Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Kalyan Singh on 8 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
CC.NO. : 04/11
Unique Case ID : 02401R0275322009
STATE VS. 1. KALYAN SINGH
S/o Sh. Shiv Charan,
R/o Village Jagat Pur,
Post Office Burari, Delhi.
2. SHYAM LAL
S/o Sh. Girdhari,
R/o 9/99, Dakshinpuri Extension,
New Delhi.
3. RAJ KUMAR BHATI
S/o Sh. Sarabjit Singh,
R/o B3/168, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi.
4. J.P. THAKUR
S/o Sh. Salek Chand,
R/o H.No.C17, Banglow Road,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
5. SAGAR SINGH TYAGI
S/o Late Sh. Musadi Singh Tyagi,
C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 1 of 73
R/o H.No. C88, Kewal Park,
Azadpur, Delhi110033.
FIR NO. : 10/2003
U/S : 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 r/w 420/468/471/120B IPC
P.S. : Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi
Date of Institution 09.06.2009
Judgment reserved on 05.12.2014
Judgment delivered on 08.12.2014
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 04.03.2003, Mr. Paldan, the then DCP, Anti Corruption Branch submitted a Report Ex.PW26/A regarding source information in connection with the corruption in allotment of phars/sites and issue of new Licenses for Commission Agents by the officials of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC), Shahdara, Delhi.
2. The contents of the said Report Ex.PW26/A are as under: "It has come to light from a source information that fresh new C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 2 of 73 licenses for commission agents in bulk were issued and allotment of phars/sites were made by the then officials namely S/sh. Kalyan Singh, Administrator, Jattan Pal Thakur, Secretary, Sagar Singh Tyagi and Raj Kumar Bhati both Mandi Supervisors, Shyam Lal and Dharamveer, both Assistant Secretaries of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Shahdara, Delhi32 during 1999 and 2001 unauthorizedly and illegally in violation of The Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1998, the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) General Rules 2000 and Instructions issued by Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board.
As per minutes of Board meeting held on 24/05/2000 (Agenda No. 3 and Resolution No. 32/2000) it was decided that space may be allotted on temporary basis (i.e. till regular structures are raised) to only such commission agents/mashakhores who were in existence before the proposal for shifting Shahdara Mandi was received from the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation i.e. on 25/02/99. 154 licencees under the commission agent category (B Category) and 40 licencees under the wholesale category (A Category) were functioning in APMC Shahdara Mandi on 25/02/1999. It was also resolved in the meeting that no fresh licence shall be granted by the Market Committees from 24/05/2000 where new markets have been developed and the existing commission C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 3 of 73 agents/traders were proposed to be shifted at new locations. By that time 265 commission agents (B Category) and 46 whole sellers (A Category) having valid licences were reported to be operating in Sabzi Mandi Shahdara. These instructions were circulated vide No.F. 9(73)/2000/DAMB/443559 dated 28/06/2000 to Administrator of all APMCs including APMC Shahdara.
In order to ensure that allotment of phars/auction sites are to be made to the genuine applicants as per the above decision/guidelines an Allotment Sub Committee comprising J.P.Thakur, Secretary (as Chairman), Shyam Lal, and Dharamveer Singh, both Assistant Secretaries, Arun Kakkar, Accountant, Raj Kumar Bhati, and Sh.Sagar Singh Tyagi, both Mandi Supervisors (all as member) was formed by Sh.Kalyan Singh, Administrator vide officer order No.F. 276/APMC/Sh./Admn/98/ 66416646 dated 04/05/2001 to scrutinize all the application forms submitted by the commission agents for allotment of auction sites/phars thoroughly.
The Joint Secretary, DAMB vide his letter No. F. 35(124)/2000/DAMB/EM/Part file/4020 dated 16/05/2001 informed the Administrator, APMC Shahdara regarding GNCT decision to relocate all the 325 'A' & 'B' category licencees at Gazipur. The allotment to the shop sites at Gazipur to the licencees were subjected to the following C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 4 of 73 conditions:
(a) That the licensee will function regularly at the site and not let out/sublet the space.
(b) Pay rent as per rate fixed by the committee/Board.
(c) Will erect only temporary sheds as per specification of the Board.
(d) The allotment of temporary sites does not confer any right for permanent allotment of shops/space in the market yard to be developed at the site eventually.
(e) If a person has 50% or more than 50% share in more than one firms, the allotment shall be made to one licensee applicant firm.
The above Allotment Sub Committee submitted its report dated 24/05/2001 objecting in 8 (eight) cases which had 50% or more than 50% shares in more than one firms. Whereas they did not knowingly point out the similar 19 cases, lists of which were earlier prepared on 07/03/2001 by some of the members of Allotment Sub Committee.
A Commission headed by Lt. Colonel Satish Bakshi was formed by GNCT of Delhi to look into the irregularities in issuance of fresh licences to commission agents by Shahdara, APMC, which found that 35 new licences were irregularly issued after 25/02/1999 mostly on the basis of false/forged documents such as forged rent receipts, falsely claiming to be tenants, forced signing of rent receipts, allotment to more than one C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 5 of 73 person on a single claim, etc. by above officials of APMC Shahdara which include licenses of Sh.Ashok Nayak, M/s Meena Traders, M/s Satya Prakash, M/s Shamim Ahmed (all on same premises No. 1024/5), Sh.Mukesh Kumar (Premises No.167), Habib Ahmed & M/s Sachin Chaudhary (both on premises NO. 1/8209), M/s Mithlesh Fruit & Vegetable Co. (Premises No. 1024/81), M/s Darshan Singh & Sons (Premises No. 168), M/s Ashok Kumar and Co. (Premises No. 31).
S/sh. Kalyan Singh, Administrator, Jattan Pal Thakur, Secretary, Sagar Singh Tyagi and Raj Kumar Bhati both Mandi Supervisors, Shyam Lal and Dharamveer, both Assistant Secretaries of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Shahdara, Delhi32 and others have obviously conspired with teach other and indulged in corrupt practices and have therefore, dishonestly abused their position as a public servant by issuing fresh/new licences to various commission agents against set norms/instructions to cause pecuniary advantage for themselves, which prima facie constitutes offence u/s 13(1) (d) of POC Act of 1988 and Section 120B, r/w 420, 468 and 471 IPC. A case may, therefore, be registered and investigation entrusted to Inspr. R.S.Khatri."
3. On the basis of the aforesaid Report Ex.PW26/A, FIR relating to the present case vide FIR No.10/2003, U/S 13 (1) (d) of C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 6 of 73 POC Act and 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC was registered at PS Anti Corruption Branch on dated 04.03.2003, copy of which is Ex.PW25/A and thereafter, investigation was entrusted to the then Inspector R.S.Khatri/IO/PW27.
4. During the course of the Investigation, on dated 22.3.2003 Sh.B.S.Maan, the then Secretary, APMC, Shahdara had handed over 35 Files of New Licenses issued after 25.2.99 to the IO which were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/A and 27 Files of Proprietorship/Partnership Licenses as mentioned in the List dated 7.3.2001 which were taken into possession by the IO vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/B. On 5.4.2003, said Sh.B.S.Maan handed over to the IO copy of the Letter No.36(124)/2000/DAMB/AM/PF/ 3521 which is Ex.PW27/3. Addl. District Magistrate District North East sent reply to IO vide his Reply dated 30.6.2003 which is Ex.PW27/4. On 18.6.2003, Rajinder Singh, the then Assistant Secretary, APMC, Shahdara had produced certain documents to the IO which were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/D. On 11.6.2003, Raj Kumar of APMC, Shahdara had produced certain documents to the IO which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW7/A. On 18.6.2003, accused Sagar Singh Tyagi and Dharamveer were arrested. Intimation C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 7 of 73 regarding arrest of accused Sagar Singh Tyagi is Ex.PW27/5 and Intimation regarding arrest of accused Dharamveer is Ex.PW27/6. Personal Search Memo of accused Dharamveer is Ex.PW27/7 and Personal Search Memo of accused Sagar Singh Tyagi is Ex.PW27/8. The IO recorded the Disclosure Statement of both the said accused and Disclosure Statement of accused Dharamveer is Ex.PW1/E and Disclosure Statement of accused Sagar Singh Tyagi is Ex.PW1/F. On 15.9.2003, Arun Kumar Kakkar, Joint Accounts Officer of APMC, Shahdara handed over certain documents to the IO which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW27/2.
5. During the course of the Investigation, the IO obtained various relevant documents from different witnesses. IO also obtained Specimen Signatures and Writings of accused persons and other witnesses on different dates and thereafter, sent the same to the FSL, Rohini along with the Questioned Documents and Admitted Signatures/Documents vide Forwarding Letter Ex.PW27/9. The Specimen Signature of PW Vimal Prasad Jain was taken by the IO on 3 sheets which are Ex.PW19/D (1 to 3). Specimen Signature and Writing of accused Dharamveer Singh were taken on 7 sheets by the IO which are Ex.PW27/10 (colly.). Specimen Signature and Handwriting of C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 8 of 73 accused Sagar Singh Tyagi were taken on 7 sheets by the IO which are Ex.PW27/11 (colly.). Specimen Signature of accused Raj Kumar Bhati were taken on 3 sheets by the IO which are Ex.PW10/12 (colly.). Specimen Signature of accused Shyam Lal were obtained by IO on 3 sheets which are Ex.PW10/13 (colly.). Specimen Signature of PW Gurdeep Kaur were obtained by the IO on 4 sheets which are Ex.PW15/A1 to A4. Specimen Signature of PW Darshan Kumar were obtained by the IO on 4 sheets which are Ex.PW27/12 (colly.). During the course of the Investigation, the IO collected the FSL Reports which are Ex.PW27/13 and Ex.PW27/14.
6. During the course of Investigation, on 17.8.2006 accused J.P.Thakur was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW4/A and his Personal Search Memo is Ex.PW4/B and his Disclosure Statement was recorded which is Ex.PW4/C. The IO obtained the Sanction for prosecution against the accused persons except accused Kalyan Singh as he ceased to be a Public Servant and therefore, no Sanction for said accused Kalyan Singh was required. IO, on recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court.
C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 9 of 73
7. During the course of pendency of the matter, the case proceedings concerning the accused Dharamveer Singh was ordered to be abated vide Ordersheet dated 8.3.2013 due to confirmation by SHO PS: AC Branch regarding death of said accused on dated 30.12.2012.
8. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B IPC and U/S 420/468 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC was framed as against remaining 5 accused persons namely Kalyan Singh, Raj Kumr Bhati, Shyam Lal, J.P.Thakur and Sagar Singh Tyagi on 08.11.2013 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 28 prosecution witnesses namely Rajinder Singh, the then Assistant Secretary, APMC, Shahdara, a formal witness as PW1, Sh.Sunil Mahajan, the then Assistant Secretary, APMC, Shahdara, a formal witness as PW2, Sh.Ramesh, the then Joint Secretary, Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (DAMB), a C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 10 of 73 formal witness as PW3, Ct.Mohanan, a formal witness as PW4, Sh.A.K.Jain, the then Deputy Secretary, DAMB, a formal witness as PW5, Sh.R.D.Srivastav, the then Vice Chairman, Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, Sanctioning Authority against accused persons as PW6, Sh.Raj Kumar, the then LDC from APMC, Shahdara, a formal witness as PW7, Sh.Bhoop Singh Maan, the then Secretary, APMC, Shahdara, most material witness as PW8, Sh.Jasvir Singh Sindhu, the then Secretary, Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, a formal witness as PW9, Arun Kakkar, the then Junior Accounts Officer of APMC, Shahdara, a material witness as PW10, Ashok Kumar, a Commission Agent having Shop in Sabzi Mandi, Gazipur as PW11, Dharminder Sharma, a formal witness as PW12, Anand Mani Kukreti, the then Mandi Supervisor, APMC, Shahdara as PW13, Jagjit Singh who is son of Smt. Gurdeep Kaur who was having a Shop at Sabzi Mandi, Shahdara as PW14, Kuljeet Singh @ Tonny, who is son of Smt. Gurdeep Kaur who was having a Shop at Sabzi Mandi, Shahdara as PW15, Laxman Singh Rawat who is a formal Panch witness as PW16, Lokesh Sachdeva, a formal witness as PW17, Sanjiv Kumar Sahni, a formal witness as PW18, Vimal Prasad Jain as PW19, Jagdish Prasad, a formal witness as PW20, Sunny Arora, a formal witness as PW21, Smt.Gurdeep Kaur as PW22, Sh.Baldev Raj as PW23, Inspector C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 11 of 73 P.C.Jha, Part IO/ as PW24, SI Om Prakash, the then Duty Officer, PS AC Branch, a formal witness as PW25, Mr.Paldhan, the then DCP, AC Branch who is the Author of the Report on the basis of which FIR has been registered, as PW26, the then Inspector Rai Singh Khatri/Main IO as PW27 and Inspector Ranbir Singh/Part IO as PW28.
10. After closure of the PE, statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which the accused persons claimed to be innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and added that licenses were issued as per Rules. The accused in their defence got examined 5 DWs i.e. HC Mukesh Kumar as DW1, Sh. Madan Lal, Deputy Secretary, APMC, Gazipur, Delhi as DW2, Vinay Kumar Tyagi, Mandi Supervisor, Sabzi Mandi, Gazipur as DW3, Vikas, an UDC from DAMB as DW4 and Kali Kant Pathak, Sub Inspector, APMC, Keshav Puram, Fruits & Vegetables Mandi, Delhi as DW5 and thereafter, DE was closed.
11. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. Munish Tyagi Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Kalyan Singh, Shyam Lal and Raj Kumar Bhati, Sh. Anupam Sharma Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused J.P.Thakur and Sagar Singh Tyagi and Sh.Vinod Kumar C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 12 of 73 Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
12. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Kalyan Singh, Shyam Lal and Raj Kumar Bhati that the accused Kalyan Singh was working as Administrator, accused Raj Kumar Bhati was working as Mandi Supervisor and accused Shyam Lal was working as Assistant Secretary in APMC, Shahdara during the relevant period and have discharged their official duties bonafidely and have neither demanded nor accepted any money from anyone in getting issuance of the New Licenses for Commission Agents in APMC, Shahdara. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even none of the PWs has deposed regarding any demand or acceptance of any bribe as against any of the accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even FIR in this case has been wrongly registered as there is no complainant as such in this case and there is no aggrieved person and PW26 Mr. Paldhan has deposed that only on source information, he has prepared the Report, on the basis of which FIR in this case has been registered. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the allotment of the License for Commission Agents in APMC, Shahdara were made as per the Rules and Regulations and no violation of any prescribed Rules and Regulations has been committed by any of the accused persons during C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 13 of 73 the process of the issuance of New Licenses. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there is no wrongful loss to anyone nor any wrongful gain to accused persons and therefore, no case of cheating U/S 420 IPC is made out as against the accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there is nothing on record that these accused persons have prepared any forged or fabricated documents i.e. Rent Deed, Rent Receipt etc. and whatever the documents were submitted by the applicants for License for Commission Agents were processed by the accused persons during discharge of their official duties and the accused persons were under no obligation to examine regarding the genuineness of those documents submitted by the applicants for License and therefore, no case for offence punishable U/S 468/420/120B IPC is made out against these accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there is nothing on record to establish that the accused persons by abusing their official position have acted corruptly or illegally for their pecuniary advantage by entering into any criminal conspiracy for commission of any offence and therefore, no case U/S 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC is made out against the accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there was no irregularity in the grant of New Licenses to the Commission Agents in APMC, Shahdara and C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 14 of 73 therefore, the said Licenses were being renewed periodically and said fact is also found supported from the deposition of DW1 Madan Lal and said fact also reflect that New Licenses were issued as per Rules and Regulations and therefore, there was no irregularity in the same. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise as no Sanction for prosecution as against the accused Kalyan Singh has been obtained by the IO and therefore, the accused Kalyan Singh deserves to be acquitted on this count itself. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as the Sanctioning Authority has passed the Sanction Order for launching prosecution as against the accused Shyam Lal and Raj Kumar Bhati mechanically without proper application of the mind and therefore, their Sanction Orders are legally Invalid and both these accused persons deserve to be acquitted on this count itself. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused Kalyan Singh, Shyam Lal and Raj Kumar Bhati urged for acquittal of these accused persons.
13. It is submitted by the Counsel for the accused J.P.Thakur and Sagar Singh Tyagi that both these accused are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further added by him that accused J.P.Thakur was working as Secretary and accused Sagar Singh Tyagi was working as Mandi Supervisor in APMC, Shahdara during the C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 15 of 73 relevant period and have been discharging their official duties properly and have not misused their official position nor demanded or accepted any money from anyone in getting issuance of new Licenses or for renewal of Licenses for Commission Agents in APMC, Shahdara. It is further added by him that the new Licenses for the Commission Agents in APMC, Shahdara were issued as per the Rules and Regulations and there was no irregularity in the process of grant of Licenses and said fact also found corroborated from the fact that even all the Licenses are continuing till date. It is further added by him that the deposition of PW8 Bhoop Singh Maan cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable in view of his conduct that two FIRs bearing No.7/99 and 50/04 were registered at PS AC Branch, Delhi and copies of said FIRs are Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B. It is further added by him that the Disciplinary Proceedings was also initiated against said Bhoop Singh Maan and Memorandum dated 2.11.2007, copy of which is Ex.DW6/A, was passed against him. It is further added by him that the Board of Meeting dated 24.5.2000 was confirmed on 17.7.2000 and therefore, the Resolution of Board of Meeting dated 24.5.2000 became enforceable only after 17.7.2000 and said facts are also found supported from the cross examination of PW8 B.S.Maan and PW9 Jasbir Singh Sindhu. It is further added by him that as no fresh C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 16 of 73 Licenses have been issued after 17.7.2000 in APMC, Shahdara, there was no irregularity in the same. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that no doubt PW22 Smt.Gurdeep Kaur during course of her deposition has stated that the Rent Receipt Ex.PW14/C, Rent Deed Ex.PW14/A1 and Affidavit cum No Objection Certificate Ex.PW14/B1 do not bear her genuine signature but bear her forged signature and she has not rented out her shop to M/s Ashok Kumar Nayak & Sons but there was no reason as to why she had not made any complaint to the police or any other authority regarding this aspect. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that similarly, though PW19 Vimal Prasad Jain has deposed that Ex.PW19/A, which is General Power of Attorney in favour of Mukesh Kumar, Agreement to Sell Ex.PW19/B and Rent Receipt Ex.PW19/C, do not bear his signature at point X and he had not sold his shop No. 167, Sabzi Mandi Shahdara to Mukesh Kumar but there is not reason as to why he has not lodged any complaint against Mukesh Kumar either to police or any other authority including APMC. It is further added by him that even otherwise it is not the duty of the accused persons to get verify regarding the genuineness of the documents submitted by the applicant for the License and therefore, the accused persons cannot be held liable for any offence U/S 420/468/120B IPC. It is further added by him that License Fee is to be payable only after C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 17 of 73 the grant of the License and Renewal Fee is to be payable only after the Renewal of the License and thus, there was no irregularity in the process of renewal of License of any Firm. It is further added by him that even all the Licenses are continuing till date and said fact also corroborates that the Licenses were issued as per the Rules and Regulations. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused J.P.Thakur and Sagar Singh Tyagi also urged for acquittal of these accused persons.
14. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 28 PWs has clearly established its case as against the accused persons and therefore, all these accused persons deserve to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by him that the prosecution has successfully brought on record through the deposition of PWs coupled with supporting documents, thereby establishing that the accused persons in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy have got issued several Licenses at the new site of Sabzi Mandi Gazipur in violation of the Instructions issued by the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (DAMB) and in violation of the prescribed Rules and Regulations in favour of certain firms by abusing their official position and whereby acting unlawfully and illegally in order to cause wrongful gains to certain firms and for wrongful loss to C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 18 of 73 APMC, Shahdara. It is further added by him that the Sanctioning Authority has passed the Sanction Order for launching prosecution against the accused persons after proper appreciation of the material on record and said Sanction Orders are legally valid. Thus, Ld. Addl. PP urged for conviction of all these accused persons for the charged offence.
15. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the Minutes of Meeting of Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (DAMB) held on dated 24.5.2000, which was circulated vide Letter dated 28.6.2000, copy of which is Ex.PW8/S (colly.), has been duly received at APMC, Shahdara vide Diary No.2614 on dated 3.7.2000. From the perusal of copy of said Minutes of Meeting dated 24.5.2000 Ex.PW8/S (colly.), it is further reflected that said copy of Minutes duly found bear the signatures of accused J.P.Thakur and accused Dharamveer along with date 3.7.2000 on the first page of the said copy of Minutes itself. Furthermore, PW8 Sh.Bhoop Singh Maan has deposed with regard to said Minutes of Board Meeting dated 24.5.2000 as under: "Copy of Minutes of Board Meeting held on 24.5.2000 regarding shifting of Shahdara Mandi and not to grant fresh licenses from 24.5.2000 is Ex.PW8/S (colly.) and C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 19 of 73 bears my signatures at point B on each page. It also bears the signatures of Raj Singh at point X who issued the said Minutes........................................................... As per Record APMC, Shahadara, issued 8 new licenses of "B" category to the Commission Agent after 24.5.2000 (Sl. No. 270277) and before 28.6.2000 after the circulation of Minutes of DAMB and even after receiving the said Minutes. APMC Shahadara had issued 6 new licenses of "B" category to Commission Agents after 3.7.2000. As per noting in Minutes file of grant of licenses was processed by Sh. Shyam Lal, the then Asstt. SecretaryI on 3.7.2000 to J.P. Thakur and Kalyan Singh."
16. From the bare perusal of copy of said Minutes of Board Meeting dated 24.5.2000 Ex.PW8/S (colly.), it is found mentioned therein regarding one of the eligibility criteria for allotment of the Licenses as under: "If one person has 50% shares or more than 50% shares in more than one firms, allotment may be made to one C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 20 of 73 applicant/firm."
It is also found mentioned in the aforesaid copy of Minutes of Meeting dated 24.5.2000 Ex.PW8/S (colly.) to the effect that no fresh Licenses shall be granted by the Market Committee from 24.5.2000 where new Markets have been developed and existing Commission Agents are proposed to be shifted at new locations as it is found mentioned in the aforesaid Minutes of Board Meeting in this respect as under: "It was also resolved that no fresh license shall be granted by the Market Committee from 24.5.2000 where new Markets have been developed and the existing Commission Agents/Traders are proposed to be shifted at new locations."
17. Despite the aforesaid clear directions for not to grant any fresh Licenses by the Market Committee from 24.5.2000 where the existing Commission Agents are proposed to be shifted at new locations as found mentioned in Minutes of Board Meeting dated 24.5.2000, copy of which is Ex.PW8/S (colly.), which was duly received at APMC, Shahdara vide Diary No.2614 dated 3.7.2000 and was duly seen and signed by accused Dharamveer and accused C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 21 of 73 J.P.Thakur on dated 3.7.2000 but in gross violation of the said directions of Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (DAMB), the accused persons are found to have got issued 6 new Licenses of "B" Category as per serial No.278 to 283 of List of License of "B" Category Ex.PW8/B (colly.) during the period 12.7.2000 to 17.7.2000, which is subsequent to 3.7.2000 and the detailed particulars of said Licenses of "B" Category as per serial No.278 to 283 of Ex.PW8/B (colly.) are found mentioned as under: Sl. Name of the Firms Prop/Partners Full Address License No. No. % (Business Premises) & Date 278 M/s Choudhary & Sharma Part. Choudhary 50% 149, Moti Ram Mkt. B2255 Fruit & Vegetable Co. Amar Nath Sharma 50% S.M. Shahdara 1272000 279 M/s Saghir Ahmed Traders Prop. Saghir 100% 167, Moti Ram Mkt. B2256 S.M. Shahdara 1772000 280 M/s Nashir Ahmed & Co. Prop. Nashir 100% 168, S.M. Shahdara B2257 1772000 281 M/s Mukesh Kumar & Sons Prop. Mukesh 100% 167, MCD, B2258 S.M. Shahdara 1772000 282 M/s Rajinder Nath Prop. Rajinder 100% 6, M.C.D., B2259 S.M.Shahdara 1772000 283 M/s Sambhal Aaloo Co. Part. Yameen 40% 1024/8, S.M.Shahdara B2260 Sardar Saran Singh 60% 1772000
18. From the perusal of the record, it is further reflected that the aforesaid License File of M/s Choudhary & Sharma Fruit & Vegetable Co. having License No.B2255 dated 12.7.2000 has been proved as Ex.PW8/T, License File of M/s Saghir Ahmed Traders having License C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 22 of 73 No.B 2256 dated 17.7.2000 has been proved as Ex.PW8/10, License File of M/s Nashir Ahmed & Co. having License No.B 2257 dated 17.7.2000 has been proved as Ex.PW8/9, License File of M/s Mukesh Kumar & Sons having License No.B 2258 dated 17.7.2000 has been proved as Ex.PW8/6, License File of M/s Rajinder Nath having License No.B 2259 dated 17.7.2000 has been proved as Ex.PW8/5 and License File of M/s Sambhal Aaloo having License No.B 2260 dated 17.7.2000 has been proved as Ex.PW8/U.
19. From the perusal of the said License File relating to M/s Choudhary & Sharma Fruit & Vegetable Co. having License No.B2255 dated 12.7.2000 Ex.PW8/T, it is reflected at Page No.7 of Notesheet that the recommendation for approval for grant of License has been made by the accused J.P.Thakur and accordingly, the approval has been granted by the accused Kalyan Singh on dated 12.7.2000.
20. From the perusal of the said License File relating to M/s Saghir Ahmed Traders having License No.B2256 dated 17.7.2000 Ex.PW8/10, it is reflected that said File has been processed by the accused R.K.Bhati, Sagar Singh Tyagi and Dharamveer at various C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 23 of 73 stages and at Page No.5 of Notesheet the recommendation for approval for grant of License has been made by the accused J.P.Thakur and accordingly, the approval for grant of License has been made by the accused Kalyan Singh on dated 17.7.2000.
21. From the perusal of the said License File relating to M/s Nashir Ahmed & Co. having License No.B2257 dated 17.7.2000 Ex.PW8/9, it is reflected that said File has been processed by the accused R.K.Bhati, Sagar Singh Tyagi and Dharamveer at various stages and at Page No.5 of Notesheet the recommendation for approval for grant of License has been made by the accused J.P.Thakur and accordingly, the approval for grant of License has been made by the accused Kalyan Singh on dated 17.7.2000.
22. From the perusal of the said License File relating to M/s Mukesh Kumar & Sons having License No.B2258 dated 17.7.2000 Ex.PW8/6, it is reflected that said File has been processed by the accused R.K.Bhati, Sagar Singh Tyagi and Dharamveer at various stages and at Page No.6 of Notesheet the recommendation for approval for grant of License has been made by the accused J.P.Thakur and accordingly, the approval for grant of License has been made by the C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 24 of 73 accused Kalyan Singh on dated 17.7.2000.
23. From the perusal of the said License File relating to M/s Rajinder Nath & Sons having License No.B2259 dated 17.7.2000 Ex.PW8/5, it is reflected that said File has been processed by the accused R.K.Bhati, Sagar Singh Tyagi and Dharamveer at various stages and at Page No.6 of Notesheet the recommendation for approval for grant of License has been made by the accused J.P.Thakur and accordingly, the approval for grant of License has been made by the accused Kalyan Singh on dated 17.7.2000.
24. From the perusal of the said License File relating to M/s Sambhal Aaloo Co. having License No.B2260 dated 17.7.2000 Ex.PW8/U, it is reflected that said File has been processed by the accused R.K.Bhati, Sagar Singh Tyagi and Dharamveer at various stages and at Page No.11 of Notesheet the recommendation for approval for grant of License has been made by the accused J.P.Thakur and accordingly, the approval for grant of License has been made by the accused Kalyan Singh on dated 17.7.2000.
25. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record, it C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 25 of 73 is clearly established that despite the receipt of the copy of the Minutes of Board Meeting dated 24.5.2000, copy of which is Ex.PW8/S (colly.) at the Office of APMC, Shahdara vide Diary No.2614 dated 3.7.2000 and on being seen and signed by the accused J.P.Thakur and Dharamveer on dated 3.7.2000, wherein there is clear direction for not to issue fresh Licenses from 24.5.2000 but in gross violation of the same, the accused persons in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy have subsequently i.e. after 3.7.2000 granted 6 new Licenses of "B" Category as per serial No.278 to 283 of List of License of "B" Category, copy of which is Ex.PW8/B (colly.).
26. Further from the perusal of the record, it is reflected that a List of 27 License Holders of Proprietor/Partners having shares of 50% or more than 50% shares in more than one Firm during the period 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001, has been prepared on dated 7.3.2001, which is Ex.PW10/6 and found bear signature of accused Dharamveer at point D, accused Sagar Singh Tyagi at point S and accused J.P.Thakur at point J. Said facts also found supported from the deposition of PW10 Arun Kakkar who has deposed in this respect as under: "In the year 1997, I was posted in Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Office Shahadara as a C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 26 of 73 Accountant and thereafter I was promoted to Jr. Accounts Officer. I know all the accused persons present in the court by their names namely, Kalyan Singh(Administrator), J.P. Thakur (Secretary), Shyam Lal (Asst. SecretaryII) , Raj Kumar Bhati (Mandi Supervisor) and Sagar Singh Tyagi (Mandi Supervisor). Sh. Dharamveer Singh was also posted as Asst.
SecretaryI (since deceased). I can identify the writing and signatures of the aforesaid accused persons as I have seen them writing and signing in ordinary course of my duty............................................................................ List of license holders from the period 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 is Ex.PW10/6 which is running into 4 pages, bear the signatures of Sagar Singh Tyagi at point S, Dharamveer at point D and J.P.Thakur at point J."
27. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that vide Order dated 4.5.2001, which is Ex.PW10/5 and copy of which is Ex.PW8/D accused Kalyan Singh, the then Administrator of APMC, Shahdara has passed order for formation of an Allotment Sub Committee for C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 27 of 73 scrutinizing the applications for allotment of the sites/phars at Gazipur where the Shahdara Sabzi Mandi was to be shifted and said Sub Committee was comprising of J.P.Thakur as Chairman and Shyam Lal, Dharamveer Singh, Arun Kakkar, Raj Kumar Bhati and Sagar Singh Tyagi as Members.
28. It is further revealed from the record that the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board has sent a Letter dated 16.5.2001, copy of which is Ex.PW8/E to the Administrator, APMC, Shahdara with regard to the subject "Allotment of shops/sites on temporary platform constructed at Gazipur to shift the traders of Fruit and Vegetable Market from Shahdara Sabzi Mandi" and concluding that the allotment of the shops/sites to "A" & "B" Category Licensees will be subject to certain conditions as mentioned therein and one of the condition is as under: "If a person has 50% or more than 50% shares in more than one firms, the allotment shall be made to one licensee applicant/firm."
29. From the perusal of the copy of said letter dt. 16.5.2001 Ex.PW8/E as issued from Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board to the C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 28 of 73 Administrator APMC, Shahadara, it is reflected that said letter was received in the office of APMC, Shahadara, vide Diary No. 159 dt. 17.5.2001.
30. It is further revealed from the Record that the aforesaid Sub Committee which was formed for scrutiny of the Application Forms and for the recommendation of allotment of the sites at Gazipur by virtue of order dt. 4.5.2001 Ex.PW10/5 and copy of which is Ex.PW8/D is found to have submitted its Scrutiny Report dt. 24.5.2001, Ex.PW10/4 and copy of which is Ex.PW8/F (colly.) which bear signature of Sagar Singh Tyagi at point C, signature of Raj Kumar Bhati at point D, signature of Shyam Lal and point E, signature of J.P. Thakur at point F and signature of Dharamveer at point G and said Report is found to have been approved by the accused Kalyan Singh on 24.5.2001.
31. However, from the bare perusal of the said Report dated 24.5.2001 of SubCommittee Ex.PW10/4, copy of which is Ex.PW8/F (colly.), it is clearly reflected that in clear disregard of their earlier List dated 7.3.2001 of 27 License Holders of Proprietor/Partners having 50% or more that 50% share in more than one firm as reflected in list C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 29 of 73 Ex.PW10/6 and in gross violation of the conditions for allotment of the sites as reflected in Letter dated 16.5.2001, copy of which is Ex.PW8/E to the effect that "If a person has 50% or more than 50% shares in more than one firm, the allotment shall be made to one licensee applicant firm." the accused persons namely J.P.Thakur, Shyam Lal, Sagar Singh Tyagi, Raj Kumar Bhati and Dharamveer in their Scrutiny Report Ex.PW10/4 (also Ex.PW8/F (colly.) have not taken objection regarding all the 27 License Holders as found mentioned in their List dated 7.3.2001 Ex.PW10/6 and have taken objection with regard to only 8 such License Holders and thereby giving undue benefit to several License Holders as mentioned in said List Ex.PW10/6, who were unduly allotted separate sites and said facts clearly established that the accused persons in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy facilitated the allotment of sites at Gazipur to several Firms in gross violation of terms and conditions of allotment of the sites as mandated by Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board. Said fact also found corroborated even from the deposition of PW8 Bhoop Singh Maan, who has deposed in this respect as under: "Out of the 27 cases of proprietorship and partnership firm only 8 firms were clubbed and were alloted four Sites but the remaining 19 C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 30 of 73 firms were alloted separate Phar/Site by violating the conditions of allotment policy/guidelines of the Board."
32. Furthermore, said PW8 Bhoop Singh Maan has also categorically deposed regarding the various irregularities in the process of grant of Licenses to various firms in APMC, Shahdara as he has deposed in this respect as under: "In case of change in constitution of licensee firm either because of death of partner or proprietor or change of partnership, the licensee shall inform the APMC within 15 days. If licensee fails to inform the same, shall constitute a new firm which require fresh license as per section 71 Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation Act) 1998 r/w Rule 24 of DAPMR (General Rules) 2000. The Tehbazari was not transferable. The licenses in question contain the irregularities such as forged affidavits/NOC/Rent Deed etc., details of which are C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 31 of 73 mentioned in the list. In few cases, more than 1 licenses were issued on Tehbazari Shops such as in case of M/s Meena Traders, M/s Satya Prakash & Sons, M/s Shamim Ahmed & Co.,M/s Darshan Singh & Sons, M/s Habib Ahmed & Sons, which is gross irregularity. The Report of irregularities was received by APMC, Shahdara through the office of DAMB, Delhi and the irregularities which were found by the Public Grievances Commission and accordingly, show cause notices were issued to the the concerned Commission Agents. In some cases, renewal fees for license was not deposited but licenses were sanctioned which is also a gross irregularity.
In case of M/s Baldev Raj Jagdish Kumar and M/s Shahdara Onion Company, no formal request for change in constitution of firm was submitted. In case of M/s Ramji Das Baldev Raj and M/s Ramji Das Ram Pyara, no intimation about the death of C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 32 of 73 one partner was given but new licenses were issued by violating the instructions of the Board when there was ban on fresh license. In case of M/s Krishan Lal & M/s Rakesh Kumar Krishan Lal, both the firms should have been clubbed and required to be alloted only one Phar as per guidelines of the Board but they were alloted separate site in violation of the guidelines of the Board."
33. The aforesaid deposition of PW8 Bhoop Singh Maan with regard to the fact that "In case of M/s Ramji Das Baldev Raj and M/s Ramji Das Ram Pyara, no intimation about the death of one partner was given but new licenses were issued by violating the instructions of the Board when there was ban on fresh license" is found corroborated from the contents of License File of M/s Ramji Das Baldev Raj Ex.PW8/37 and License File of M/s Ramji Das Ram Pyara Ex.PW8/38. From the perusal of the said File Ex.PW8/37, it is reflected that the Intimation regarding the death C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 33 of 73 of one Partner namely Ramji Das on dated 20.1.1988, which should have been given within 15 days as per Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation (General Rules) 2000 but in the present case, no such Intimation regarding death of Partner Ramji Das was given within the stipulated period but was given after considerable delay in the year 2001 and new License has been issued on the basis of the recommendation given by the accused J.P.Thakur and the approval for grant of License has been given by the accused Kalyan Singh on dated 23.10.2001 in violation of the Instructions of Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board when there was ban on fresh Licenses as found reflected from page 17 of said File and signatures of the accused persons in the said File Ex.PW8/37 has been duly identified by PW10 Arun Kakkar, Junior Account Officer in the Office of APMC, Shahdara who after seeing the file of Ramji Das Baldev Raj Ex.PW8/37, has identified the signature of witness Raj Kumar at point B, signature of accused Shyam Lal at point C, signature of accused Dharamveer at point D, signature and writing of accused Sagar Singh at point E, writing and signature of accused J.P. Thakur at point F and signature of Kalyan Singh at point G. C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 34 of 73
34. Furthermore, the aforesaid deposition of PW8 Bhoop Singh Maan with regard to the fact that "In case of M/s Krishan Lal & M/s Rakesh Kumar Krishan Lal, both the firms should have been clubbed and required to be alloted only one Phar as per guidelines of the Board but they were alloted separate site in violation of the guidelines of the Board" is found corroborated from the contents of License File of M/s Kishan Lal which is Ex.PW8/53 and License File of M/s Rakesh Kumar Kishan Lal which is Ex.PW8/54 and from the contents of the Letter dated 16.5.2001, copy of which is Ex.PW8/E as sent by Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board to the Administrator, APMC, Shahdara, containing the conditions for allotment of the shops/sites to Licensees and one of the condition is as under: "If a person has 50% or more than 50% shares in more than one firms, the allotment shall be made to one licensee applicant/firm."
35. From the perusal of the License File of M/s Kishan Lal, having License No.B1526, it is found that said Kishan Lal being C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 35 of 73 Proprietor was having 100% share in said Firm. From the perusal of the License File of M/s Rakesh Kumar Kishan Lal having License No.B2093, it is found that Rakesh Kumar as Partner was having 50% share and Kishan Lal as Partner was having 50% share in the said Firm. Said facts are also found corroborated even from the List dated 7.3.2001 of 27 License Holders of Proprietors/ Partners of different firms during the period 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 Ex.PW10/6, which found bear signature of accused Dharamveer at point D, accused Sagar Singh Tyagi at point S, accused J.P.Thakur at point J. In view of aforesaid condition "If a person has 50% or more than 50% shares in more than one firms, the allotment shall be made to one licensee applicant/firm" as directed by Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board to the Administrator, APMC, Shahdara as per said Letter dated 16.5.2001, copy of which is Ex.PW8/E, for allotment of the shops/sites at Gazipur, both said Firms i.e. M/s Kishan Lal having License No.B1526 and M/s Rakesh Kumar Kishan Lal having License No.B2093 should have been clubbed together and should have been recommended for allotment of only one phar but in gross violation of the said condition, the accused persons in their C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 36 of 73 Scrutiny Report dated 24.5.2001, Ex.PW10/4 and copy of which is Ex.PW8/F (colly.), which bears signature of accused Sagar Singh Tyagi at point C, signature of accused Raj Kumar Bhati at point D, signature of accused Shyam Lal at point E, signature of accused J.P.Thakur at point F, have merely taken objection with regard to only 8 such License Holders and thereby giving undue benefit to remaining License Holders as found mentioned in said List Ex.PW10/6, in order to facilitate the undue allotment of separate sites to the remaining License Holders in gross violation of the condition for allotment of the sites as reflected in Letter of DAMB dated 16.5.2001, copy of which is Ex.PW8/E. The said Scrutiny Report dated 24.5.2001 of Allotment Sub Committee Ex.PW10/4 and copy of which is Ex.PW8/F (colly.), as given by the aforesaid accused persons, is found to have been approved by the accused Kalyan Singh, the then Administrator, APMC, Shahdara on the same day itself i.e. on 24.5.2001.
36. From the perusal of the record, it is further reflected that during the course of Investigation, the IO has obtained Specimen Signatures and Handwriting of certain accused persons and certain C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 37 of 73 PWs and thereafter, the same along with Questioned Documents and Admitted Signatures/Documents were sent by the IO to FSL, Rohini for comparison and thereafter, he has collected the FSL Report Ex.PW27/13 and Ex.PW27/14. As PW27 ACP Rai Singh Khatri/IO has deposed in this respect as under: "During investigation, I have obtained the specimen signatures and writing of accused persons and private persons/witnesses on the different dates and thereafter, the same were sent to the FSL along with questioned documents and admitted signatures/documents. My letter for sending the exhibits is Ex.PW27/9 which bears my signature at point A. Signature of Vimal Prakash Jain was taken on three sheets during investigation, same are already Ex.PW19/D(1 to 3), all sheets bear my signature at point X. Signature of Dharamveer and specimen writing of Dharamveer were taken on seven sheets, same are Ex.PW27/10(colly.) Each sheet bear my signatures at points A. Specimen signatures and handwriting of Sagar Singh tyagi were taken on seven sheets, same are Ex.PW27/11(colly.). Each sheet bear my signatures at points A. C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 38 of 73 Specimen signatures Raj Kumar Bhatti were taken on three sheets, same are already Ex.PW10/12(colly.). Each sheet bear my signatures at points B. Specimen signatures of Shyam Lal were taken on three sheets, same are already Ex.PW10/13(colly.). Each sheet bear my signatures at points B. Specimen signatures of Gurdeep Kaur were taken on four sheets, same are already Ex.PW15/A1 to A4. Each sheet bear my signatures at points C. Specimen signatures of Darshan Singh were taken on four sheets, same are Ex.PW27/12(colly.). Each sheet bear my signatures at points A. During investigation, I had recorded the statements of concerned witnesses regarding their roles. I had collected the FSL Reports and same were placed on record. The reports are Ex.PW27/13 and Ex.PW27/14."
37. The part of the deposition of PW27/IO regarding obtaining the Specimen Signatures of accused Raj Kumar Bhati on 3 sheets vide Ex.PW10/12 (colly.) and regarding obtaining the C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 39 of 73 Specimen Signatures of accused Shyam Lal on 3 sheets Ex.PW10/13 (colly.) also found corroborated from the deposition of PW10 Arun Kakkar, Junior Accounts Officer of APMC, Shahdara, who is an attesting witness to the same and PW10 Arun Kakkar has also deposed in this respect as under: "On 6.8.2003 Specimen Signatures of Raj Kumar Bhati were taken on three sheets by the IO of this case, same are Ex.PW10/12 (colly.). Each sheet bears my signature at point A. On 6.8.2003 Specimen Signatures of Shyam Lal were taken on three sheets by the IO of this case, same are Ex.PW10/13 (colly.). Each sheet bears my signatures at point A."
38. The part of the deposition of PW27/IO regarding obtaining Specimen Signature of PW Gurdeep Kaur on 4 sheets which are Ex.PW15/A1 to A4, also found corroborated from the deposition of PW22 Smt.Gurdeep Kaur as well as PW15 Kuljeet Singh @ Tonny, who is an attesting witness to said Specimen C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 40 of 73 Signatures of Gurdeep Kaur. As PW22 Smt.Gurdeep Kaur has deposed in this respect as under: "Police officials also took my signature on 4 papers, same are already Ex.PW15/A1 to A4. When my signatures were obtained by police on 4 papers, at that time my son Kuljeet was with me."
Similarly, PW15 Kuljeet Singh @ Tonny has deposed in this respect as under: "On 20.6.2003 I had gone to AC Branch along with my mother Smt.Gurdeep Kaur where we met with the IO. The Anti Corruption official took the Specimen Handwriting of my mother on 4 papers which are exhibited as Ex.PW15/A1 to A4. Each paper bears my signatures at point A.
39. The part deposition of PW27/IO to the effect that he has obtained the Specimen Signatures of PW Vimal Prasad Jain on 3 sheets which are Ex.PW19/D1 to D3 and all sheets bear his signatures at point X, also found corroborated from the deposition of PW19 Vimal Prasad C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 41 of 73 Jain as well as PW20 Jagdish Prasad, who is an attesting witness to said Specimen Signatures of Vimal Prasad Jain. As PW19 Vimal Prasad Jain has deposed in this respect as under: "Near Old Secretariat, my Specimen Signatures were taken by the police officials on 3 papers, same are Ex.PW19/D (colly.) which bears my signatures at point X."
Similarly, PW20 Jagdish Prasad, who is an attesting witness to said Specimen Signatures of Vimal Prasad Jain has also deposed in this respect as under: "On 5.8.2003, I was posted in Food & Civil Supply department, Delhi. On that day I was performing my duties as panch witness in AC Branch. I had joined the investigation along with police official of AC Branch. On that date, specimen signature of Vimal Prasad Jain on three sheets which is Ex.PW19/D(colly.). Receipts were signed buy me at point Y."
40. Furthermore, from the perusal of the FSL Report Ex.PW27/14, it is reflected that on examination of the Questioned and Standard Writings and Signatures, the substantive relevant opinion C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 42 of 73 relating to the accused Dharamveer Singh (since deceased) has been given as under:
(i) The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S1 to S7, A11, A23, A38, A40, A41, A44, A46, A49 and A61 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1, Q4, Q10, Q11, Q21, Q29 and Q30.
From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that S1 to S7 are the 7 sheets containing the Specimen Signature and Handwriting of accused Dharamveer Singh which are Ex.PW27/10 (colly.) and A11, A23, A38, A40, A41, A44, A46, A49 and A61, reflect the signatures of accused Dharamveer Singh in the official record which are Undisputed Documents. Q1 and Q4 reflect the Signatures of Dharamveer Singh on the List dated 7.3.2001 of 27 License Holders Proprietor/Partners having 50% or more than 50% shares in more than one firms, which is Ex.PW10/6. Q10 and Q11 reflect the Signatures of Dharamveer Singh on copy of Order dated 4.5.2001 Ex.PW10/5 as passed by the accused Kalyan Singh, Administrator, APMC, Shahdara, whereby forming an Allotment Sub Committee comprising of accused J.P.Thakur as Chairman and accused Shyam Lal, Dharamveer Singh, Arun Kakkar, Raj Kumar Bhati, Sagar Singh Tyagi as Members. Q21 reflect the C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 43 of 73 Signatures of the accused Dharamveer Singh on the Scrutiny Report dated 24.5.2001 of Allotment Sub Committee, which is Ex.PW10/4.
41. Furthermore, from the perusal of the said FSL Report Ex.PW27/14, it is reflected that on examination of the Questioned and Standard Writings and Signatures, the substantive relevant opinion relating to the accused Sagar Singh Tyagi has been given as under:
(ii) The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S8 to S14, A52, A53, A58 and A62 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q2, Q5, Q13, Q17 to Q19, and Q24 to Q28.
From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that S8 to S14 are the 7 sheets containing the Specimen Signature and Handwriting of accused Sagar Singh Tyagi which are Ex.PW27/11 (colly.) and A52, A53, A58 and A62, reflect the signatures of accused Sagar Singh Tyagi in the official record which are Undisputed Documents. Q2 and Q5 reflect the Signatures of accused Sagar Singh Tyagi on the List dated 7.3.2001 of 27 License Holders Proprietor/Partners having 50% or more than 50% shares in more than one firms, which is Ex.PW10/6. Q13 reflect the Signatures of accused Sagar Singh Tyagi on copy of C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 44 of 73 Order dated 4.5.2001 Ex.PW10/5 as passed by the accused Kalyan Singh, Administrator, APMC, Shahdara, whereby forming an Allotment Sub Committee comprising of accused J.P.Thakur as Chairman and accused Shyam Lal, Dharamveer Singh, Arun Kakkar, Raj Kumar Bhati, Sagar Singh Tyagi as Members. Q17 to Q19 reflect the Signatures of the accused Sagar Singh Tyagi on the Scrutiny Report dated 24.5.2001 of Allotment Sub Committee, which is Ex.PW10/4. Q24 to Q28 reflect the Signatures of the accused Sagar Singh Tyagi on the Office Notesheet of different dates.
42. Furthermore, from the perusal of the said FSL Report Ex.PW27/14, it is reflected that on examination of the Questioned and Standard Writings and Signatures, the substantive relevant opinion relating to the accused Raj Kumar Bhati has been given as under:
(iii) The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S15 to S17 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q12 and Q14 to Q16.
From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that S15 to S17 are the 3 sheets containing the Specimen Signature of accused Raj Kumar Bhati which are Ex.PW10/12 (colly.). Q12 reflect the C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 45 of 73 Signatures of accused Raj Kumar Bhati on copy of Order dated 4.5.2001 Ex.PW10/5 as passed by the accused Kalyan Singh, Administrator, APMC, Shahdara, whereby forming an Allotment Sub Committee comprising of accused J.P.Thakur as Chairman and accused Shyam Lal, Dharamveer Singh, Arun Kakkar, Raj Kumar Bhati, Sagar Singh Tyagi as Members. Q14 to Q16 reflect the Signatures of the accused Raj Kumar Bhati on the Scrutiny Report dated 24.5.2001 of Allotment Sub Committee, which is Ex.PW10/4.
43. Furthermore, from the perusal of the said FSL Report Ex.PW27/14, it is reflected that on examination of the Questioned and Standard Writings and Signatures, the substantive relevant opinion relating to the accused Shyam Lal has been given as under:
(iv) The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S18 to S20, A5, A9, A10, A12 to A14, A21, A22, A28, A32, A36, A43, A48, A51, A57, A60 and A64 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q9 and Q20.
From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that S18 to S20 are the 3 sheets containing the Specimen Signature of accused Shyam Lal which are Ex.PW10/13 (colly.). A5, A9, A10, A12 to A14, A21, C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 46 of 73 A22, A28, A32, A36, A43, A48, A51, A57, A60 and A64 reflect the signatures of accused Shyam Lal on the official record which are Undisputed Documents. Q9 reflect the Signatures of accused Shyam Lal on copy of Order dated 4.5.2001 Ex.PW10/5 as passed by the accused Kalyan Singh, Administrator, APMC, Shahdara, whereby forming an Allotment Sub Committee comprising of accused J.P.Thakur as Chairman and accused Shyam Lal, Dharamveer Singh, Arun Kakkar, Raj Kumar Bhati, Sagar Singh Tyagi as Members. Q20 reflect the Signatures of the accused Shyam Lal on the Scrutiny Report dated 24.5.2001 of Allotment Sub Committee, which is Ex.PW10/4.
44. Furthermore, from the perusal of the said FSL Report Ex.PW27/14, it is reflected that on examination of the Questioned and Standard Writings and Signatures, the substantive relevant opinion relating to the accused Kalyan Singh has been given as under:
(v) The person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked A1 to A3, A7, A15,A18, A25, A27, A31, A33 and A55 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q7 Q23 and Q32.
From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that A1 to A3, A7, A15,A18, A25, A27, A31, A33 and A55 reflect the signatures of C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 47 of 73 accused Kalyan Singh on the official record which are Undisputed Documents. Q7 reflect the Signatures of accused Kalyan Singh on copy of Order dated 4.5.2001 Ex.PW10/5 as passed by the accused Kalyan Singh, Administrator, APMC, Shahdara, whereby forming an Allotment Sub Committee comprising of accused J.P.Thakur as Chairman and accused Shyam Lal, Dharamveer Singh, Arun Kakkar, Raj Kumar Bhati, Sagar Singh Tyagi as Members. Q23 reflect the Signatures of the accused Kalyan Singh whereby approving the Scrutiny Report dated 24.5.2001 of Allotment Sub Committee, which is Ex.PW10/4. Q32 reflect the Signature of accused Kalyan Singh on the Office Notesheet dated 7.7.99.
45. Furthermore, from the perusal of the said FSL Report Ex.PW27/14, it is reflected that on examination of the Questioned and Standard Writings and Signatures, the substantive relevant opinion relating to the accused J.P.Thakur has been given as under:
(vi) The person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked A4, A6, A8, A16, A17, A19, A20, A24, A29, A30, A34, A35, A37, A39, A42, A45, A47, A50, A54, A56, A59, A63 and A65 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q3, Q6, Q8, Q 22 and Q31.
C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 48 of 73 From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that A4, A6, A8, A16, A17, A19, A20, A24, A29, A30, A34, A35, A37, A39, A42, A45, A47, A50, A54, A56, A59, A63 and A65 reflect the signatures of accused J.P.Thakur on the official record which are Undisputed Documents. Q3 and Q6 reflect the Signatures of accused J.P.Thakur on the List dated 7.3.2001 of 27 License Holders Proprietor/Partners having 50% or more than 50% shares in more than one firms, which is Ex.PW10/6. Q8 reflect the Signatures of accused J.P.Thakur on copy of Order dated 4.5.2001 Ex.PW10/5 as passed by the accused Kalyan Singh, Administrator, APMC, Shahdara, whereby forming an Allotment Sub Committee comprising of accused J.P.Thakur as Chairman and accused Shyam Lal, Dharamveer Singh, Arun Kakkar, Raj Kumar Bhati, Sagar Singh Tyagi as Members. Q22 reflect the Signatures of the accused J.P.Thakur on the Scrutiny Report dated 24.5.2001 of Allotment Sub Committee, which is Ex.PW10/4. Q31 reflect the Signature of accused J.P.Thakur on the Office Notesheet dated 7.7.99.
46. Furthermore, PW19 Vimal Prasad Jain has deposed that he had obtained the Shop No.167 situated at Sabzi Mandi Shahdara on Tehbazari and had let out the said Shop to Mukesh Kumar for Rs. C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 49 of 73 1500/ per month. He has categorically deposed that he had not sold the said Shop to Mukesh Kumar. He further deposed that Ex.PW19/A General Power of Attorney in favour of Mukesh Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar, Agreement to Sell Ex.PW19/B and Receipt Ex.PW19/C, do not bear his signatures at point X. He further deposed that his Specimen Signatures were taken by police officials on 3 papers which are Ex.PW19/D (colly.) which bears his signatures at point X. He also deposed that his Shop was fraudulently grabbed by Mukesh Kumar. From the perusal of the FSL Report Ex.PW27/13, it is reflected that on examination of Specimen Signatures of Vimal Prasad Jain as Marked S29 to S31, which are Ex.PW19/D1 to 3 and the Questioned Signatures Marked Q42/1 to Q49/1, purported to be of Vimal Prasad on two sets of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Receipt dated 13.8.98 as per Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW19/B and Ex.PW19/C, it has been opined as under: "The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S29 to S31 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q42/1 to Q49/1."
47. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW19 Vimal Prasad Jain coupled with the contents of the aforesaid FSL Report C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 50 of 73 Ex.PW27/13, it is clearly established that the aforesaid General Power of Attorney Ex.PW19/A, Agreement to Sell Ex.PW19/B and Receipt Ex.PW19/C, were not executed by said Vimal Prasad Jain in favour of Mukesh Kumar.
48. Furthermore, PW22 Gurdeep Kaur during course of her deposition has stated that the Rent Deed Ex.PW14/A1, Affidavit cum No Objection Certificate Ex.PW14/B1 and Rent Receipt Ex.PW14/C do not bear her genuine signature but bear her forged signature at point A. As she has deposed in this respect as under: "I was called by ACB officials and some documents which were in the file M/s Ashok Kumar Nayak & Sons were shown to me and they asked from me about my signature on the Rent Receipt already Ex.PW14/C, Rent Deed Ex.PW14/A1 and Affidavit cum No Objection Certificate Ex.PW14/B1. After seeing the documents, I told to the IO of this case that the said documents do not bear my genuine signature and same are forged one. These documents bear my forged signature at point A. Police officials also took my signature on 4 papers, same are already Ex.PW15/A1 to A4. When my signature were C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 51 of 73 obtained by police on 4 papers at that time, my son Kuljit was with me. I have not rented out my shop in the name of M/s Ashok Kumar Nayak & Sons."
Said PW22 Gurdeep Kaur specifically denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that Document Ex.PW14/A1 and Ex.PW14/B1 bear her original signatures which were executed in presence of her son and Notary Public.
49. I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsels for the accused persons to the effect that the accused persons have not entered into any criminal conspiracy to issue fresh Licenses for Commission Agents and to allot phars/sites at new site of Sabzi Mandi Gazipur in favour of certain firms illegally in violation of prescribed Rules and Regulations and Instructions issued by Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board and there is no evidence on record to establish criminal conspiracy against the accused persons. Since, criminal conspiracy is hatched in privacy or in secrecy, it is rarely possible to establish by direct evidence and therefore, the same can be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. While dealing with the requirement of criminal conspiracy as contemplated U/S 120 C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 52 of 73 A IPC and punishable U/S 120B IPC, some of the broad principles governing the Law of conspiracy was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as 1999 (5) Supreme Court Cases 253 State through Superintendent of Police CBI / SIT Vs. Nalini & Ors. (also known as Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case.
"A. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in
secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a
conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both
the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
B. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 53 of 73 joined the conspiracy and when he left.
C. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with knowledge of a conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with other conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active part in the crime."
50. In another case, reported as AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1062 Mohd. Usman Hussain Vs. State of Maharashtra, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with Section 120B IPC, in last part of para 17 as under: "It is true that there is no evidence of any express C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 54 of 73 agreement between the appellants to do or cause to be done the illegal act. For an offence under Section 120B the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act: the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In this case, the fact that the appellants were possessing and selling explosive substances without a valid licence for a pretty long time leads to the inference that they agreed to do and/or cause to be done the said illegal act for, without such an agreement the act cold not have been done for such a long time."
51. Furthermore, while dealing with the requirement of criminal conspiracy, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2748 "Ram Narain Poply Vs. CBI" as under: "The essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 55 of 73 an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in S. 120B read with the proviso to subsection (2) of S. 120A, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under S.120B and proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. The provisions, in such a situation, do not require that each and every person who is a party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfilment of the object of the conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established, the act would fall within C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 56 of 73 the trapping of the provisions contained in S. 120B. Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. Direct evidence in proof of a conspiracy is seldom available : offence of conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of the formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of the conspiracy, about the object, which the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out, all this is necessarily a matter of inference. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient. A conspiracy is a continuing offence which continues C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 57 of 73 to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity. During its subsistence whenever any one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts he would be held guilty under S. 120B of the I.P.C."
52. By taking the cue from the aforesaid Judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the above referred incriminating material as available on the record, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that all these accused persons in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy have got issued 6 new Licenses of "B" Category as per Serial No.278 to 283 of List of License of "B" Category, copy of which is Ex.PW8/B (colly.) in violation of the Minutes of Board of Meeting dated 24.5.2000, copy of which is Ex.PW8/S (colly.), which was received in the Office of APMC, Shahdara vide Diary No.2614 dated 3.7.2000 and the accused persons have not taken objection regarding all the 27 License Holders as found mentioned in their List dated 7.3.2001 Ex.PW10/6 of Proprietors/Partners having 50% or more than 50% shares in more than one firms in gross violation of the condition for allotment of the sites as reflected in Letter dated C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 58 of 73 16.5.2001, copy of which is Ex.PW8/E and have taken objection only with regard to 8 such License Holders in the Scrutiny Report dated 24.5.2001 of Sub Committee Ex.PW10/4 and thereby giving undue benefit to several License Holders as mentioned in said List Ex.PW10/6, who were unduly alloted separate sites at Sabzi Mandi Gazipur.
53. I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused Kalyan Singh to the effect that as no Sanction for prosecution as against this accused has been obtained and therefore, this accused Kalyan Singh deserves to be acquitted on this count itself. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the cognizance for the offence as against this accused Kalyan Singh has been taken by Ld. Predecessor vide Order dated 27.01.2010. It is further revealed from the record that Kalyan Singh was appointed as Administrator of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Shahdara, Delhi by Lt. Governor, Delhi vide Gazette Notification No.F.4(47)/82 DAM/MR/Vol.III/1125 dated 15.3.99 forming part of Ex.PW8/R (colly.). It is further revealed from the record that vide Gazette Notification No.F.8/18/99DAM/MR/1196 dated 1.4.2002 forming part of Ex.PW8/R (colly.), the earlier Gazette Notification No.F.4(47)/82 C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 59 of 73 DAM/MR/Vol.III/1125 dated 15.3.99 was superceded and APMC, Shahdara was reconstituted in pursuance of the Order of Lt. Governor, Delhi. Thus, Kalyan Singh remained as Administrator of APMC, Shahdara from 15.3.99 to 31.3.2002 and from 1.4.2000 he ceased to be the Administrator of APMC, Shahdara. Since the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Shahdara (APMC) is an Undertaking of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and therefore, the authorities/employees of said APMC, Shahdara are public servants being duly covered U/S 2 (c) (ix) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and therefore, the accused Kalyan Singh who was working as Administrator, accued J.P.Thakur being Secretary, accused Shyam Lal who was working as Assistant Secretary, accused Raj Kumar Bhati and Sagar Singh Tyagi Mandi Supervisors were public servants. The accused Kalyan Singh being posted as Administrator of APMC, Shahdara was a public servant from 15.3.99 to 31.3.2002 and thereafter, he ceased to be a public servant on dated 27.1.2010 when the cognizance of the offence was taken by the Court as against him. Therefore, I am of the considered view that no Sanction was required for launching prosecution of accused Kalyan Singh and my said view is found supported from Judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as AIR 1958 SC 107, "S.A.Venkatraman Vs. State". Similar view was also taken in C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 60 of 73 another case reported as 1999 CR.L.J.3696 "State of Kerala Vs.Padmanabhan Nair" where it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "An accused facing prosecution for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot claim any immunity on the ground of want of sanction, if he ceased to be a public servant on the date when the Court took cognizance of the offence."
54. I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused Shyam Lal, Raj Kumar Bhati, J.P.Thakur and Sagar Singh Tyagi that as Sanction Authority has passed the Sanction Orders for launching prosecution as against them mechanically without proper application of mind and therefore, the said accused persons namely Shyam Lal, Raj Kumar Bhati, J.P.Thakur and Sagar Singh Tyagi deserve to be acquitted on this count itself.
55. In order to prove Sanction concerning the accused Shyam Lal, Raj Kumar Bhati, J.P.Thakur, Sagar Singh Tyagi and Dharamveer, the prosecution has examined PW6 Sh.R.D.Srivastav, the then Vice Chairman, Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (DAMB), who has C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 61 of 73 categorically deposed that in the year 2007 he was posted as Vice Chairman, Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (DAMB), New Delhi and his Office received the case file of this case from Anti Corruption Branch and same was put up before him and the file was containing a Complaint, FIR, Memos, Statement of the witnesses and other documents collected during Investigation. He further deposed that on going through the material on record and after applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and being the authority competent to remove the accused Shyam Lal, Raj Kumar Bhati, J.P.Thakur, Sagar Singh Tyagi and Dharamveer from services who were employed in DAMB in various capacities, he accorded the sanction for launching prosecution as against them and said Sanction Order of J.P.Thakur is Ex.PW6/A, Sanction Order of Dharamveer is Ex.PW6/B, Sanction Order of Sagar Singh Tyagi is Ex.PW6/C, Sanction Order of Shyam Lal is Ex.PW6/D and Sanction Order of Raj Kumar Bhati is Ex.PW6/E bearing his signatures at point A. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he denied the suggestion that he has passed the Sanction Order mechanically merely at the instance of the IO on putting the draft Sanction before him. He categorically denied the suggestion that any draft Sanction was placed before him before according the Sanction.
C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 62 of 73
56. In the case reported as "2011 V A.D. (Delhi) 1 Kiran Pal Singh Vs. State" while dealing with the similar aspect relating to Sanction, in Para 6 of the Judgment, it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under:
"It is settled legal position that draft sanction order can be placed before competent authority along with the material and if the competent authority after perusing the material signs the draft sanction order, it cannot be said to suffer from non application of mind. In Indu Bhushan Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1958 SC 148, wherein the sanction order was prepared by the police and put before the sanctioning authority by the personal branch of his Office and that before according the sanction he went through all the relevant papers put before him, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be a valid sanction".
57. In the case reported as "State of Maharashtra and Ors. V/s C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 63 of 73 Ishvar Piraji Kelpatri & Ors. 1996 Cri. L.J. 1127", where Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that if the Authority according Sanction makes statement that while signing the order of Sanction, it had personally scrutinized the file and had arrived at required satisfaction, it is not necessary to look for, that there was application of mind or not or that material on record was examined by the concerned Officer or not before according sanction, especially when order prima facie shows that, he had done so.
58. In the case reported in "2011 I AD (CRI.) (S.C.) 1, Kootha Perumal Vs. State (through) Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption", it was held in Para 14 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of law, it would not be possible to conclude that the sanction order in the present case was not valid. Ex.P2 with the present appeal is the copy of the sanction order. A perusal of the same would show that the sanctioning authority has adverted to all the necessary facts which have been actually proved by the prosecution in the trial. Upon examination of C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 64 of 73 the material facts, the sanctioning authority has certified that it is the authority competent to remove the appellant from the Office. It is specifically stated that the statements of the witnesses have been duly examined. Sanction order also states that the other materials such as copy of the FIR as well as other official documents such as the different mahazars were carefully examined. Upon examination of the statements of the witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the appellant should be prosecuted for the offences, as noticed above. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the sanctioning order to prosecute the appellant was not legal".
59. Furthermore, in the case reported as 2013 VI AD (SC) 458 "State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Mahesh G. Jain" while dealing with similar aspect of Sanction of prosecution as against public C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 65 of 73 servant, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after considering various earlier Judgments, in Paragraph 13 as under: "13. From the aforesaid authorities, the following principles can be culled out:
a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
b) The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before him and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and his satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him.
C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 66 of 73
d) Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
e) The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
f) If the sanctioning authority has perused all the material placed before him and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
g) The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 67 of 73 construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity."
60. Furthermore, in the case reported as "2004 (13) SCC 487, Shankar Bhai Lalji Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat", it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "So far as the question of Sanction is concerned, in the absence of anything to show that any defect or irregularity therein caused failure of justice, that plea is without substance."
61. By taking the cue from the aforesaid Judgment and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsels for the accused Shyam Lal, Raj Kumar Bhati, J.P.Thakur and Sagar Singh Tyagi to the effect that their Sanction Orders are legally Invalid. I am of the considered view that the said Sanction Orders of the said accused persons have been validly granted by PW6 Sh.R.D.Srivastav, the then Vice Chairman, DAMB on appreciation of relevant material on record. C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 68 of 73
62. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Kalyan Singh, Shyam Lal and Raj Kumar Bhati that FIR in this case has been wrongly registered as there was no complainant in this case and PW26 Mr.Paldan has deposed that only on source information, he has prepared the Report only on the basis of which a case has been registered. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Defence Counsel and I do not see any legal infirmity in the registration of the FIR in the present case. From the perusal of the record coupled with the deposition of PW26 Mr.Paldan, the then DCP, Anti Corruption Branch, it is clearly reflected from the record that on the basis of the Report Ex.PW26/A as prepared by PW26, the FIR relating to the present case was registered and thereafter, Investigation has been taken up by the IO.
63. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the accused persons were under no obligation to examine regarding the genuineness of the documents as submitted by the applicant for obtaining the License for Commission Agents and the accused persons have merely processed the same during discharge of their official duties and therefore, no case U/S 420/468 IPC r/w Section 120 B IPC is made out against the C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 69 of 73 accused persons. I found force in the aforesaid submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and as there is nothing on record that the accused persons have prepared any forged or fabricated documents which have been used for the purpose of obtaining fresh Licenses for Commission Agents, I am of the considered view no case for offence punishable U/S 420/468 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC could be established as against the accused persons.
64. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that there was no irregularity in the grant of new Licenses for Commission Agents in APMC, Shahdara and therefore, the said Licenses were being renewed periodically. I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons regarding this aspect in view of the availability of ample incriminating material on record as discussed earlier establishing the grant of certain new Licenses for Commission Agents at new site of Sabzi Mandi Gazipur in violation of the Instructions as issued by the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board.
65. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that as the Resolution of Board of Meeting dated C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 70 of 73 24.5.2000 was confirmed on 17.7.2000 and therefore, same became enforceable only after 17.7.2000 and as no fresh Licenses have been issued after 17.7.2000 in APMC, Shahdara, there was no irregularity in the same. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Defence Counsel as from the perusal of the record, it is clearly established that despite the receipt of the copy of Minutes of Board of Meeting dated 24.5.2000, copy of which is Ex.PW8/S (colly.) at the Office of APMC, Shahdara vide Diary No.2614 dated 3.7.2000 and on being seen and signed by accused J.P.Thakur and Dharamveer Singh on dated 3.7.2000 itself, wherein there is clear direction for not to issue any fresh License from 24.5.2000 but in gross violation of the same, the accused persons in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy have subsequently i.e. after 3.7.2000 got granted 6 Licenses of "B" Category as per Serial No.278 to 283 of List of Licenses of "B" Category, copy of which is Ex.PW8/B (colly.).
66. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the deposition of PW8 Bhoop Singh Maan cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable in view of his conduct that two FIRs bearing No.7/99 and 50/04 were registered at PS AC Branch, Delhi and copies of said FIRs are Ex.DW1/A and C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 71 of 73 Ex.DW1/B and even Disciplinary Proceedings were also initiated against said Bhoop Singh Maan and Memorandum dated 2.11.2007, copy of which is Ex.DW6/A was passed against him. No doubt, from the deposition of DW1 HC Mukesh Kumar, it is reflected that the FIR No.7/99, copy of which is Ex.DW1/A and FIR No.50/04, copy of which is Ex.DW1/B, were registered at PS Anti Corruption Branch but in the cross examination, said DW1 has added in his deposition that Closure Report has been filed in the Competent Court in the case relating to FIR No.7/99. He further deposed that Closure Report was filed relating to the case bearing FIR No.50/04 but the same was not accepted by the Court and direction for Investigation was given. No doubt, from the deposition of DW6, it is reflected that Memorandum dated 2.11.2007, copy of which is Ex.DW6/A has been passed as against said B.S.Maan in Disciplinary Proceedings but I am of the considered view, it cannot be a substantive ground for throwing out the deposition of said PW8 B.S.Maan specifically when his deposition is found corroborated from the deposition of certain PWs coupled with certain documents as available on record and therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel in this respect.
67. In view of the aforesaid discussion and incriminating C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 72 of 73 material as available on the record, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons for the acquittal of the accused persons.
68. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that all these 5 accused persons namely Kalyan Singh, Shyam Lal, Raj Kumar Bhati, J.P.Thakur and Sagar Singh Tyagi, are found guilty and hence, convicted for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for offence punishable U/S 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 120B IPC.
69. Let accused persons be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on this 8th day of December, 2014 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC,Delhi C.C. No. 04/11 State Vs. Kalyan Singh etc. Page No. 73 of 73