Delhi District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs . on 1 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH.R P PANDEY: SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)01
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
ID NO.02404R0005982008
RC5 (S)/2006/SCUI/CBI/SCRI/N.DELHI
U/s 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC & 13(2)/13(1)(d) PC ACT
CBI CASE No.39/10
Central Bureau of Investigation
VS.
1.Prasenjit Ganguly s/o Late Sh.R.K.Ganguly r/o G46, Mahavir Enclave, Bengali Colony, Palam, New Delhi
2. Chand Prakash Sharma s/o Sh.Baldev Raj Sharma r/o 221A, Pocket B, Mayur Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi91
3. Sita Ram Bhardwaj son of Late Tulsi Ram Bhardwaj r/o 182, Ist floor, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi110017 CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.1 of 20
4. Shailender Sharma s/o Sh.Chand Prakash Sharma r/o 221A, Pocket B, Mayur Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi91
5. Surinder Kumar s/o Sh.Sita Ram Bhardwaj r/o 182, Ist floor, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi110017
6. Achal Kataria son of Sh.L.R.Kataria r/o J2, Saket, New Delhi
7. Vineet Manchanda son of Late Sh.S.L.Manchanda r/o 193, Kailash Hills,New Delhi
8. Sh.Shri Dutt Sharma s/o Sh.Bhagwan Sharma r/o 72, DDA Flats Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi.
9. Deba Jit Dutta son of Sh.Nirmal Kumar Dutta r/o 342, Dakshin Nayan, Plot No.19, Sector4,Dwarka CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.2 of 20
10.Prabir Bhattacharya r/o H2/21, Mahavir Enclave, Bengali Colony, New Delhi. ACCUSED Date of filing charge sheet 10.07.08 Date on which the case 20.09.11 was reserved for order Date of order 01.10.11 ORDER ON CHARGE:
1. The facts of the case as transpire from charge sheet are that the investigation by CBI was directed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi into the matters relating to 135 cooperative group housing societies and also probe the genuineness of allotment of land to 41 other such societies in CWP No.10066/04. In pursuance of the said orders a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) was registered with CBI on 10.03.06 against such societies including M/s Delhi Journalists Association Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. in which a prima facie case was revealed.
On the basis of outcome of said PE, a complaint dated 07.08.2006 was CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.3 of 20 made which resulted into instant FIR, its investigation and then filing of charge sheet. The cognizance was taken by the Ld.Predecessor and accused persons summoned to face the prosecution.
2. The Delhi Journalists Association Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (for short DJA CGHS) was registered with Registrar of Cooperative Society on 21.01.84 with 73 promoters members. Subsequently membership of society increased upto 150 and same was approved by the then Joint Registrar on 23.03.85. Though the allotment of land was offered to the Society by the DDA in 1990, but the said offer was withdrawn in pursuance of order passed by High Court of Delhi on 10.05.91. Managing Committee of DJA CGHS initiated process of winding up and agreed to transfer membership of the members to another society under the name and style of M/s Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and Nursing Home, CGHS Ltd. ( for short RML CGHS). It is alleged that in the year 19931999, Prasanjit Ganguly(A.1), Chand Prakash Sharma(A.2), Sita Ram Bhardwaj(A.3), Shailender Sharma(A.4), Surinder Kumar(A.5), Achal Kataria (A.6), Vineet Manchanda(A.7), S.D.Sharma(A.8), Deba Jit Dutta(A.9) and Prabir CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.4 of 20 Bhattacharya (A.10) entered into a criminal conspiracy with an object to show that the society was functioning, on the basis of forged false and fabricated documents. It is worthwhile to note that out of these 10 accused persons only A.8 and A.9 are public servants and remaining accused are private persons.
3. It is then alleged that in pursuance of said conspiracy the aforesaid nonpublic servantaccused persons continued to hold meetings in order to show 84 members who had joined the membership of RML, CGHS Ltd., to be the members of DJA CGHS Ltd. Though the society ceased to exist in the end of February, 1993 due to the fact that after most of the members had joined RML CGHS Ltd., the minimum number of members required to keep the DJA CGHS alive were not left, yet that fact was intentionally concealed by Prasanjit Ganguli (A.1), Chand Prakash Sharma(A.2) and Sita Ram Bhardwaj(A.
3). It was not brought to the notice of Registrar Cooperative Society that members of the society had joined another society in bulk. Society had shown 117 members in 199293 and submitted false information to the auditor regarding membership for that period. False proceedings of Managing Committee Meeting were prepared, in which 51 fresh CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.5 of 20 members were shown to have been approved and enrolled. During the course of investigation many persons denied to have joined the membership of the Society. On 12.05.93 it was shown that records of 16 members were approved, which was a false fact. Affidavits of members which were alleged to have been enrolled from 19931996 were not available over the record. False refund vouchers were prepared in respect of members who alleged to have resigned. Said vouchers were prepared by Prabir Bhattcharya(A.10) at the instance of accused Prasanjit Ganguly(A.1), Chand Prakash Sharma(A.2) and Sita Ram Bhardwaj(A.3). Signatures of Rajeev Sharma, Usha Pandey, G.Lal and Vishwanath Garg were forged on refund vouchers/membership register by Prabir Bhattacharya (A.10).
4. Fabricated record was presented before the office of Registrar Cooperative Society. Shailender Sharma(A.4) and Surinder Kumar(A.5) deliberately facilitated preparation of false proceedings of the Managing Committee from 19931996. Proceedings were signed by Shailender Sharma(A.4) and Surinder Kumar(A.5). Managing Committee Meetings were shown to have been held on 06.04.96 and 04.05.96 which proceedings were recorded by Prabir Bhatacharya(A. CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.6 of 20
10), Shailender Sharma(A.4) and Surinder Kumar(A.5). Audit reports for the period 19931996, 199596 were got prepared in 1996 indicating that society remained dormant during 19931996. Society did not intimate RCS office regarding enrollment and resignation which took place in 19931996. Shri Dalip Bhattcharya, Dealing Assistant and M.D.Sharma, Asstt.Registrar (SouthWest Zone) had dealt with file. Dalip Bhattcharya submitted two inspection reports dated 07.11.97 and 26.03.99, detailing therein that membership of the society was incomplete and transfer of membership from DJA CGHS Ltd. to RML CGHS Ltd. was not brought to his notice. Show cause notice was issued to the society on 28.07.98, which was withdrawn on 20.08.98. S.D.Sharma (A.8) was deputed by J.P.S. Kataria to verify 10% of resignations. It is alleged that in conspiracy with the aforesaid persons, he submitted a report dated 24.09.99 informing verification of 31 resignations and detailing that nothing adverse could be revealed. However, signatures of one Ms.Anita Singh were found to be forged on her verification slip, which fact was not verified by S.D.Sharma(A.8) and thus, he gave a false report by abusing his official position for extraneous consideration. J.P.S.Kataria put up a note, concealing the fact that 124 resignations included the persons who were shown to have been enrolled to keep the CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.7 of 20 society functional. Debajit Dutta (A.9) made false notes during 1999, stating therein that records of society were checked whereas he failed to check the record. Thus, he allegedly misused and abused his official position for extraneous consideration. On the basis of wrong information furnished, a list was sent to DDA and thus, the society obtained allotment of land from DDA and thereby accused persons committed offences punishable under section 120B r/w 420, 467, 468,471 of the Penal Code and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof.
5. Sanction to prosecute Debajit Dutta has been accorded by the Competent authority, as contemplated by section 19 of the Act. S.D.Sharma has retired from service and therefore, no sanction was needed to prosecute him, as contemplated by section 19 of the Act. J.P.S.Kataria had expired on 20.06.02.
6. Shri J.S.Wadia, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and accused / their Ld. counsels have been heard on charge and record has been perused.
CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.8 of 20
7. While hearing the arguments on charge and particularly on alleged commission of acts of commission and omission on the part of accused public servants, court found it appropriate to first go through evidence available against them. Thus the first attempt was to appreciate the arguments of Ld. prosecutor and Ld. defence counsel for accused Shri Dutt Sharma (A.8) and Debajit Dutta (A.9) as they are the only public servants amongst accused persons and it is due to their alleged involvement in the commission of offence, the provisions of P.C.Act , 1988 are attracted and this Court has been conferred with the jurisdiction to try the case.
8. As regards accused Shri Dutt Sharma (A.8) & Debajit Dutta (A.9) it is alleged that during the year 199399 they entered into a criminal conspiracy with common object to show the DJA CGHS alive/functioning on the basis of false and fabricated documents i.e. application forms, different vouchers, proceedings of the management committee /general body meetings as well as false and forged verification reports and put up the same to the authority concerned for getting approved the list of members for its onward transmission to DDA for allotment of land in the name of DJA CGHS. At the very outset, one CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.9 of 20 thing is very clear from statement of PW.39 Sh.M.D.Sharma, then Asstt.Registrar (SW) and D.No.52 which is relevant noting file of RCS that involvement of accused S.D.Sharma in the matter started only when he was directed to conduct physical verification of 10% resignee members by AR on 24.08.99 and that of accused Debajit Dutta (A.9) on 20.07.98 (D.52 at page No.36/N) when he put up first noting in this case. There is no oral or documentary evidence to allege that they ever dealt with the matter of DJA CGHS prior to those dates and thus having any connection or knowledge of alleged forgery and fabrication of records of the said society already committed by then. It is clear from note at page No.28/N of D.52 that the file was first dealt in South West Zone of RCS only on 06.05.97. So there was no possibility of dealing with this file by accused officials of RCS during the period when alleged forgery of records took place in DJA CGHS.
9. As regards the role of accused S.D.Sharma (A.8) it has been submitted by Ld. Public prosecutor that he was the Area Inspector of the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) Delhi who was deputed by Sh.J.P.S.Kataria, Asistant Registrar to physically verify 10% of the resignation but he dishonestly, in pursuance to the criminal CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.10 of 20 conspiracy hatched alongwith other accused persons prepared a report dated 24.09.99 intimating that verification of 31 resignation by him had not revealed anything adverse. It is also submitted that GEQD has opined that signatures of Ms.Anita Singh (member No.131) on the verification slip does not tally with her specimen signatures and therefore, the same are forged and thus while doing so, accused S.D.Sharma has misused and abused his official position for extraneous consideration.
10. Sh.Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta, Ld. counsel for accused S.D.Sharma (A.8) has submitted that entire evidence arrayed against accused S.D.Sharma does not make out any case either of criminal conspiracy or of misusing or abusing his official position or that no such verification of resignations was conducted by accused S.D.Sharma. He has submitted that accused No.8 was required to verify 10% resignations of the members of society which comes to 10 only as total number of resigned members was 99 as per document No.52 at page 42 to 54/N. But in fact he verified 30 resignations and submitted his report.
CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.11 of 20
11. He has also drawn attention of the court towards statement of Ms. Anita Singh (PW.16) in the list of witnesses wherein Ms.Anita Singh has stated that she had lost her interest to continue with the membership of the society and had tendered her resignation. From this statement it is clear that Ms.Anita Singh is not disputing that she had already resigned from the membership of society. But she denied having singed the verification slip confirming her resignation which accused S.D.Sharma (A.8) has annexed with his report. In the verification slip it has been stated "this is to certify that I Anita Singh actually resigned from the membership of DJA Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and thereafter I received full and final payment through cheque and nothing is due against the society" sd/ There is no denial of the PW Anita Singh that she had already resigned from the membership of the society and received full and final payment through cheque.
12. Thus, even if it is presumed that the signature on the verification slip are not that of Ms.Anita Singh, there is no effect of the same, because she otherwise confirmed that she had resigned from the membership of the society. Under such circumstances, there was no CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.12 of 20 reason why A.8 would get forged signature of Ms.Anita Singh on verification slip as it was inconsequential. The alleged forgery of signature of Ms.Anita Singh on verification slip was not going to cause any gain or loss to anyone. Thus, it cannot be said that mere denial of signatures of Ms.Anita Singh on the verification slip imputes an ulterior motive on the part of accused S.D.Sharma. Otherwise also there is no other imputation against him or any other oral/documentary evidence to show that he had any collusion with the other accused persons.
13. There is no other allegation against accused S.D.Sharma except statement of PWs 4,7,8,12,14 & 16 who have simply denied that S.D.Sharma did not meet them for taking signatures on the verification slip but none of them except PW Ms.Anita Singh have denied having signed on the verification slip. When all of them also stated that they had already resigned from the membership of the society, their denial that accused S.D.Sharma did not meet them is inconsequential. The physical verification report submitted by him does not contain any false fact as it is not the case of the prosecution that any of those 30 members had not in fact resigned from DJA CGHS.
CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.13 of 20
14. Thus as per evidence arrayed by prosecution against accused S.D.Sharma, the court does not find any sufficient material to frame charge against him for criminal conspiracy with other accused persons or abusing or misusing his official position. At the best there could have been some dereliction of duty on his part in not visiting some of the resignee members personally for the purpose of verification but this fact alone cannot be said to be sufficient to fasten a criminal liability or given rise to a conclusion that it was done by him with ulterior motive to help the other accused persons.
15. As against accused Debajit Dutta who was Dealing Assitant in the office of RCS Delhi , it is alleged that he also entered into criminal conspiracy in furtherance of the common object with the other accused persons and thereby intentionally put a false note in 1999 stating that records have been checked whereas no records were checked by him while putting his signatures on the note. It has been vehemently argued by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor that accused Debajit Dutta was working as LDC/Dealing Assistant in the office of RCS who was duty bound to check that the affidavits and the documents filed by office bearers of the society was not forged and fabricated and they were CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.14 of 20 bearing the signatures of genuine persons only. He has submitted that had accused Debajit Dutta diligently verified the evidence he could have noticed that the records furnished by office bearers of the society are forged and fabricated in nature.
16. On the other hand Sh.Rajeshwar K.Gupta, Ld. counsel for accused Debajit Dutta has submitted at bar that this was the only case in which Debajit Dutta has been named as accused by the CBI out of about 150200 society cases in which officials of RCS are accused. He has also submitted that in his note sheet (D.52) page 41/N to 54/N accused Debajit Dutta had submitted to the higher authorities for consideration of only 110 members for enrollment and he had specifically stated that enrollment of 40 members be kept in abeyance for want of legal requirement such as affidavits, proof of residence, etc. He has submitted that had there been any conspiracy or misuse of official position by accused Debajit Dutta (A.8) there would have been no question of withholding enrollment of 40 members of the society. He has submitted that in fact the file was processed between 29.10.98 to 07.10.99 and thus he took a period of about one year for the purpose of verification and completion of the records by the office bearers of the CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.15 of 20 society. Had there been any conspiracy on the part of accused Debajit Dutta he would have hurriedly put up the file with a positive note. He has also submitted that during this period the verification of 10% resignation was also got done by deputing an Inspector and after receiving his report the note was put up for consideration of higher authorities by accused Debajit Dutta. He has also submitted that the notice of accused Debajit Dutta disclosed every thing and nothing has been concealed and that there is not even an iota of evidence of any conspiracy between accused Debajit Dutta and other accused persons so as to frame a charge either u/s 120B or under the provisions of P.C.Act, 1988.
17. Ld. Public prosecutor has further argued that while putting up the note dated 01.10.99 (D.52), accused Debajit had mentioned that there is no requirement of approval of enrollment and resignation of 124 members which itself show that he had conspired with office bearers of the society as those 124 resigned members included the members who were shown to have been enrolled only to keep the society functioning and thereafter shown to had already resigned between 1993 to 1996. He adverted to the note of accused Debajit Dutta at page 44/N(D.52) CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.16 of 20 wherein accused has suggested that 124 members who were enrolled by the society but had subsequently resigned prior to the approval by the department and hence these cases may be taken on record as approval is not required. He has submitted that in this respect the witnesses have been examined by IO who were the members at Sr.No. 167, 170, 171, 173, 181, 189, 199 & 200 who have stated that signatures appearing on the membership register are not theirs and they had never become the members of the society. In this respect I find that it is not the case of CBI that some means were available to Dealing Assistant to check that the signatures of the members available in the proceedings of the society or receipt etc. were not genuine. Thus, it was reasonable for any official to submit in his note that since those 124 members had already resigned from the membership of the society before approval , therefore, those cases were only to be taken on record as they did not call for any approval.
18. I do not find anything, either in documentary evidence or statements of prosecution witnesses, to show that it was the duty of Dealing Assistant to personally verify the records by cross checking from the persons who had sworn the affidavit or signed other CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.17 of 20 proceedings. Accused was merely a LDC of the department and when it was not his specific duty to personally cross check from the persons swearing the affidavits, it cannot be alleged that he has wrongly checked and verified the documents submitted by office bearer of the society. In the noting he has simply written that he had verified and checked the records of the society which only mean that the records were appearing genuine on the face of them and nothing more than that.
19. On careful perusal of the statements of witnesses I do not find any oral or documentary evidence to link this accused with remaining accused persons to believe that there was any conspiracy between accused Debajit Dutta and other accused persons. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the note put up by accused Debajit Dutta, was with any ulterior motive . It has been submitted by Ld. Spl.PP that accused Debajit Dutta failed to note that membership register was not complete. To my mind any such lapse, even if it is assumed to had happened, could only give rise to lack of diligence but does not lead to a conclusion that it was done with oblique motive. There is no evidence at all to link him with other accused in criminal CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.18 of 20 conspiracy or misusing his official position to cause some benefit to them.
20. It is also noted that accused Debajit Dutta (A.8) was LDC and his note was put up to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for approval through AR and JR but no responsibility has been fixed for lapses on the part superior officers whereas the employee of the lowest rank has been implicated as accused in this case. If his superiors upto the rank of Registrar could be afforded the benefit of overlooking the shortcomings in the documents submitted to them , the accused LDC was also entitled to same benefit.
21. Thus, in view of above I find that there is no sufficient evidence available against accused S.D.Sharma (A.8) & Debajit Dutta (A.9) to frame charge against them for criminal conspiracy with other accused u/s 120B IPC or u/s 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of P.C.Act. As such both of them are discharged. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
22. As both the public servants stand discharged, this court CBI Case No.39/10 CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.19 of 20 ceases to have jurisdiction in respect of other accused persons for offences alleged to have been committed by them u/s 120B r/w Section 420/467/468/471 IPC which are exclusively triable by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate. As such file be sent to the court of Ld.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed further against remaining accused persons in accordance with law. The remaining accused persons are directed to appear before Ld.CMM on 13.10.11 at 2.00 p.m. Ahlmad is directed to send the complete file to the court of Ld. CMM, Delhi well in time.
Announced in the open (R P PANDEY)
Court on 01.10.2011 SPL.JUDGE (CBI)I
ROHINI COURTS/DELHI
CBI Case No.39/10
CBI Vs. Prasanjit Ganguly etc. Page No.20 of 20