Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Mohd. Taqi S/O Late Mohd. Safi on 1 June, 2012
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,
PC ACT, CBIIII, ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
CBI No. 131/11
RC No. 13(S)/2006/CBI/SCBII/New DELHI
(GulshanEIabal CGHS)
CBI
Versus
1.Mohd. Taqi S/o Late Mohd. Safi
2. Praveen Kumar S/o Sh. Nanak Chand
3. Parul Singhal S/o Sh. Narender Kumar Singhal
4. P. D. Sharma S/o Late Sh. J D Sharma
5. R. K. Srivastava S/o Sh. Late Sh. G. S. Srivastava
6. Shiv Dutt Sharma S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sharma
7. Prem Narayan Sharma S/o Sh. Sh. R. S. Sharma
8. Mahender Singh S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal ORDER ON CHARGE:
1. The case of the CBI, in brief, is that GulshanEIqbal Co operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (in short 'CGHS') was registered with Registrar Cooperative Societies (in short 'RCS') on 22.12.83 vide registration No. 1117. Initially, there were 96 promoter Muslim members. After registration of the society 39 more Muslim members were enrolled and a list of 135 promoter members was sent to the office of RCS. On 03.09.1991 the society was wound up by the RCS as it was not functioning in accordance with the laid down rules CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 1/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) and procedures of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act (in short 'DCS' Act).
2. Investigation further disclosed that after winding up the Management Committee informed the promoter members that society had been wound up and returned the deposited money to them in the year 199192. All the records were in the possession of Syed Nissar Ahmed (since deceased), the then Secretary of the Society. In the year 1997 Nissar Ahmed informed accused Mohd. Taqi, the then Joint Secretary of the Society, that a person who wanted to revive the society asked him to help him in preparing records like proceedings registers, resignation letters etc. from 199097 and in return, the said person would give them flats in the society free of cost. After that Syed Nissar Ahmed and accused Md. Taqi (A1) prepared the resignation letters of the promoter members in 1997 at the residence of Syed Nissar Ahmed. Accused Md. Taqi (A1) forged the signatures of the promoter members on resignation letters and also signed the proceedings register from 1990 to 1997 at the instance of Syed Nissar Ahmed.
3. The minutes of Managing Committee proceedings from 199297 were forged and written by accused Prem Narayan Sharma (A7) in the year 1997 at the residence of Syed Nissar Ahmed. The promoter members were shown to have resigned and new 86 members were shown to have been enrolled in the fake proceedings. The CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 2/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) proceeding register was forged knowingly and intentionally which was also signed by Syed Nissar Ahmed, Mohd. Taqi (A1), Parul Singhal (A3) and Praveen Kumar Gupta (A2). All the promoter members who were shown to have resigned during 1990 to 1997, in fact did not resign and did not sign on the resignation letters. In 1997, Syed Nissar Ahmed and Committee Members told them that the Society had been wound up by the RCS and the deposited money was returned to them.
4. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, an application was moved in the RCS office on 23/10/1997 by Syed Nissar Ahmed (now deceased), in the capacity of the Secretary of the Society for approving the list of members i.e. a freeze list and forwarding of the same to DDA for allotment of land. This list of members also contained the name of members who never became member of the Society at any point of time. It has been established that such members did not sign any paper of the society. The said application was dealt by the office of RCS. After examination of the application, society was advised to file an appeal before the Competent Authority for revival of the society. Thus, the application dated 23/10/1997 filed by Syed Nissar Ahmed for approval of the list of members was rejected.
5. Investigation further disclosed that the society had again moved an application dated 25/05/1998 addressed to Registrar whereby a request was again made for forwarding of list of members to DDA for allotment of land and also for recalling of the winding up CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 3/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) order dated 03/09/1991. This application was processed by accused P. D. Sharma, the then Deputy Registrar, and he made a note dated 03/06/1998. On perusal of the said note it is revealed that the said note is contradictory to his earlier note so far as fact regarding winding up order is concerned. Accused P. D. Sharma in his earlier note dated 28/10/1997 attempted to suppress the passing of the winding up order by stating that no final action to wind up the society was taken. He further recommended for the revival of the society despite the fact that the society had not applied for the same. Accused P. D. Sharma (A4) again vide his note dated 03/06/1998 gave a misleading report that the order u/s 63(2)(b) i.e. winding up order, had not been issued which is contrary to the fact that the winding up order has already been approved by the then Deputy Registrar, Sh. Satish Mathur and signed by him on 03/09/1991. He again reported that the case of the Society is fit for revival. During investigation it has also been revealed that the said accused P. D. Sharma did not reflect the factual position of the Society with a view to give undue favour to the society despite the fact that there were sufficient material on record to show that the society was not in existence. Accused P. D. Sharma, the then Deputy Registrar, dishonestly recommended the revival of the society without giving weightage to the provision of Rule 105 that after 3 years of the date of winding up, the liquidation is presumed to be terminated (over) and a liquidated society could neither have AGM election nor could it CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 4/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) have been considered queries and in pursuance thereof Syed Nisssar Ahmed and accused Parul Singhal submitted false and fabricated records of the society for the purpose of its revival. The file of the society for its revival was processed under the active control of accused P. D. Sharma who gave favourable recommendations for revival on the basis of these false and fabricated documents and finally accused R. K. Srivastava, the then RCS, despite the knowledge that the society was not in existence, acted intentionally on the misleading and false report/recommendation of his subordinate accused P. D. Sharma and J. P. S. Kataria (since deceased) and approved the proposal for revival of the society on 07/04/2000.
6. Accused R. K. Srivastava (A5), the then RCS, was responsible for taking the decision as per the DCS Act and its rules. The note sheet file of the RCS Office reflected that accused R K Shrivastav revived the aforesaid Society after a gap of about 7 years. He had also ostensibly called for the verification of the original records of the society without exercising his power u/s 54 & 55 of DCS Act regarding inspection of the society, its members in order to satisfy whether the society was in existence/in continuance or not. Without exercising his power as stated above accused R K Srivastava knowingly passed an order of revival on 07/04/2000 by abusing his official position in pursuance to the aforesaid conspiracy amongst the accused persons.
CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 5/20
(Gulshan E Iqbal)
7. Investigation further revealed that accused R. K. Srivastava failed to exercise his power u/s 54 of DCS Act regarding physical inspection of the Society, in order to know the existence, functioning of Society and genuineness of its members, prior to consideration on the application/letter of the society for revival of winding up order.
8. Accused Mahender Singh (A8) in pursuance of criminal conspiracy gave a false report dated 01/09/2000 whereby he purported to have verified the resignations of the society's members/promoter members. The RCS official tried to justify inaction in verifying the existence of the members or their genuineness. There are no records available either with the society or with the RCS Office to show that the society has informed the induction of these members/office bearers to RCS Office nor there is any intimation of other 86 members shown to have been enrolled during the year 19911997, had been given to RCS Office. The examination of many such members except some members, who have been purportedly enrolled, revealed that they have not become the members of the society either during the said period or subsequent thereto. Besides this Syed Nissar Ahmed (since deceased) and accused Mohd. Taqi (A1) had returned money to the majority of the promoter members in the year of 19911992 as disclosed by promoter members during investigation. The accused persons in conspiracy with each other manipulated the list of members by CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 6/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) replacing 86 promoter members (Muslim) with corresponding new members mostly Hindus by falsely showing their induction as members of the Society during the year 199197.
9. Accused Mahender Singh (A8) who was SubInspector in the RCS Office had dishonestly submitted false verification report dated 01/09/2000 regarding resigned members. These members have denied to have submitted their resignations. This above said fact of accused persons shown that they prepared a false list of members with a motive to approve the same in connivance with accused from RCS Office so that the same can be sent to DDA to allot the land to all 135 members out of many were not the genuine members at the time of approval of freeze list. Hence in this way, accused from RCS Office i.e. accused J. P. S. Kataria (AR) (since deceased), P. D. Sharma (DR), R. K. Srivastava (RCS), S. D. Sharma (Inspector), Mahender Singh (SubInspector) in connivance with aforesaid private person Syed Nissar Ahmed (since deceased), Mohd. Taqi, Praveen Kumar Gupta, Parul Singhal and Prem Narayan Sharma after fraudulent revival of the society on the basis of forged and false documents of the society also successfully misrepresented the DDA and induced it to allot the huge land on subsidized rates to society corresponding to the strength of 135 members out of which many members were found fictitious. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court against the accused persons for committing various offences under CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 7/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) and Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act).
10. I have heard Ld. PP for CBI; Sh. R K Handa, Ld. Counsel for accused Praveen Kumar and Parul Singhal, Sh. Hamid Ahmed, Ld. Counsel for accused Mohd. Taqi; Sh. Abhishek Prasad, Ld. Counsel for accused P N Sharma; Sh. S K Bhatnagar, Ld. Counsel for accused Mahender Singh and Sh. R P Shukla, Ld. Counsel for accused R K Srivastava, Shiv Dutt Sharma and Prem Narayan Sharma and Sh. Ajay Burman, Ld. Counsel for accused P D Sharma. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of accused Praveen Kumar, Parul Singhal and P D Sharma.
11. Sh. R K Handa, Ld. Counsel for accused Praveen Kumar and Parul Singhal contended that the cognizance taken by the Ld. Predecessor Judge Sh. O. P. Saini, Special Judge, CBI on 11/09/09 is bad in Law. It is not a mere irregularity but an illegality which cannot be cured. Ld. Counsel has referred to the orders dated 02/08/2005 and 13/02/2006 passed by Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10066/2004 to show that there was no mandate of the High Court for the investigation of the present case and said orders were wrongly construed by the CBI to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. The other contention of the Ld. Counsel is that there is a bar of Section 3 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 (in short 'DSPE' Act) as no notification in the official gazette was passed by the CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 8/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) Central Government and even otherwise, DCS Act is a special statute which will prevail over the general law and, thus, the accused persons cannot be prosecuted. According to Ld. Counsel, GulshanEIqbal CGHS was registered on 22/12/1983 with 135 members and it was wound up by the RCS on 03/09/1991. There was no cancellation of the registration of the society and under the DCS Act such societies can be validly revived by the RCS. Ld. Counsel further contended that no construction money was given by the members and there is no forgery qua preparation of the false records between 19921997 in the present case by accused nos. 2 & 3. Ld. Counsel further contended that there is no positive evidence to the effect that pecuniary advantage was given to the public servants and in such circumstances ingredients of Section 13 of the P. C. Act are not attracted to the present case and, thus, this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present case. Ld. Counsel has referred to the relevant provisions of the DCS Act, 2003 and the notification no. 228/8/89AVD,II, dated 07/09/1989 to show that this court has no jurisdiction to try the present case. Ld. Counsel further contended that as per chargesheet accused R. K. Srivastava was the kingpin and cognizance was not taken against him by the Ld. Predecessor Judge on 11/09/09. Cognizance cannot be taken by the court twice and, as such, accused nos. 2 & 3 cannot be roped in for the offences of conspiracy.
12. Sh. S P Yadav, Ld. Counsel for accused Mohd. Taqi CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 9/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) contended that there is nothing on record to connect accused Mohd. Taqi with the alleged offences and, therefore, he is liable to be discharged in this case.
13. Sh. Abhishek Prasad, Ld. Counsel for accused P N Sharma contended that ingredients of section 468 IPC are not attracted in the present case. DCS Act is a Special Act which will prevail over the general law and, as such, accused no. 7 Prem Narain Sharma is liable to be discharged. Later on, Sh. R P Shukla, Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of accused P N Sharma and conceded that prima facie case is made out against accused P N Sharma.
14. Sh. S K Bhatnagar, Ld. Counsel for accused Mahender Singh contended that accused Mahender Singh was not named in the FIR after the preliminary inquiry. He has no role to play in the revival of the society. According to him, there is nothing on record that on the basis of accused Mahender Singh's report, list was forwarded to DDA for allotment of land and, as such, accused Mahender Singh is liable to be discharged.
15. Sh. R P Shukla, Ld. Counsel for accused R K Srivastava and Shiv Dutt Sharma contended that no prima facie case is made out against the accused persons as they were discharging their official duties and there is nothing on record that they had any mala fide intention to get the society revived in collusion with other accused persons. Ld. Counsel has referred to several notings in file D12 to CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 10/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) emphasize that no charge can be framed against the accused persons. According to Ld. Counsel, the matter was considered by the previous Registrar Sh. Gopal Dixit. It was Sh. Gopal Dixit who had recommended for the revival of the society after examining the case on merits vide his noting dated 5.6.98 (page 34/N in file D12). According to Ld. Counsel, the matter was examined by Secretary Cooperative and even he proposed the revival of the society vide his note (58/N) dated 8.6.99. Ld. Counsel contended that after the transfer of Sh. Gopal Dixit, accused R K Srivastava joined as Registrar Cooperative Societies and he approved the revival of the society on the basis of the matter having been examined by his predecessor. In these circumstances, Ld. Counsel contended that no case is made out against accused R K Srivastava. Ld. Counsel further contended that there is no evidence to the effect that proceedings were written at the house of Syed Nissar Ahmed as has been alleged in the chargesheet. There is nothing on record to suggest that accused conspired to do any illegal act and, thus, they may be discharged.
16. Sh. Ajay Burman, Ld. Counsel for accused P D Sharma contended that accused Syed Nissar Ahmed (deceased) was the Secretary of GulshanEIqbal CGHS and the application for revival of the society was moved by him in the office of RCS on 23.10.97 and, as such, it is not the case of the CBI that somebody else impersonated Syed Nissar Ahmed in the office of RCS for getting the society CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 11/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) revived as has been the case in other cases of revival of the societies. Ld. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this court towards several notings on the notesheets in file D12. According to him, confusion in this case occurred because of the noting dated 5.9.91 (page 15/N in file D12) wherein it is mentioned that society was brought under liquidation vide order No. F47/1117/NGH/COOP/7198 dated 5.9.91. However, as a matter of fact the society was never brought under liquidation. According to Ld. Counsel winding up of the society was approved in the present case but no final order for the revival of the society in question was ever passed and in these circumstances accused P D Sharma had written the notings in file D12 bringing on record the true facts. Ld. Counsel prayed that accused P D Sharma be discharged in this case.
17. I have gone through the file as well as documents placed on record. According to accusedRCS officials, they have done nothing wrong while discharging their functions. RCS does not deal with land as the same is the subject matter of DDA who allots the land in accordance with the Rules framed under DDA Act, 1957 and Disposal of Development Nazul Land Rules, 1981. CBI has committed various illegalities while investigating the matter. Accused placed reliance upon the judgment titled as Dr. R.R.Kishore v. CBI 2006 VIII AD (Delhi) 545, wherein it was held that if illegal investigation is brought to the notice of the Trial Court at the initial stage, then the CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 12/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) court ought not to proceed with the trial but should direct reinvestigation in order to cure the defect in the investigation. Accused have pointed out following illegalities:
(a) Consent of the State was not taken as required U/s 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (in short 'DSPE' Act).
(b) Absence of notification U/s 3 of DSPE Act.
(c) Registration of case under various provisions of IPC instead of DCS Act which is a Special Act.
18. The contention that the consent of State was not taken is misconceived in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The investigation was referred to CBI in the present matter by the High Court. Once the order for investigation of a case to CBI is passed by the High Court under its inherent powers, permission from State Government is not required. High Court is competent enough to refer a matter for investigation to CBI. Though not referred to and relied upon, for taking view I am supported with the order dated 17.9.2007 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sh. S.N. Dhingra in Criminal MC No. 2784 of 2007.
19. It is contended that the noncompliance of Sec.3 of DSPE Act, 1946 vitiates the entire investigation. As per Sec. 3 of DSPE Act, 1946, the Central Government makes notification in the official gazette to specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment. It is contended CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 13/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) that the Act confers the jurisdiction on the CBI in relation to the investigation by the Central Government u/s 3 of the Act and such offences, as notified, are mentioned in DSPE Act, 1946. The offences covered by Sec. 3 of the said Act do not include the offences under the Cooperative laws. Thus, the investigation done by the CBI for the co operative societies is in violation of Sec.3 as it has no jurisdiction to conduct the investigation. In my opinion the offences mentioned in the chargesheet are all notified offences U/s 3 of the DSPE Act and, therefore, no fresh notification is/was necessary.
20. All the accused have raised the contention that the DCS Act, is a complete self contained statute and, therefore, provisions of the Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked. The DCS Act, 1972 provides for a well defined system of addressing the issues relating to various private cooperative societies and it contains the provisions of fine, appeal, punishment and, as such, the application of provisions of the IPC by the CBI is wholly illegal. It is further contended that the matter is covered under the provision of Section 82(3) of DCS Act which completely debars the prosecution without giving the opportunity of being heard as well as previous sanction of RCS. The offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is punishable under the provisions of Special law and, therefore, the provisions of Indian penal Code, being general law, cannot be invoked. In respect of this contention, accused have relied upon judgments State of CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 14/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) Maharashtra Vs. Laljit Rajshi Shah & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 937; and Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. United Yarn Textile Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2007(5) SCALE 366.
21. On the other hand, it is contended by Ld. PP for CBI that provisions under DCS Act and DCS Rules are for administration of Cooperative Group Housing Society which do not cover conspiracy to cheat, using forged documents as genuine and forgery for purpose of cheating. According to him, it cannot be said that the chargesheet filed by the CBI is barred due to enactment of Special Law.
22. I have gone through the judgments cited by the accused. The cited judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Wherever the Legislature in its wisdom deemed fit, they have restricted/prohibited the applicability of other Acts which could be seen from the provision of section 91 of DCS Act, 1972 which provides "The provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 shall not apply to Cooperative Societies Act". But such restriction/prohibition is nowhere mentioned in DCS Act, 1972 debarring the applicability of IPC or PC Act under which the accused persons have been charge sheeted. Thus, DCS Act does not impose any bar to take resort to the provisions of General Criminal Laws.
23. The facts and circumstances of the present case prima facie reveal that entire proceedings conducted in the office of RCS were actuated with conspiracy. Bogus documents were used. The CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 15/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) modus operandi of reconstruction of documents was adopted. The accused RCS officials followed the procedure with a view to give colour to their acts. Following procedure prescribed under the Act would not validate his acts when they were actuated with conspiracy to cheat the RCS and office of DDA.
24. Further, it is contended that there is no complainant in this case and, thus, the registration of FIR in the present case does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 154 Cr.PC. The contention is devoid of any merit. Our High Court of Delhi while hearing the Civil Writ Petition No. 10066/2004 passed order dated 2.8.05 directing the CBI to conduct the thorough investigation in the matter relating to 135 CGHS. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by the Delhi High Court in exercise of its inherent powers, an inquiry was conducted by CBI which disclosed commission of cognizable offence by the accused persons in the matter of dishonest and fraudulent revival of society. Therefore, CBI rightly lodged the FIR in the present case. While registering the FIR, the acts and omissions on the part of the accused persons and disclosure of commission of cognizable offences by them were detailed in the FIR. The FIR registered by CBI fully satisfies the ingredients of Section 154 Cr.PC. It is the settled law that once an investigation is directed into alleged offences by the Court, two conditions are necessary to commence the investigation:
(i) The police should have reason to suspect the commission of CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 16/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) cognizable offence and;
(ii) A Police Officer should subjectively satisfy himself to the existence of sufficient grounds to enter into investigation.
25. These two conditions were duly satisfied at the stage of lodging of FIR in the present case by the CBI before entering into investigation. Thus, the present FIR was rightly registered by the CBI and just because the FIR was not lodged on a complaint received from a complainant/individual is not a ground to discharge the accused.
26. No doubt, noting dated 6.9.91 on the notesheet (page No. 19/N in file D12) was wrongly written wherein it has been mentioned that society was brought under liquidation vide order No. F 47/1117/NGH/COOP/7198 dated 3.9.91 though as a matter of fact the order of winding up of the society was issued vide the above referred order dated 3.9.91. This noting caused confusion which is evident from the perusal of subsequent noting in file D12. The RCS officials including the Registrar Cooperative Societies cannot derive any benefit at this stage from the said noting dated 6.9.91 in view of the statement of PW 61 Sh. Satish Mathur who has categorically stated that the order of winding up was issued under his signatures on 03.09.91 and the same has been removed from the file by interested persons. The relevant portion of the statement of PW61 is reproduced herein for convenience:
"The order of wound up of the society was issued vide order No. F47/1117/NG/COOP/7198 dtd. 03.09.91. However the office copy of said order is not available in the file. Unsigned copy of CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 17/20 (Gulshan E Iqbal) said order placed on page 153 volume1. It is evidence from the file that the said order was issued under my signature on 03.09.91. I identify my signature on the noting file dtd. 3.9.91 and file sent to liquidation branch. I reconfirm that the order of wind up was issued but the interested persons have removed the same from the file.". (emphasis added)
27. In view of the statement of PW61 Sh. Satish Mathur, prima facie there is evidence to the effect that winding up order dated 3.9.91 duly signed by Sh. Satish Mathur was removed from the file by the interested persons. It is the settled law that the offence of criminal conspiracy is difficult to be established by direct evidence and, therefore, from established facts inference can be drawn that a conspiracy was hatched by the accused persons to commit an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. Though the previous Registrar Sh. Gopal Dixit had recommended the revival of the society as is apparent from the note sheets in file D12 but no final decision was taken by him till he remained as Registrar Cooperative Societies. Even Secretary Cooperative had approved the proposal to revive the society vide his noting on notesheet No. 58/N in file D12. In the meantime Sh. Gopal Dixit was transferred and accused R K Srivastava was appointed as Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi. The file was put up before Dr Yogender Shastri, Minister of Development (F & S) who ordered that the entire case be examined afresh by the new RCS (order dated 2.8.99 at page 58/N in file D12). CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 18/20
(Gulshan E Iqbal) Thus, it was incumbent upon the new RCS i.e accused R K Srivastava to go through the file and thereupon pass the order of revival. Accused R K Srivastava was not required to pass the order only on the basis of the recommendations/approval of the previous Registrar Sh. Gopal Dixit. From the perusal of record it is clear that the society in question was revived after a gap of seven years but accused R K Srivastava (A5) did not exercise his power u/s 54 and 55 of DCS Act regarding inspection of the society, its members etc in order to satisfy whether the society was in existence or not. If the winding up order dated 3.9.91 of the society passed by PW61 Sh. Satish Mathur was not available in the file, the said fact could have been ascertained by the office of RCS from PW61 Sh. Satish Mathur but no such step was taken by the RCS officials including the Registrar. Thus, from the documents and the statement of the prosecution witnesses on record, there is a grave suspicion against all the accused persons of having entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Offices of RCS and DDA.
28. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that prima facie case is made out against accused Mohd. Taqi (A1), accused Praveen Kumar Gupta (A2), accused Parul Singhal (A3), P D Sharma (A4), accused R K Srivastava (A5), accused Shiv Dutt Sharma (A6), accused Prem Narayan Sharma (A7) and accused Mahender Singh (A8) for committing offences U/s 120B IPC r/w Ss. CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 19/20
(Gulshan E Iqbal) 420, 468, 471 IPC and Sec. 13 (2) r/w S. 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof.
Announced in the open court (PRAVEEN KUMAR)
on dated 01.6.2012. Special Judge, PC Act
CBI3, Rohini Courts,Delhi.
CBI Vs. Mohd. Taqi and others Page 20/20
(Gulshan E Iqbal)