused M. K. Singh and paid premium to him only as brokerage and in his cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI he denied the remaining averments.
(b) PW-4 Dr. Rana Mukhopadhyay -
CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 82 of 105 Purpose and Object : To prove the fact that he met accused M. K. singh and Amit Saxena and gave cheques of Rs. 63,000/- to Society. Cheque of Rs. 50,000/- as self and cheque of Rs. 60,000/- were given in the name of accused M. K. Singh and cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- was also given to accused M. K. Singh.
Deposition of the Witness in the Court: He did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. In his cross- examination by ld. Prosecutor, the witness denied having met accused Amarjeet Chhabra and Satpal Grover. He denied the fact that accused Satpal Grover told him to pay premium for membership or he told him to meet M/s Realtors. He also denied having visited Chandni Chowk and the fact that he had met accused Pradeep Kansal who asked him to pay premium to accused Amarjeet Chhabra and Satpal Grover. The witness also stated that property dealers had only asked him to pay money for their service and they had never asked for any premium. He deposed that he had paid Rs. 1.63 lakhs to Society and Rs. 1.40 lakhs to property dealers as brokerage. He further stated that the property dealers had shown 5-6 properties to him and he did not pay any amount to accused Amit Saxena.
(c) PW-20 Chander Prakash Pahuja -
Purpose and Object : To prove the fact that he had met accused Ajay Arora and membership was offered to him on payment of premium of Rs. 3 lakhs and finally the premium was settled at Rs. 2.5 lakhs. Accused Ajay Arora took money from him and introduced him to accused Amit Saxena and Pradeep Kansal. He was told that Pradeep Kansal will manage his membership CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 83 of 105 upon payment of premium to accused Amarjeet Chhabra and Satpal Grover. The witness had met accused Pradeep Kansal at his shop and he also met accused Suresh.
Deposition of the Witness in the Court: He did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. In his cross- examination by the ld. Public Prosecutor, he denied payment of premium or having met accused Amit Saxena, Pradeep Kansal, Amarjeet Chhabra and Satpal Grover respectively. He also denied the remaining averments as mentioned above.
(d) PW-25 Ms. Mary Suresh Philip -
Purpose and Object : To prove the fact that she had issued cheque of Rs. 75,000/- i.e. Ex. PW2/A to accused M. K. Singh for becoming member of the Society and she had gone to the office of Society.
Deposition of the Witness in the Court: In her cross- examination, she deposed that she was not present when the cheque of Rs. 75,000/- was given to accused M. K. Singh by her husband. She could not affirm or deny that said cheque was given to M. K. Singh for rendering services as property dealer in respect of Society in question and he had shown other properties to herself and her husband. Neither she nor her husband had any complaint against M. K. Singh & the total consideration of Rs. 19/20 lakhs was given to Society for getting the membership and flat.
(e) PW-26 Shailinder Singh Gahlot -
Purpose and Object : To prove the fact that he had taken the membership of Society through broker i.e. accused Amit Saxena by paying Rs. 50,000/- as commission for arranging CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 84 of 105 membership in Society. The said accused had assured him that he will arrange his membership in Society.
Deposition of the Witness in the Court: He did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. He denied having taken membership of the Society through accused Amit Saxena or having paid commission to him. He also denied that Amit Saxena had assured him that he will arrange his membership in the Society.
(f) PW-31 V. B. V. Pani Sekhar -
Purpose and Object : To prove the fact that he had paid premium amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to accused Ajay Arora of M/s Arora Realtors who had contact with President of Managing Committee of the Society through accused Pradeep Kansal and he was told that part of the premium amount will be paid to President and Vice President of the Managing Committee and thereby they will manage to arrange his membership.
Deposition of the Witness in the Court: He did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile and he denied having met any member of the Society. He stated that none of the members had demanded any money from him regarding allotment of flat in the Society. He did not remember if he had paid premium of Rs. 2 lakhs to accused Ajay Arora.
(g) PW-43 Sh. Kunwar A.K. Singh -
Purpose and Object : To prove the fact that a construction engineer at the site of Society told him to meet accused Sandeep Saini i.e. property dealer and thereafter he met the said accused who offered to manage the membership of CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 85 of 105 Society through another property dealer namely Amit Saxena who was known to Pradeep Kansal upon payment of premium of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. After negotiations he had paid Rs. 1 lakh in cash and cheque of Rs.2 lakh and 1,000/- to accused Sandeep Saini and Amit Saxena.
Deposition of the Witness in the Court: He did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile and deposed that he was introduced to office bearer of Society by construction engineer and supervisor of the Society and he had given cheque of Rs.2,01,000/- in favour of Society. He denied having been asked to meet Sandeep Saini or the fact that said accused told him that he will manage his membership through Amit Saxena upon payment of premium. He also denied having paid premium. He failed to identify accused Sandeep Saini, Amit Saxena and Amarjeet Chhabra in the court.
(h) PW-50, Sh. Nipun Bansal -
Purpose and Object : To prove the fact that he got a reference of accused Amit Saxena and met him in September, 2002. Amit Saxena told him that he will manage membership on payment of premium of Rs. 1.5 lakhs which shall be paid to the President and Vice President through accused Pradeep Kansal. After negotiations he paid Rs. 1.21 lakhs and met Pradeep Kansal through Amit Saxena at his Chandni Chowk shop and Pradeep Kansal told him that he will arrange membership through accused Amarjeet Chhabra and Satpal Grover. Pradeep Kansal also told him to hand over the cheques in favour of Society and application form to accused Amit Saxena. Amit Saxena had issued receipt of Rs. 1.21 lakhs to him and receipt of the handing over of application CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 86 of 105 form dated 20.09.2002 was issued by Amit Saxena.
Deposition of the Witness in the Court: He did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. He denied all the above-stated averments and failed to identify accused Amit Saxena and also failed to identify signatures of Amit Saxena on receipt Ex. PW50/C. He stated that he made payment by cheque of Rs.2,63,810/- vide two cheques to the Society and some official present there had acknowledged it, but he also stated that the person who was present at site and had acknowledged the payment of receipt etc was not present in the court.
129. The perusal of above-mentioned depositions of the witnesses shows that none of them had deposed to the extent that they had paid premium either to accused Amarjeet Chhabra or Satpal Grover or Pradeep Kansal or to the property dealers i.e. accused Amit Saxena, M. K. Singh, Sandeep Saini and Ajay Arora for obtaining membership of the Society.
130. The deposition of PW-2 Suresh Philip shows that he had paid certain amount of money to the property dealer as brokerage and the said property dealer had also shown several other properties to him prior to him becoming member of the Society. None of the abovestated witnesses deposed that they had met accused Amarjeet Chhabra (i.e. President of the Society) or Satpal Grover (i.e. Vice President of the Society) or accused Pradeep Kansal (i.e. father of treasurer of the Society) for the purpose of obtaining membership of the Society.
131. The above stated witnesses also denied the suggestions of ld. PP for CBI that the above mentioned accused had either directly or indirectly demanded premium from them for CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 87 of 105 making them the members of the Society. Therefore, in such circumstances the above-stated evidence shows that none of the witnesses had ever come in direct contact with accused Amarjeet Chhabra, Satpal Grover or Pradeep Kansal.
132. In order to establish that higher amount of brokerage was only meant to be paid as premium to above-stated accused persons, the prosecution had to establish a clear and uninterrupted chain of evidence categorically showing that either the entire amount of premium or a part of it was transferred from the property dealers (i.e. accused Amit Saxena, M. K. Singh, Sandeep Saini and Ajay Arora) to accused Amarjeet Chhabra, Satpal Grover and Pradeep Kansal or to either of them. However, in the course of investigation not even iota of evidence was collected to establish the said factum. In absence of such evidence, inference cannot be raised that mere payments of higher amount of brokerage were actually meant to be the payments of premium for obtaining membership of the Society.
133. Therefore, it has to be said that prosecution has failed to prove that accused Amarjeet Chhabra, Satpal Grover and Pradeep Kansal had either conspired with each other or with the property dealers i.e. accused Amit Saxena, Pradeep Kansal, Sandeep Saini and and M. K. Singh for obtaining premium for granting memberships to the above-mentioned witnesses or to any other person. Hence, from all the perspectives, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Amarjeet Chhabra and Satpal Grover (being President and Vice President of Society) and accused Pradeep Kansal (being father of treasurer of Society) had either directly or indirectly obtained premium from any of the CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 88 of 105 members of the Society.
Role of Public Servants:
134. Accused Gopal Singh Bisht and Rajiv Navani are facing charge for having committed offences u/s 13(1) (d) r/w sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 respectively on the allegations that they had abused their official position as public servants and thereby had obtained pecuniary advantage to the private persons without any public interest by putting up favourable notings for getting the freeze list of 135 members of the Society approved on the basis of false and forged documents submitted by the Society. In addition, accused Gopal Singh Bisht is also alleged to have put up false verification note for getting the above stated freeze list approved. Both of them have also been charged with having committed criminal conspiracy with the remaining accused in the entire process.
135. Before proceeding further, it will be worthwhile to reiterate the relevant provisions of Sec. 13(1) (d) & Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. They are as follows:-
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. ; (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,
-
(a)-(c)....
(d) if, he, -
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuation thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 89 of 105 person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
(e) .........
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extent to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
136. Thus, in nutshell the allegations vis-a-vis both the public servants are to the effect that :
(i) Accused Gopal Singh Bisht and Rajiv Navani had put up a wrong noting for approval of condonation of lapses of the Society on the basis of false and fabricated documents submitted by the Society;
(ii) The aforementioned favorable notes were put up so as to obtain pecuniary advantage to the persons without public interest;
(iii) Accused Gopal Singh Bisht had prepared a false report for getting the freeze list approved; &
(iv) The competent authority had not approved the list of freeze strength of members and still accused Rajiv Navani being a public servant had put up a note for sending letter to DDA for commencement of the process of draw of lots.
137. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that during the course of arguments another aspect was highlighted with respect to role of the above-stated public servants by alleging that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was not competent to grant approval for condonation of lapses committed by the Managing Committee of the Society. Neither such allegation was leveled in CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 90 of 105 the charge-sheet nor charge was framed with respect to it against any of the above-stated accused. However, still the afore- mentioned argument is baseless vis-a-vis imputation of criminality qua accused Gopal Singh Bisht or Rajiv Navani.
138. The basis of the afore-mentioned argument appears to stem from depositions of PW-44 Sh. Jayadev Sarangi and PW-49 Sh. G.S. Meena. The latter said witness was not in anyway connected with the processing of file in question, but he was examined so as to depose above the procedures followed in the office of RCS.
139. Both PW-44 Sh. Jayadev Sarangi and PW-49 Sh. G.S. Meena deposed that the RCS was not competent to grant approval qua the lapses committed by the management of the Society regarding the enhancement of freeze strength of its members.
140. It has to be kept in mind that any irregularity in the discharge of official duty cannot by itself constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The existence of dishonest intention to commit the offence is sine-qua-non for attracting the relevant provisions of PC Act. In this regard, in C.K. Jaffar Sharief vs. State (CBI), (2013) 1 SCC 205, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that, " If in the process, the rules or norms applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an extravagant display of redundancy it is the conduct and action of the appellant which may have been improper or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the same was actuated by dishonest intention to obtain an undue pecuniary advantage will not be correct. That dishonest intention is the gist of the offence CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 91 of 105 under Section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as a public servant."
141. Admittedly, the final approval was granted by the competent authority i.e. the then RCS. In the chargesheet, there is no mention that any illegality or wrongdoing was committed by the competent authority i.e. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In this regard in his cross examination, IO of the case i.e. PW-62 Manoj Pangarkar stated that he did not find any involvement of Sh. Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS nor any illegality was committed in the preparation of noting Ex.PW40/K. The IO further deposed that mandate of Rules of Delhi Co- operative Societies Act was not violated in any manner. Therefore, as per the deposition of IO no illegality was found to have been committed in the grant of approval by the RCS.
142. It is required to be noted that PW-44 Jayadev Sarangi was himself a part of the process relating to approval granted by the then RCS qua lapses on the part of Managing Committee of the Society and admittedly he did not record his dissent in any of the notings to the effect that RCS did not have the authority to do it. The prosecution had also examined PW40 Ms. Sunanda Malik who was also one of the dealing officials with respect to preparation of a noting in the same file and she too had put up a similar note seeking condonation of the same lapses.
143. Therefore, in such circumstances when no illegality was found to have been committed by the competent authority who accorded approval, the Joint Registrar who had forwarded all the notings as well as one of the dealing clerks and all the other concerned officials, in such eventuality, no illegality can be CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 92 of 105 imputed to the dealing clerks who had no role in the entire process except for putting up the notings for approval of the senior officers /competent authority.
144. Now, I shall proceed to deal separately with each of the allegations vis-a-vis public servants as have been highlighted above:
(A) Putting up of False Notings on the Basis of False Documents:-
145. It has been alleged that accused Rajiv Navani and Gopal Singh Bisht had put up the notings on the basis of false and fabricated documents. In the earlier paragraphs, it has already been held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the documents which were submitted by the Managing Committee of the Society were false and fabricated documents. Thus, the question of notings being false does not arise.
146. It is also pertinent to note that the prosecution has failed to point out any provision /rule which mandates that the dealing officials/clerks are required to verify the authenticity of the documents which are submitted by the Managing Committees of the Societies.
147. The most important witness qua this allegation was the IO of the case himself. The IO (i.e. PW-62 Manoj Pangarkar) in his cross examination dated 23.01.2024 stated that he did not remember if dealing assistants had the power or authority to question the genuineness of documents or the elections of Societies or facts such as enrollments/resignations and expulsions of its members or to inspect the record managed by the Managing Committees of Societies. He also did not investigate as to what CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 93 of 105 official work and what powers were assigned to the dealing assistant in the present case during the relevant period. Importantly, he also deposed that he did not find any complaint from any person with respect to allegations of forgery of documents etc. having been given in the office of RCS. He further stated that he did not observe any material which could show that the officials of RCS knew that the documents submitted to them were forged or fake members list had been placed on record by the Managing Committee of the Society in question.
148. Thus, in such eventuality, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that both or either of the accused had prepared notings on the basis of false and fabricated documents.
(B) Exercise of Official Duties for Obtaining Pecuniary Advantage to Private Persons:
149. It has already been discussed above that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the members of the Managing Committee of the Society had obtained pecuniary advantage in the entire process. Moreover, the IO i.e. PW62 Manoj Pangarkar in his deposition also stated that there was no evidence that the members of the Managing Committee had sent the documents directly to any of the public servants who are accused in this case nor any incriminating material was recovered or seized from or at the instance of accused Rajiv Navani.
150. In the above-mentioned context, it will be relevant to quote that in K.R. Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "To attract the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, public servant should obtain for himself or for any other CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 94 of 105 person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant. Therefore, for convicting a person under the provisions of Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, there must be evidence on record that the accused has obtained for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant obtained for himself, or for any person, or obtain for any person, any valuable thing, or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. What we find in the present case is that there is no evidence on record to prove these facts that the accused-appellant had obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. We may clarify that the charge of conspiracy being not proved under Section 120B I.P.C., the accused appellant could not be held responsible for the act done by A-3. The prosecution has failed to prove that he has obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage."
151. Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned evidence and settled proposition of law, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Rajiv Navani and Gopal Singh Bisht had secured pecuniary advantage for any private person.
(C) Preparation of False Report by Accused Gopal Singh Bisht:
152. As per case of prosecution, noting Ex.PW40/E was put up for deputing area inspector for random physical verification of enrollment and resignation of cases and accordingly accused CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 95 of 105 G.S. Bisht was nominated to conduct random survey.
153. It is necessary to note that no mode, manner or method of conducting such survey/random physical inspection was prescribed. PW62 Manoj Pangarkar i.e. IO of the case in his cross examination stated that he had not come across any such rule nor any specific direction was given to accused G.S. Bisht with regard to method of conducting such inspection.
154. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, accused G.S. Bisht submitted the report Ex.PW44/E alongwith annexures and covering letter. The annexures of the aforesaid verification report were sent for comparison of signatures and handwriting. As discussed earlier, it has already been held earlier that the report of handwriting expert i.e. Ex.PW53/B is shrouded with suspicion and the prosecution has failed to prove forgery of the annexed documents.
155. The prosecution had also examined the witnesses qua the fact that they had not met any official of RCS qua any enquiry relating to the Society. The details of the depositions of the above-mentioned fifteen prosecution witnesses is given below in tabular form:-
Statement Regarding Document Nature of PW Witness Handing Over Handed Over Document No. Name Letter/Report to RCS (Exhibit) & & Context Official Date Deposed that an official from Letter/report RCS took some papers from Letter/Report regarding his Ashok 7 him regarding membership, (Ex. PW7/A, membership Chopra and he gave a letter/report to D-5) in the the official. society. Stated that someone from Letter/Report Letter 8 Ram RCS visited him prior to (Ex. PW8/A, confirming Niwas allotment to confirm D5) his CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 96 of 105 Statement Regarding Document Nature of PW Witness Handing Over Handed Over Document No. Name Letter/Report to RCS (Exhibit) & & Context Official Date membership, and he had Bagaria given him one letter written membership. and signed by him. Stated that he handed over a Letter/Report Letter/report Rajiv 9 letter/report to one official of (Ex. PW9/A, regarding his Bagaria RCS who visited his office. D-5) membership. Letter/report confirming Stated that he handed over a S.L. Letter/Report membership 10 letter / report to one official Sachdeva (Ex. PW10/A) and of RCS who visited his office. remittance of amounts. Letter stating Identified her letter / report Smt. Letter/Report she was a (Ex.PW11/B) as per which 11 Geeta (Ex. PW11/B, member and she was a member and had Shangle D-5) had paid remitted amounts. dues. Letter stating Ms. Identified her letter / report Letter/Report she was a 12 Navjyoti (Ex. PW12/B) which bears (Ex. PW12/B, member and Ahluwalia her particulars. D-5) had paid dues. Letter stating Letter/Report he was a Bhushan Identified his letter / report 13 (Ex. PW13/B, member and Khanna (Ex. PW13/B). D-5) had paid dues. Smt. Letter/Report Letter Identified her signature on 14 Shashi (Ex. PW14/B, regarding her letter / report (Ex. PW14/B). Gupta D-5) membership. Letter Identified his letter / report Sh. Letter/Report confirming (Ex. PW15/B) as per which 15 Bhupesh (Ex. PW15/B, membership he was a member and had Aneja D-5) and remitted amounts. payments. Denied having given the He Sh. Ashok letter/report (Ex.PW17/B) Letter/Report specifically 17 Kumar and stated his signature on it (Ex.PW17/B, refuted Bhardwaj was forged. He stated no RCS D-5) giving any official came to him. such CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 97 of 105 Statement Regarding Document Nature of PW Witness Handing Over Handed Over Document No. Name Letter/Report to RCS (Exhibit) & & Context Official Date document. Denied that any RCS official Denied Rajinder visited him. Stated that Letter/Report submitting 18 Krishan somebody had forged his (Ex. PW18/C) any such Gaur signature on the report/letter report/letter. (Ex. PW18/C). Stated she Denied meeting accused G.S. never gave Smt. Ram Bisht or any RCS official for 19 - any report to Rati the purpose of preparing a any RCS report. official. Denied giving any report Denied Anand regarding his resignation to Letter (Mark giving any 32 Agarwal any RCS official, including PX-1) report/letter G.S. Bisht. to RCS. Denied meeting accused G.S. Denied Vijay Document Bisht or showing any giving any 36 Kumar (Mark resignation letter or document document to Bhardwaj PW36/PX, D-5) to him. RCS. Denied Ashwani Denied meeting accused G.S. Document giving any 37 Kumar Bisht or showing any (Mark document to Bhardwaj document to him. PW37/PX, D-5) RCS.
156. The perusal of above shown table shows that nine of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-7 Ashok Kumar, PW-8 Ramniwas, PW-9 Rajiv Bagaria and PW-10 S.L. Sachdeva stated that they had handed over the letters to an official of RCS.
157. The prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-11 Smt. Geeta Shangle, PW-12 Ms. Jyoti Ahaluwalia, PW-13 Bhushan Khanna, PW-14 Shashi Gupta and PW15 Bhupesh Aneja deposed that their letters which were annexed alongwith report of Sh. G.S. Bisht them were in fact written and signed by them. None of the said witnesses were asked as to whether they had handed over the CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 98 of 105 documents to the official of RCS or not. The depositions of these witnesses imply that they had written the said letters for the purpose of verification by RCS. Thus, in totality, the statements of all the afore-stated witnesses shows that an official of RCS had conducted enquiry from them prior to carrying out of the draw of lots of the Society.
158. As far as the remaining prosecution witnesses who denied having met an official of RCS is concerned, it has already been held above that PW-17, PW-36 and PW-37 were the sons of accused J. C. Bhardwaj and they had direct role in the administration of the state of affairs of the Society prior to the year 2000 and thus they had a reason to falsely implicate the remaining accused.
159. The investigation with respect to aforesaid report was also conducted after several years of it having been submitted. Prosecution had examined PW-34 Smt. Asha Devi and she had deposed that her husband used to sign all the documents on her behalf. PW19 Ramrati in her cross examination also stated that she had forgotten certain facts due to passage of time and her memory had become weak. All these witnesses including PW19 had deposed after a long gap of about 15 years. Therefore, in absence of proof of forgery, there is a possibility that the witnesses may not have been able to recollect a certain fact i.e. relating to handing over of a document to someone after such a long period of time.
160. Thus, it has to be said that in light of the above- mentioned evidence including the oral testimonies of several prosecution witnesses which are contradictory to the case of prosecution, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has failed CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no. 99 of 105 to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused G.S. Bisht had committed any illegality. Infact it has also failed to prove that he did not conduct the survey diligently. Hence in view of law laid down in C.K. Jaffar Sharief vs. State (CBI), (2013) 1 SCC 205 (supra) it has to be concluded that prosecution has also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Gopal Singh Bisht had fabricated the verification report Ex.PW44/G which was submitted by him in the office of RCS.
(D) Letter Being Sent to DDA Without Approval of the Competent Authority:
161. The prosecution has proved the entire file maintained in the office of RCS relating to Sarve Sanjhi Co- operative Group Housing Society. The perusal of aforesaid file shows that originally the dealing officials had put up a detailed note Ex.PW44/D-colly, wherein the details of the approval relating to resignation of 102 freeze list members, documents annexed thereto, resignation of 194 cases, details of enrollment of 352 members containing expulsion of 23 members and the documents attached alongwith list of members to be cleared for draw of lots and names of members who were proposed to be detained were submitted in detail. At the end of noting, finally two proposals were made i.e.:
(A) Marked as 'X'- to condone lapses on its part; & (B) Marked as 'Y'- if agreed, names of 132 members to be cleared for draw of lots alongwith detention of three names.
162. The AR (South), RCS proposed acceptance of both the proposals, but JR (South) PW-44 Dr. Jayadev Sarangi called for elaborate explanation. Ultimately, vide noting dated CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no.100 of 105 28.04.2004, the competent authority i.e. Register Co-operative Societies accepted the proposal and made the following note:- "as proposed as 'X' above. But no such cases in future".
163. The bone of contention in this case is that as per prosecution, since the RCS had approved only proposal at point 'X', therefore, no further steps could have been taken with regard to it. However, perusal of point 'X' on the noting shows that it related to condonation of lapses and the detailed noting Ex.PW44/D also contained the details of proposal qua names of members which were proposed to be cleared for draw of lots. It is apparent that proposal at point 'Y' was consequential to the proposal at point 'X'.
164. The nature of both the above-mentioned proposals shows that without approval of proposal at point 'X' (i.e. condonation of lapses) the remaining proposal (at point 'Y') could not have been accepted. The perusal of approval and the entire file also shows that no reason whatsoever was given for withholding or rejecting the subsequent proposal i.e. shown at point 'Y'. Once the complete proposal was put up and one part thereof relating to condonation of lapses was approved, then as a natural corollary upon acceptance of condonation of lapses, the competent authority is also deemed to have given approval to the names of members to be cleared for draw of lots and for detention of three names of the respective members because in case it wished to withhold the latter said proposal it would have given some reason for withholding it or for declining it, which was not done in this case.
165. As per PW-44 Dr. Jayadev Sarangi and PW-49 Sh. G. S. Meena, the entire file containing the correspondence side and CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no.101 of 105 the noting side moved together when it was dealt with by different officials from time to time. In such a situation, the then Registrar Co-operative Societies i.e. Sh. Narayan Diwakar i.e. the authority which had accorded approval was the best person to depose about the entire subject. This witness could have clarified beyond doubt whether the subsequent proposal was not included within the scope of first proposal or whether he had actually withheld or rejected the subsequent proposal. However, he was not even cited as a witness despite the fact that the IO had examined him during investigation. Further, the IO also deposed that he did not even investigate the said aspect from Sh. Narayan Diwakar i.e. RCS.
166. It is further pertinent to mention that perusal of the entire noting file shows that there is some doubt as to whether point 'Y' was infact marked at the relevant time when proposal was approved or it was introduced subsequently.
167. PW-44 Dr. Jayadav Sarangi in his cross examination stated that he could not tell when points 'Y' and 'D' were marked and his noting referred to point 'X' only. In this respect, IO of the case in his cross-examination stated that during investigation, the then RCS Sh. Narayan Diwakar told him that on 28.04.2004 (i.e. date of approval granted by him) only point 'X' was put up before him. The IO also deposed that he did not conduct investigation as to when point 'Y' was inserted on the noting Ex.PW44/F without any counter signature on it.
168. The point 'Y' on the noting does not find reference in any of the intermediate notings i.e. between the original noting Ex.PW44/D-colly and the final approval Ex.PW40/K except in the noting dated 19.02.2004 and even in the noting dated 19.02.2004, CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no.102 of 105 the point 'X' seems to have been interpolated to be shown as 'Y'.
169. Hence, in such circumstances, it is probable that the proposal at point 'X' was only marked on the noting and the point 'Y' could have been inserted in it later on due to which there was no reference of point 'Y' in the final approval.
170. Further the perusal of noting file of RCS shows that consequent to approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the letter was sent to the Deputy Director of DDA vide noting Ex.PW40/L. The prosecution had proved the said noting in the deposition of PW-40 Ms. Sunanda Malik. The said noting shows that letter was put up for approval from AR (South) i.e. accused Man Singh and one more officer. PW40 Ms. Sunanda Malik stated that though she identified signature of Sh. Man Singh on it, but she could not identify signature of the other officer/official on it. The said noting shows that even consequent to approval granted by RCS, the letter was sent by accused Man Singh (proceedings abated) and accused Rajiv Navani had only prepared the said noting (Ex.PW40/L) which was part of his duty.
171. The prosecution has also relied upon the file of DDA with regard to Sarve Sanjhi Co-operative Society i.e. Ex.PW23/A. The perusal of said record shows that after issuance of letter by accused Man Singh, a letter dated 25.05.2004 was sent to the RCS by the office of DDA for deputing officials for attending the draw of lots of the Society. The said letter was again put up before the competent authority for approval and the AR(South) alongwith (the same unidentified officer) nominated accused Rajiv Navani to attend the draw of lots which shows that the senior officers of RCS were well aware about the issuance of said letter and yet no CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no.103 of 105 objection was raised by any of them at any point of time. These facts also point in the direction that the said letter was infact issued pursuant to the grant of approval by Sh. Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS .
172. Hence, it has to be concluded that prosecution has completely failed to prove that accused Gopal Singh Bisht and Rajiv Navani had committed the offences as alleged in the chargesheet.
Conclusion:
173. Thus, in view of the afore-mentioned discussion it has to be concluded that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all or any of the accused had committed offences of forgery or of using the forged documents as genuine or even the fact that they had committed cheating with the intention of causing wrongful loss to anyone or wrongful gain to themselves. It has also failed to prove that accused Gopal Singh Bisht and Rajiv Navani had committed the offences u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w sec. 13 (1) (2) of the PC Act. In absence of any evidence showing meeting of minds of the accused or any two of them, the prosecution has also failed to prove by way of direct or circumstantial evidence that all or any of the accused had entered into criminal conspiracy to commit offences punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC and 13 (1) (d) r/w sec. 13 (1) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
174. Thus, in view of the afore-mentioned discussion, accused Amarjeet Chhabra, Satpal Grover, Suresh Kumar, Gopal Singh Bisht, Rajiv Navani, Pradeep Kansal, Amit Saxena, Mahesh Kumar Singh, Sandeep Saini and Ajay Arora are acquitted from CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no.104 of 105 the charge of having committed offences u/s 120-B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and sec. 13 (1) (d) r/w sec. 13 (1) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused Amarjeet Chhabra and Satpal Grover are also acquitted of having committed offences u/s 420 & 471 IPC. Accused Suresh Kumar is also acquitted of having committed offences u/s 468 & 471 IPC. Accused Rajiv Navani and Gopal Singh Bisht are also acquitted of the charge of having committed offences u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w sec. 13 (1) (2) of the Digitally signed Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. by SUSHANT SUSHANT CHANGOTRA CHANGOTRA Date:
2025.12.10 16:30:58 +0530 Announced in open (SUSHANT CHANGOTRA) court on 10.12.2025 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/10.12.2025 CC No. 109/2019 CBI Vs. Amarjeet Chhabra & Ors Page no.105 of 105