Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . 1 Om Prakash Gupta on 21 January, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF V .K .MAHESHWARI
SPECIALJUDGE: TIS HAZARI: DELHI
Corruption Case No. 06/08
CBI Vs. 1 Om Prakash Gupta
S/O Late Babu Ram
R/O C56, Surajmal Vihar,
Delhi92
2 Shri Kunwar Singh Bisht
S/O Late Sh Kundan Singh,
R/O House No. 304, Guru Ramdas
Nagar, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi92
3 Sh Jai Pal Singh Sisodia,
S/O Sh Kushal Singh,
R/O H. No. 60 Shanti Vihar,
Delhi.
4 Sh Ramesh Lal,
S/O Shri Babu Lal,
R/O H. No. 164, Gali No.11,
31/2, Pusta Kartar Nagar,
Near New Usmanpur,
Delhi ( Since Died on 05.01.2010 &
proceedings abated against him on
15.02.2010 )
CC No.06/08 1/104
2
R C No. 3(S)/2006/CBI/STF/N.D.
JUDGMENT
1 Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that in compliance of the order dated 13.02.2006 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 10066/2004, a Preliminary inquiry No. 2(S)/2006/SCRIII/DLI against four Group Housing Societies including Shantanu Apartment Co operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (C.G.H.S.) was registered on 03.03.2006 in SCRIII branch of CBI, New Delhi. Present case is the outcome of this preliminary inquiry.
2 Shantanu Apartment Co operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (C.G.H.S.) was registered with the office of registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi under Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, on 22.12.1983 vide Registration No. 1111(GH). Society was started with 72 members. In the beginning, accused Jai Pal Singh Shishodia (A3) was the Secretary and Sh. Om Prakash Gupta (A1) was the Treasurer of the Society. Both of them were managing affairs of Society. Regd. Office of society was situated at 6/B/1, Rita Block, Vikas Marg, Main Road, Delhi. Society increased the membership from 72 to 195 till 1985. CC No.06/08 2/104 3 3 At the time of registration of society, accused J P S Shishodia submitted prescribed list of 72 promoter members, which contains the signatures of the promoter members alongwith individual affidavits in RCS office, Delhi. Several members have denied having become members in the Society and denied their signatures on the relevant affidavits. S/Sh.S. Nagpal, Jai Singh Joon and Ishwar Singh Dagar have admitted their membership in the Society, but have stated that they were not elected as office bearers of the Society at the time of registration of society. Sh Jai Singh Joon has been Shown as elected President and Sh Ishwar Singh Singh Dagar and S.Nagpal has been Shown elected member of the Managing Committee, in the list. List is signed by Sh. J.P.S. Shishodia, as Secretary, certifying correctness of the list and that the members had signed in his presence and were known to him. S/Sh Pradeep Kumar, R.D. Verma, Smt. Vimala Dwivedi, whose names are included in the list of 72members have denied having become member or having signed the list/affidavits. 4 Subsequently 172 members have been shown enrolled in the Society between the period 1984 and 1997 and during the same period 176 members have been shown resigned from the society. Accused Om Prakash Gupta and Jai Pal Singh Shishodia were office bearers of the Society at that particular point of time. CC No.06/08 3/104 4 Accused Om Prakash Gupta, Jai Pal Singh Shishodia were the members of the Management Committee and Sh. Kunwar Singh Bisht (A2) was member of the Society who maintained the accounts/records of the society.
5 In response to the letter of RCS Sh. J.P.S. Shishodia, Secretary of Society forwarded the records of elections of the management committee, Affidavits, Photocopies of Agenda, list of members etc. of the Society to RCS and also furnished sworn affidavit dated 30.9.1997 to the effect that 164 members have resigned from the Society between the period 1985 and 1997. The affidavit does not contain true facts as many members have denied having submitted their resignations .
6 Society had got conducted the audit for the year of 199293 to 199697 on 21.07.1997. That audit report was submitted to the office of RCS by the Society intimating theirin that 120 members had resigned from the Society during the year 199697. In the audit report accused Jai Pal Singh Shishodia, Om Prakash Gupta and Babar Singh, have been shown as Secretary, President and Treasurer respectively. The Society got conducted the audit for the year of 199798 in the year 1999. That audit report was submitted to RCS office. In the audit report it has been shown that 12 members resigned from the society. All the resignation were CC No.06/08 4/104 5 accepted by accused Jai Pal Singh Shishodia while he was secretary of the society.
7 Freeze list of 195 members was submitted by the Society to RCS office for approval and onward transmission to DDA for the allotment of land. In 1998, the RCS office asked the society for furnishing the requisite information and to produce the records for verification so that the Freeze list can be approved. Society produced the relevant records regarding resigned members and enrollment of new members, photocopies of proceedings registers for the relevant period in which the resignations/ enrollment of the members were approved by the Management Committee before RCS Official on different occasions in the year 199899.
8 Record produced by the Society was scrutinized in the office of RCS. Since the society had shown a large number of resignation and enrollment of new members, Sh. Mahender Singh, Inspector was deputed for conducting inspection and 10% physical verification of resigned members. However, Sh. Ramesh Lal, Inspector, RCS had conducted the said inspection and physical verification and submitted a false inspection report on 1.1.1999. On the basis of inspection report of Sh. Ramesh Lal and other documents submitted by the Society Freeze list of members CC No.06/08 5/104 6 of the Society was approved by Sh. Gopal Dixit, the then RCS on 15.3.99.
9 RCS vide letter No. F47/19/NGH/Coop/S/1267 dt. 21.6.99sent a consolidated list of societies, (including Shantanu CGHS Ltd.) to DDA for allotment of land. On 2.11.01 DDA offered allotment of plot measuring 11,000 sq. metres in Dwarka, Karkardooma and Dhirpur residential Scheme for 195 members to this society and on 19.11.01, Sh. J P S Shishodia as President visited the DDA office and received the copy of allotment offer letter. The DDA asked the society to deposit Rs. 1,85,26,200/ (35% land money) within 45 days on receipt of the offer letter. Society sought extension of 90 days and finally society deposited 35% cost of land to the DDA on 27.6.02. DDA has allotted plot No.13 Dhirpur measuring 11,000 sq, metres to the society on 4.2.03. However, so far the possession of the land has not been given to the society as the land offered to the society failed in Soil Test.
10 Sh J.P.S. Shishodia (A3) had accepted false resignation of various members which were shown to have been submitted during the year 199697 and 1998. GEQD has also confirmed his handwritings on several forged resignation letters whereas relevant members have denied having given their CC No.06/08 6/104 7 resignations. GEQD has also confirmed writings/ signatures of Sh. J.P.S. Shishodia (A3) on Audit reports and other documents of society.
11 Shantanu CGHS Ltd. has never been declared as defunct by the RCS. It does not come in the category of revived society by the RCS.
CHARGE 12 Copies required U/S 207 Cr P C supplied to accused. After hearing both the parties vide order dt. 19.12.2009 this Court framed charge against all the accused U/S 120 B r/we Sec . 511/420,468,471 IPC and for the offence U/S 13(2) r/w Sec 13(1)
(d) of P C Act; a charge for the substantive offence punishable U/S 511/420,468,471 IPC framed against accused Om Parkash Gupta, JPS Shishodia and Kanwar Singh Bhist and a charge for the substantive offence punishable U/S 468,471 IPC and U/S 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of PC Act framed against accused Ramesh Lal. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial, hence, this trial.
13 In order to prove its case prosecution has examined following witnesses :
PW1 Smt. Nivedita Singh has proved application Ex PW1/A, Endorsement on membership register Ex PW1/B, resignation letter Ex PW1/C. CC No.06/08 7/104 8 PW2 Mamta Swain has proved application form Ex PW2/A, Endorsement on membership register Ex PW2/B, resignation letter Ex PW2/C. PW3 Rajender Kumar has proved application Ex PW3/A, Endorsement on membership register Ex PW3/B, resignation letter Ex PW3/C , Attendance sheet of annual meeting Ex PW3/D. PW4 Sh. Subhash Chand Bansal has proved application Ex PW4/A, Page no. 25 at serial no. 170 on membership register Ex PW4/B, application/resignation letter Ex PW4 /C. PW5 Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta has proved application Ex PW5/A, Page no. 25 at serial no. 172 on membership register Ex PW5/B, resignation letter Ex PW5 /C. PW 6 Sh Tara Chand has proved application Ex PW6/A, resignation letter Ex PW6 /B. PW7 Sh Lal Chand has proved application form for membership Ex PW7/A, and entry in the membership register Ex PW7/B, resignation application Ex PW7/C and certificate Ex PW7/D. PW8 Sh Jai Narain has proved entry at page No.18 of membership register Ex PW8/A, application for membership Ex PW8/B and resignation letter Ex PW8/C. PW9 Kewal Krishan Gosain has proved application for CC No.06/08 8/104 9 membership Ex PW9/A, resignation letter Ex PW9/B .
PW10 Sm Asha Chauhan has proved membership application Ex 10/A , application for withdrawal of membership Ex PW10/B , affidavit Ex PW10/C and vouchers Ex PW10/D and PW10/E. PW11 Sh Kewal Kishan Mahajan has proved resignation from membership Ex PW11/A and meeting register of society Ex PW11/B and his specimen signatures Ex PW11/C1 to C5.
PW 12 Sh Narender Kumar Sharma has proved certificate of society Ex PW12/A , list of total number of members Ex PW12/B , notings of the society Ex PW12/C , copy of letter signed by JPS Sisodia Ex PW12/D, Notings of made by Sh D Bhattachari and Dushant Kr for submissions of documents by the society. He has also proved inspection report of the society Ex PW12/F , resignation verification report Ex PW12/G , copy of request letter for forwarding the list of members to DDA for allotment of land Ex PW12/H , affidavit Ex PW12/J and letter Ex PW12/K , letter dt 1.10.85 signed by Deputy Registrar Ex PW12/L and RCS file of the society Ex PW12/M. PW13 Sh Raj Kumar has proved application of membership Ex PW13/A and PW13/B , resignation letter Ex PW13/C and signatures at Portion Q1952 Ex PW13/D , annual meeting CC No.06/08 9/104 10 conducted on 28.04.96 Ex PW 13/E. PW14 Sh Praveen Garg has deposed his father has not attended any meeting held on 28.4.96 and has already died in the year 1988.
PW15 Sh Mahinder Gola has proved membership application Ex PW5/A, voucher dt 15.1.98 Ex PW15/B and alleged certificate of resignation Ex PW 15/C. PW16 Sh Tek Chand has proved membership application Ex PW16/A and alleged resignation letter Ex PW16/A. PW17 Dr Surender Kr Nagpal has proved membership application Ex PW17/A , affidavit Ex PW17/B , entry on page No. 111 of D12 Ex PW17/C .
PW18 Sh Jai Bhagwan has proved his membership application Ex PW18/A and alleged resignation Ex PW18/B. PW19 Sh Sher Singh Jain has proved his membership application Ex PW 19/A , his alleged resignation Ex PW19/B and refund voucher Ex PW19/C. PW20 Sh Ishwar Singh Dagar has proved his membership application Ex PW 20/A, his alleged affidavit Ex PW20/B , Intensive enquiry Proforma of RCS Ex PW20/C, Resignation file Ex PW20/D, Registration file Ex PW20/E and refund vouchers Ex PW20/F. CC No.06/08 10/104 11 PW21 Sh. Jai Singh Joon has proved the application form Ex PW21/A, Affidavit Ex PW21/B, RCS file Ex PW21/C, Registration file Ex PW21/D. Registration file Ex PW20/E, Voucher Ex PW21/F, Audit file Ex PW21/G, Ex PW21/G1, Ex PW21/G2, Income and Expenditure account, Receipt and Payment account of Shantnu CGHS Ex PW21/H, Ex PW21/H1, Ex PW21/H2, Income and Expenditure account , Receipt & Payment account Ex PW21/I, Ex PW21/I1, Ex PW21/I2, List of Furniture Ex PW21/I3, List of member of Management Committee Ex PW21/I4, List of employees Ex PW21/I5, Certificate Ex PW212/I6, List of member Ex PW21/I7 , List of record Ex PW21/I8, Audit Report for he year ending on 30.6.88 Ex PW21/F in addition to these document, he has proved the document which are proved by the other witnesses.
PW22 Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain has proved application form Ex PW22/A, Registration file Ex PW22/C, Certificate Ex PW22/F , he has also proved document which are already Exhibited.
PW23 Sh. Gian Prakash has proved application Form Ex PW/23/A, Resignation letter ExPW23/B and he has also proved the documents which are already exhibited.
PW 24 Mauji Ram has proved the application form CC No.06/08 11/104 12 ExPW24/A, Resignation letter ExPW24/B and he has also proved the documents which are already exhibited .
PW25 Sh. Kashmiri Lal Chaudhary has proved the application form ExPW25/A, Resignation letter ExPW25/B, Voucher Ex PW25/C and he has also proved the documents which are already exhibited.
PW26 M S Jain has proved the application form Ex PW26/A, Resignation letter Ex PW26/B and application form of preliminary membership Ex PW26/C. PW27 Sh Amitabh Dham has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW27/A and refund receipt on account of surrendering of registration from membership Ex PW27/B. PW28 Smt Neena Kapoor has proved her application for membership of society Ex PW28/A and copy of resignation Ex PW28/B. PW29 Sh Harikesh Bansal has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW29/A and copy of resignation Ex PW29/B. PW30 Sh Vir Bhan has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW30/A and copy of resignation Ex PW30/B. PW31 Sh Nirmal Swaroop Jain has proved his application CC No.06/08 12/104 13 for membership of society Ex PW31/A, copy of resignation Ex PW31/B and affidavit Ex PW31/C. PW32 Sh Pradeep Kumar Jain has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW32/A, copy of resignation Ex PW32/B and affidavit Ex PW32/C. PW33 Sh Brij Mohan Batish has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW33/A and copy of resignation Ex PW33/B. PW 34 Dr Anupam Bhargav has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW34/A and copy of resignation Ex PW34/B. PW 35 Sh Deepak Kumar Bhardwaj has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW35/A and copy of resignation Ex PW35/B. PW36 Sh Arun Kumar has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW36/A, copy of resignation Ex PW36/B and cash receipt Ex PW36/C. PW37 Sh Munna Lal has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW37/A, copy of resignation Ex PW37/B and affidavit Ex PW37/C. PW 38 Sh Dinesh Kumar has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW38/A, copy of resignation Ex CC No.06/08 13/104 14 PW38/C and receipt Ex PW38/C. PW39 Sh Rakesh Jain has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW39/A and copy of resignation Ex PW39/B. PW40 Sh Pawan Kumar Goel has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW40 /A and copy of resignation Ex PW40/B. PW41 Sh Abu Nisha has not proved any document . PW42 Sh R N Mitra has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW42/A, copy of resignation Ex PW42/B and receipt Ex PW42/C. PW43 Sh Rakesh Kumar Jain has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW43/A and copy of resignation Ex PW43/B. PW44 Sh Suresh Chand has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW44/A, copy of resignation Ex PW44/B and the certificate regarding confirmation of resignation Ex PW 44/C. PW45 Sh Jogi Ram has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW45/A, copy of resignation Ex PW 45/B and copy of affidavit Ex PW45/C. PW46 Sh Bhagwat Singh has deposed that he never became CC No.06/08 14/104 15 the member of the society nor he has tendered his resignation his application for membership Ex PW46/A and copy of resignation Ex PW46/B ( identification purposes ).
PW47 Sh Sh M I H Ansari has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW47/A and copy of resignation Ex PW47/B. PW48 Sh Rajinder Singh has proved his resignation Ex PW48/A. PW49 Sh Anil Kumar has proved copy of FIR Ex PW49/A and handed over memo Ex PW49/B. PW 50 Sh K G Kashyap has proved correspondence and note sheet Ex PW50/A and letter dated 6.3.2006 Ex PW 50/B. PW51 Sh Randhir Singh Chhikara has proved letter dated 8.3.2006 Ex PW51/A and file relating to Shantanu Apartment CGHS Ex PW51/B. PW52 Sh Amit Sharma has proved application for membership of society in the alleged name of his father Sh Daya Nand Ex PW52/A .
PW53 Sh Sumit Bhardwaj was an accountant in Shantanu Apartment CGHS has proved membership register alongwith its all written matter ExPW53/A and proceeding register Ex PW53/B to PW53/D. CC No.06/08 15/104 16 PW54 Sh Rameshwar Dayal has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW54/A and copy of affidavit Ex PW54/B for identification purpose only.
PW55 Sh Chanderbhan Arya has deposed that no person by the name of J P Sisodia had ever approached him for getting his documents attested.
PW56 Sh Manoj Kumar in whose presence documents detailed from I to VI Ex PW49/B were taken by CBI.
PW57 Sh R N Swami has proved alleged resignation Ex PW57/A and his application for membership Ex PW57/B. PW 58 Sh Amarnath Gupta has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW58.
PW59 Sh Mukesh Choudhary has proved application of his father for membership of society Ex PW59/A and alleged resignation Ex PW59/B. PW60 Sh S D Windlesh , Assistant Registrar, Office of RCS ( East) has proved file relating to Shantanu Apartment CGHS Ltd Ex PW60/A, letter dated 4.4.06 Ex PW60/B, letter dated 25.4.2006 Ex PW60/C. PW61 Sh Jai Singh has proved his application for membership of society Ex PW61/A, copy of resignation Ex PW61/B and copy of proceeding register Ex PW61/C. CC No.06/08 16/104 17 PW 62 Sh. Babar Singh has proved his application for membership of society Ex. PW 62/A. PW 63 Smt. Raj Kumari has proved her application for membership of society Ex. PW 63/A, copy of resignation Ex. PW 63/B. PW 64 Sh. Rajender Prasad Bhutani has proved his application for membership of society Ex. PW 64/A, copy of resignation Ex. PW 64/B. PW 65 Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain has proved his application for membership of society Ex. PW65/A, copy of resignation Ex. PW65/B. PW 66 Sh. Suraj Bhan Gupta has proved his application for membership of society Ex. PW66/A, copy of resignation letter Ex. PW 66/B, proceeding register Ex. PW66/C, another copy of proceeding register Ex. PW 66/D. PW 67 Smt. Ramkali has proved her application for membership of society Ex. PW 67/A, copy of resignation Ex. PW67/B, proceeding register Ex. PW 67/C. PW 68 Sh. Pawan Kumar Garg has orally deposed that he is member of Shantanu CGHS Society and never attended any meeting and never resigned from the membership of society.
PW 69 Dr. Jageshwar Nath has orally deposed that he is CC No.06/08 17/104 18 member of Shantanu CGHS Society and never attended any meeting and never resigned from the membership of society.
PW 70 Sh. Moti Lal Jain has has proved his application for membership of society Ex. PW 70/A, copy of resignation Ex. PW70/B, copy of receipt money Ex PW70/C, copy of balance sheet Ex PW70/D ,certificate Ex PW70/E and list of members holding share of society Ex PW70/F. PW71 Smt Bimla Dwivedi has proved her application for membership of society Ex. PW 71/A. He has denied his signatures on Ex PW71/B and PW71/C .
PW72 Sh I S Hassan , IO of this case has proved charge sheet Ex PW72/Z. PW73 Sh Bachan Singh, has proved specimen writing and signatures sheets of accused Jai Pal Singh Sisodia , Om Parkash Gupta , Kanwar Singh Bhist, Ramesh Lal, Badar Singh, Jai Singh Joon, Jai Bhagwan, Rajender Kumar, Madan Singh Jain, Dr Anupam, B.M Batish, Dinesh Kumar , Pradeep Kumar, Mahender Gola and Munna Lal Ex PW73/A1 to A84 to Ex PW73/P1 to P5.
PW74 Sh Uttam Kumar Gujrani has proved specimen writing and signatures sheets of accused Jai Pal Singh Sisodia , Om Parkash Gupta and Kanwar Singh Bhist Ex PW74/A1 to A16, Ex PW74/B1 to B61 and Ex PW74/C1 to C9.
CC No.06/08 18/104 19
PW75 Sh Rajesh Kumar Gupta has also proved specimen writing and signatures sheets of accused Jai Pal Singh Sisodia , Om Parkash Gupta , Kanwar Singh Bhist, Sh P L Sabharwal and Sh Lal Chand Ex PW75/A1 to A74 to PW75/E1 to E5.
PW76 Sh Sandeep Kumar has proved sanction for prosecution of accused Ramesh Lal Ex 76/A. PW77 Sh Sh S Loganthan Asstt. GEQD has proved forwarding letter Ex PW77/A, copy of letters Ex PW77/B to PW77D. He has given his reasons for opinion Ex PW77/E . DEFENCE OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE 14 Statements of accused U/s 313 Cr PC recorded wherein they have stated that they are innocent . 15 In their defence accused have examined the following witnesses:
DW1 Sh Jugal Kishore has deposed orally and has not proved any document.
DW2 Sh Sunil Verma has deposed orally and has not proved any document.
DW 3 Sh Anand Goyal has deposed orally and has not proved any document.
DW4 Sh Anil Kr Goyal has deposed orally and has not CC No.06/08 19/104 20 proved any document.
DW 5 Sh Rakesh Kr has also deposed orally and has not proved any document.
PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
16 It is submitted on behalf of prosecution by Ld. Sr. PP Sh. Brjesh Shukla that in this case preliminary inquiry was conducted in view of order dated 13.02.06 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 10066/04 and thereafter FIR was registered in SCRIII branch of CBI, New Delhi. For bringing home the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 77 prosecution witnesses. From the evidence on record it has been established that accused Om Prakash Gupta, Kunwar Singh Bisht, J P S Sisodia and deceased Ramesh Lal, during the period 19832003 entered into a criminal conspiracy to get land allotted in the name of Shantanu Apartment, CGHS Ltd on subsidized rates from DDA on the basis of forged record, public documents. Having dishonest intention above said accused persons constituted M/S Shantanu Apartment, CGHS Ltd showing false membership and false office bearer which was later on got registered with Registrar Co operative Society Delhi on 11.10.83. A false list of promoter members alongwith false / forged affidavits was also submitted, 176 members were shown resigned from membership CC No.06/08 20/104 21 and 172 members were shown enrolled in the society. For giving valid coloring to their intended illegal act, parochial quotient of preparing proceeding register and receipts showing refund of share money to the members were falsely prepared / got prepared by accused person . False resignation of members got prepared, some of forged resignation certificates were countersigned by deceased Ramesh Lal, who had also submitted a false inspection report dated 1.1.99 . After completing manipulated required paper work , freeze list of 195 members was forwarded for approval and onward transmission for allotment of land.
17 The then RCS Sh Gopal Dixit has approved said freeze list of the members on 15/3/99 and through letter dated 21.6.99 a consolidated list of societies including Shantanu Apartment, CGHS Ltd was sent to DDA for allotment of land. Thereafter land measuring 11000 sq meter situated at Plot No.13 Dhirpur was allotted to Shantanu Apartment, CGHS Ltd on charge 2002 but possession of land could not transferred to the society . Although five DW were examined in defence by the accused persons but nothing relevant supporting stand of accused persons could come on record. As such prosecution, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence brought on record has proved the charges framed against accused .
CC No.06/08 21/104 22 18 In this case, on the point of mens rea, defence has referred the case of Nathu Lal Vs State of M P 1966 AIR ( SC) 43, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, when prosecution has proved prima facie for the existence of intent or state of mind then defence may excuse himself by disproving the existence of guilty intent by showing that he was not justified in doing the fact for which he was charged or that he did it accidentally or ignorantly or that he had honest belief in the existence of fact. But in the case in hand defence failed to submit any excuse which may be inferred as their innocence . Rather evidence on record goes to establish basic element of preparing false / forged document for getting allotted the land in favour of Shantanu Apartment, CGHS Ltd in other words allotment of land measuring 11000 sq meter situated at Plot No.13 Dhirpur signifies their intended state of mind which help them in completing the required paper work for allotment of land .
DEFENCE ARGUMENTS 19 Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Shahid Anwar has forcefully argued that PW1,PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5,PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW13, PW14, PW16, PW18, PW19, PW20, PW21, PW22, PW23, PW24, PW25, PW26, PW27, PW28, PW29, PW30, PW31, PW32, PW33, PW34, PW35, CC No.06/08 22/104 23 PW36, PW37, PW38, PW39, PW40, PW42, PW43, PW44, PW45,PW46, PW48, PW57, PW59, PW63, PW64, PW65 and PW67 have deposed that they had not resigned from the membership of society nor they attended any meeting of the society. They had not signed resignation letters and receipt of Rs. 100/. These witnesses have not pointed any specific allegation against any of the accused. They have not named any of the accused for forging their signatures. In their crossexamination all these witnesses have stated that they have never made any complaint in their life even after knowing that their signatures were forged by someone they have been shown resigned from the membership of the society and same has been also communicated to the office of the RCS but they have never filed any claim before the office of the RCS for the claiming of their membership as per Delhi Cooperative Society Act.
20 Ld. Defence Counsel argued that PW 54 has deposed that he had never become member of the society and denied all his signatures. He had not named any of the accused for forging his signatures. PW55 Sh.Chander Bhan Arya is a notary public. In his crossexamination he has stated that he can't admit or deny whether he had attested any affidavit or not pertaining to the RCS office. He has also stated that his seal was not bearing any CC No.06/08 23/104 24 registration number. It is a matter of surprise as how without any registration number, a seal is to be used by a notary. PW56 Sh. Manoj Kumar, who was working in MCD has deposed that CBI had taken documents from RCS office in his presence. PW60 Sh. S D Windlesh, who was the then working as Asstt. Registrar in the office of RCS has stated that one of the very important aspects is the forwarding of the list of the members by the society and the recommendation of the RCS for the allotment of land for the society by the DDA. The DDA allot land only after finalizing of list known as freeze list duly verified by office of the RCS. He has also stated that for this job pertaining to the present society proceeding were held at the office of Asstt. Registrar South West Zone where J P S Sisodia and Rakesh Kumr Mittal president and the secretary of the society appeared before dealing Assistant and Assistant Registrar. He has submitted that he is acquainted with the genesis and development and its complete processing in his office in the official course of business. During crossexamination he has stated that various irregularities pertaining to this society have been pointed out from time to time by the office of the RCS. But he has also stated that he did not know whether RCS has taken any cognizance because due to work load various facts have not been fully appreciated by him. This witness has pointed out the CC No.06/08 24/104 25 role of Rakesh Mittal and accused J P S Sisodia and stated that during various proceedings both were appeared jointly for finalization of freeze list. However, Sh. Rakesh Mittal, who actually played major role as per witnesses statement and beneficiary of the society has been put under column no. 2 in the chargesheet. PW58 has deposed that as he was seriously ill therefore, Om Prakash has signed on his behalf in his presence. He has admitted attending the meetings and putting his signatures on the proceedings. PW61 and PW62 have deposed that they had resigned from the membership of the society because they were unable to arrange the money demanded by the society. PW70 has deposed that he had become the member of society and later on submitted his resignation to Om Prakash Gupta. He has admitted his signatures on application form and resignation letter. However, he has deposed that he had never attended any meeting of the society. He has denied his signatures on the extract of proceedings register for the dates 25.04.88, 17.02.88, 17.02.89, 28.03.89, 28.07.89, 07.10.89, 06.03.90, 16.06.90 and 28.08.90. PW71 has deposed that she had never become member of the society and denied her signatures on the documents. In her crossexamination she has stated that she is inter pass but even can't write her name in English, which itself shows that she is making incorrect CC No.06/08 25/104 26 statement because for passing of inter examination it is essential to get minimum passing marks in English subject and she has never taken name of the accused persons or any one else. PW 72 IO of this case, in his crossexamination has stated that it is a matter of record who had provided freeze list to DDA from the RCS office. Further he stated that he could not remember whether any resolution was passed for the approval of freeze list of members. He also stated that it is incorrect to say that those who are present inthe management committee at the time of passing of approval of the freeze list have not been make accused. However, it is a matter of fact that a resolution was passed for the approval of freeze list of the members and those who were in the management committee and passed the resolution for the approval of freeze list have not been made accused by the IO. This witness has also stated that according to him the person who provided allotment letter to the DDA for the allotment of land being office bearer of the society would not be an accused in the case in absence of incriminating evidence. However, it is a gross misuse of power by the IO in his opinion forwarding to the DDA for allotment of land is nothing to do with the prosecution story. This witness has stated that while two people worked as accountant in the society, however, one has been made accused other has been made witness because one who CC No.06/08 26/104 27 has been made accused was having intentional role. In the whole prosecution story the investigation officer did not place any material evidence which can differentiate between the roles of two accountants. Investigating agency is unable to place the actual story before this Court.
21 Ld. Defence Counsel argued that PW50 is a very important witness who has deposed about the procedure how the file forwarded to DDA and who represented on behalf of society for allotment of land to the society. In his crossexamination he has deposed that one Rakesh had signed on the letter Ex. PW50/D1 submitted to the DDA and application, which is marked as Ex. PW50/D2 has been moved for the allotment of land. These two documents show that who are the actual beneficiary in the whole story. But the persons who are beneficiary in this case and who had actively participated for getting beneficiaries are not touched by the CBI. Implication of present accused who are not directly connected and neither beneficiary, is a miscarriage of justice.
22 PW51 has not deposed about any irregularity in final preparation of freeze list. PW52 who was the son of Daya Nand Sharma has deposed that signatures of his father were forged in the proceeding of society but has not taken the name of any accused CC No.06/08 27/104 28 for forging the signatures of his father. PW53 has deposed that in the year 2001 he had been appointed to do various works of the society by Sh. Rakesh Mittal, who was the then office bearer of the society. He had joined as Accountant like Sh. Kunwar Singh Bisht. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that it proves that when Kunwar Singh Bisht had left the job of society this witness had joined society in the year 2001 and was doing accounting work and preparing of various proceedings of society. In this manner, Kunwar Singh Bisht was doing the same job as done by PW53 Sumit Bhardwaj and one Kavita, who was also doing the same job in the society, but CBI has not cited them as accused though Kunwar Singh Bisht has been cited as an accused. This witness has also named Rakesh Mittal, Renu Aggarwal, Anil Kumar and J P S Sisodia, who were also acted participants of the society. He has identified signatures of Naveen Goel, Rakesh Mittal and J P S Sisodia which proves that Naveen Goel and Rakesh Mittal were also acted participants like that of J P S Sisodia but they have not been cited as an accused.
23 Ld. Defence counsel placing reliance on page 411 Archbold, Pleading, Evidence and Practice on Criminal Cases35 Edn argued that burden of proof to prove guilt of the accused lies upon the prosecution and it is not for the defence to prove innocency of the CC No.06/08 28/104 29 accused. It is argued that Kunwar Singh Bisht has been dragged in this case as an accused merely because he was doing professional work of audit etc of the society which he had carried out as per the instructions of his client. Prosecution has failed to prove any mens rea to commit the alleged offence against him. Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon Nathulal Vs. State of M P 1996AIR(SC) 43 and argued that men rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. Without mens rea accused cannot be convicted in a criminal case. In this regard Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on Anil Kumar Bose Vs. State of Bihar 1974AIR (SC)01560 1974SCC4616, S Swaminathan Vs. State of Delhi 2007 (4) JCC 2750 and Dinesh Chand Shukla Vs. State 2007 IV AD (Delhi) 173.
24 Ld. Defence Counsel argued that prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove that accused have ever entered into an agreement to do an act by illegal means. In absence of any proof of meeting of mind or agreement among the accused to do an act illegally, no offence punishable under Section 120B IPC is made out.
25 Ld. Defence Counsel argued that prosecution has failed to prove any dishonest intention on the part of accused to cheat CC No.06/08 29/104 30 anyone. Prosecution has also failed to prove any wrongful loss goes to anyone or any wrongful gain obtained by the accused, therefore, no offence punishable U/s 420 IPC is made out. There is no allegation with respect to section 471 IPC in the chargesheet. 26 Ld. Defence Counsel placing reliance on A P Narang Vs. CBI in the Crl. Rev. P.No. 397/2010 argued that Hon'ble High Court has quashed the proceedings in similar circumstances. Ld. Defence Counsel also argued that CBI has also violated the Section 3 & 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act as there is no notification with regard to investigation of this case by CBI. Ld. Defence Counsel has also placed reliance on CBI Vs. Ravi Shankar Shrivastava(2006) 7 SCC 188 para no. 27, Saroj Vs. State of Tamilnadu 1991 Crl. J 755, Vineet Narayan Vs. State 1998(1) SCC 226 in support of his arguments.
27 Ld. Defence Counsel argued that allegations disclosed in the chargesheet are fully covered under the offences defined in Delhi Cooperative Societies Act which is a special Act, but no offence has been mentioned in the chargesheet under Cooperative Societies Act. The DCS Act, 1972 happens to be a complete and a composite Act and all the powers and duties of the Registrar have been provided in the Act. The Office of the Registrar of the Co CC No.06/08 30/104 31 operative Societies (RCS) holds hearing, listens to both sides of the parties and then passes orders on the basis of the material supplied by the parties. There happens to be a well defined system of addressing the concerns of various Cooperative societies formed under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act.
28 Ld. Defence Counsel argued that in view of his submissions the accused may be acquitted.
SANCTION AND PUBLIC SERVANT 29 Accused Ramesh Lal was the then working as Head Clerk in the office of Registrar Cooperative Society. He is the only public servant cited as an accused in this case. Ld. Defence Counsel has not disputed the status of accused Ramesh Lal as public servant. 30 Prosecution has produced PW 76 Sandeep Kumar who has accorded the sanction for his prosecution in this case. He has deposed that in the month of April, 2008 he was posted as Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. By virtue of his post he was competent to remove Ramesh Lal, who was the then working as Head Clerk in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies at the time of commission of offence in this case. He has further deposed that he received a request from CBI for granting sanction for the prosecution of accused Ramesh Lal in this case. After CC No.06/08 31/104 32 carefully examining the material placed before him including statements of witnesses and documents and applying his mind he had accorded sanction for the prosecution of accused Ramesh Lal vide sanction order Ex. PW76/A which bears his signatures on each page along with his official seal. He has also deposed that he dictated the sanction order. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused in spite of opportunity granted to them. In these circumstances there is no reason to disbelieve his statement I have also carefully gone through the sanction order Ex. PW76/A, which is a detailed order running in two sheets containing all the material particulars of this case. 31 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the sanction order itself is a speaking order in such circumstances, it is not necessary to prove it by leading evidence that sanctioning authority has applied his due mind. Reliance is placed on C S Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka 2005 IV AD (S.C.) 141 wherein in para No.9 it is observed as follows:
"Therefore, the ratio is sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. In case the sanction speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order. In the CC No.06/08 32/104 33 present case, the sanction order speaks for itself that the incumbent has to account for the assets disproportionate to his known source of Incom. That is contained in the sanction order itself. More so, as pointed out, the sanctioning authority has come in the witness box as witness No.40 and has deposed about his application of mind and after going through the reports of the Superintendent of Police, CBI and after discussing the matter with his legal department, he accorded sanction. It is not a case that the sanction is lacking in the present case. The view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge is not correct and the view taken by learned Single Judge of the High Court is justified."
32 In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Superintendent of police (CBI) Vs. Deepak Chaudhary - 1995 SCC (Crl.) 1095 has held as follows:
''We find force in the contention. The grant of sanction is only an administrative function, though it is true that the accused may be saddled with the liability to be prosecuted in a court of law. What is material at that time is that the necessary facts collected during investigation constituting the offence have to be placed before the sanctioning authority and it has to consider the material. Primafacie, the authority is required to reach the satisfaction that the relevant facts would constitute the offence and then either grant or refused to grant sanction. The grant of sanction, therefore, being administrative act the need to prove an opportunity of hearing to the accused before according sanction does not arise. The High Court, therefore, CC No.06/08 33/104 34 was clearly in error in holding that the order of sanction is vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice.''
33 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kottha Perumal Vs. State Tr. Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 356 has held as follows:
"Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988) - Sanction to prosecute - Legality Examination of material facts by sanctioning authority - Sanction order specifically stating that statement of witnesses have been duly examined - Other materials such as copy of FIR as well as other official documents such as different mahazars were carefully examined Upon examination of statements of witnesses as also material on record, sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that appellant should be prosecuted - Sanction order is legal".
34 In view of above discussion, this Court is of opinion that prosecution has proved valid sanction orders for the prosecution of accused Ramesh Lal in this case. WHETHER ACCUSED OM PRAKASH GUPTA, J P S SISODIA AND KUNWAR SINGH CAN BE PROSECUTED IN THIS COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER P C ACT , 1988 INSPITE OF THE DEATH OF SOLE PUBLIC CC No.06/08 34/104 35 SERVANT RAMESH LAL.
35 Ld. Defence Counsel argued that in this case accused Ramesh Lal was the only public servant who has expired on 05.01.2010 and present proceedings abated against him vide order dated 15.02.2010. After his death now all the accused who are facing trial are private person, in these circumstances after the death of public servant this court of Special Judge cannot proceed against the present accused who are private person under PC Act, 1988. In support of his arguments Ld. Defence Counsel placed reliance on Jatinder Kumar Singh Vs. State through CBI 2006 (129) DLT621 and Kartongen Kemi OCH Forvaltning A B Vs. State Through CBI (Delhi, 2004 (1) JCC 218.
36 I have carefully gone through both the authorities relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel.
37 Hon'ble High Court in a latest authority Siddarth Verma Vs. CBI 173 (2010) Delhi Law Times has confronted with the similar situation and after considering the authority Kartongen Kemi OCH Forvaltning A B Vs. State Through CBI (Delhi, 2004 (1) JCC 218 has held as follows:
"Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 13 (1) (e) r/w Section 13 (2) r/w Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 CorruptionAbetmentAmassing wealth through corrupt means CC No.06/08 35/104 36 Petitioner alleged to h ave acted as a conduit for father in amassing wealthDeath of main accused(petitioner's father) does no mean that substantive offence stands wiped outWealth still stands there in hands of L.Rs of deceased/accusedRole of petitioner of acting as a conduit for amassing wealth for his father can be proved by CBI during trial."
38 Ld. SPP Sh Brajesh Shukla has submitted at bar that CBI has challenged the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 21.04.06 passed in Jitender Kumar Singh Vs. State through CBI 2006 (129) DLT 621 vide SLP(Crl) No. (s) 858/2007 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.05.08 has stayed the operation of the above mentioned judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, hence this judgment is no help to applicant/accused. 39 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh Vs. State of MP (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases88 has held as follows: "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Nature and interpretation of Head is a social legislation to curb illegal activities of public servant and should be liberally construed so as to advance its object and not liberty in favour of the accused interpretation of Statutes Particular statutes or provisions - Penal statute Social Legislation - Interpretation of" . 40 In case under Prevention of Corruption Act, if two views are CC No.06/08 36/104 37 possible then view favourable to eradicate corruption is to be adopted. In this regard in a latest judgment Subramaniam Swami Vs. Dr. Man Mohan Singh & Ors, 2012 IIAD(S.C)155, Hon'ble Supreme has held as follows:
"Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governances, it also threatens the very foundation of India democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratice republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins al rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values is that any anticorruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. This is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it."
41 In view of above discussion there is no merit in this argument of Ld Defence counsel.
WHETHER REPORTS OF HANDWRITING EXPERT PW77 Sh L LOGANATHAN AND HIS EVIDENCE CAN BE RELIED UPON. 42 Specimen handwriting/signatures of accused J P S Shishodia
were taken by the IO during the investigation of this case in CC No.06/08 37/104 38 presence of PW73 Bacchan Singh, PW74 Uttam Kumar and PW75 Rajesh Kumar Gupta. They have stated that accused had given his specimen handwriting and signatures voluntarily without any duress or fear in their presence which are Ex. PW73/A1 to A84, Ex. PW74/A1 to A16 and Ex. PW75/A1 to A74. Opportunity to crossexamine all these witnesses was given to the accused but he has not crossexamined these witnesses. No cross examination on a substantive point amounts to admission of the same. In these circumstances there is no reason to disbelieve the deposition of all these three witnesses. Thus it is proved on the file beyond reasonable doubt that accused J P S Shisodia had given his specimen handwriting and signatures voluntarily without any fear or duress.
43 Specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Om Prakash Gupta were taken by the IO during the investigation of this case in presence of PW73 Bacchan Singh, PW74 Uttam Kumar and PW75 Rajesh Kumar Gupta. They have stated that accused had given his specimen handwriting and signatures voluntarily without any duress or fear in their presence which are Ex. PW73/B1 to A101, Ex. PW74/B1 to B61 and Ex. PW75/B1 to B90. Opportunity to crossexamine all these witnesses was given to the accused but he has not crossexamined CC No.06/08 38/104 39 these witnesses. No crossexamination on a substantive point amounts to admission of the same. In these circumstances there is no reason to disbelieve the deposition of all these three witnesses. Thus it is proved on the file beyond reasonable doubt that accused Om Prakash Gupta had given his specimen handwriting and signatures voluntarily without any fear or duress. 44 Specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Kunwar Singh Bisht were taken by the IO during the investigation of this case in presence of PW73 Bacchan Singh, PW74 Uttam Kumar and PW75 Rajesh Kumar Gupta. They have stated that accused had given his specimen handwriting and signatures voluntarily without any duress or fear in their presence which are Ex. PW73/C1 to C116, Ex. PW74/C1 to C9 and Ex. PW75/C1 to C110. Opportunity to crossexamine all these witnesses was given to the accused but he has not crossexamined these witnesses. No crossexamination on a substantive point amounts to admission of the same. In these circumstances there is no reason to disbelieve the deposition of all these three witnesses. Thus it is proved on the file beyond reasonable doubt that accused Kunwar Singh Bisht had given his specimen handwriting and signatures voluntarily without any fear or duress. 45 Specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Ramesh Lal CC No.06/08 39/104 40 were taken by the IO during the investigation of this case in presence of PW73 Bacchan Singh. He has stated that accused had given his specimen handwriting and signatures voluntarily without any duress or fear in their presence which are Ex. PW73/D1 to D12.
46 Prosecution has also proved that specimen handwriting/signatures of PW Babbar Singh Ex. PW73/E1 to E5, PW Jai Singh Joon Ex. PW73/F1 to F5, PW Jai Bhagwan Ex. PW73/G1 to G5, PW Rajender Kumar Ex. PW73/H1 to H5, PW Madan Singh Jain Ex. PW73/J1 to J5, PW Anupam Ex. PW73/K1 to K5, PW B M Batish Ex. PW73/L1 to L5, PW Dinesh Kumar Jain Ex. PW73/M1 to M5, PW Pradeep Kumar Ex. PW73/N1 to N5, PW Mahender Gola Ex. PW73/O1 to O5, PW Munna Lal Ex. PW73/P1 to P5 were taken by the IO during the investigation in presence of PW 73 Bachan Singh. PW 73 Bachan Singh has deposed that all these persons had given their specimen writing/signatures to the IO voluntarily without fear and duress.
47 Prosecution has also proved that specimen handwriting/signatures of PW P L Sabharwal Ex. PW75/D1 to D5, PW Lal Chand Singh Ex. PW75/E1 to E5 were taken by the IO during the investigation in presence of PW 75 Rajesh CC No.06/08 40/104 41 Kumar Gupta. PW 75 Rajesh Kumar Gupta has deposed that all these persons had given their specimen writing/signatures to the IO voluntarily without fear and duress.
48 Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent Judgment Ravinder Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India, AIR 2011 SC 1436 has held that taking of specimen signatures and writing of accused for examination by experts during the investigation is proper and report of Expert based on such signatures/writings can be used as evidence against the accused. Relevant portion of Para No.35 of this authority is as under:
" Another question which we have to consider is whether the Police (CBI) had the power under the Cr.PC to take specimen signature and writing of A3 for examination by the expert. It was pointed out that during investigation, even the Magistrate cannot direct the accused to give his specim signature on the asking of the police and only in the amendment of the Cr PC in 2005, power has been given to the Magistrate to direct any person including the accused to give his specimen signature for the purpose of investigation. Hence, it was pointed out that taking of his signature/writings being per se illegal the report of the expert cannot be used as evidence against him. To meet the above claim, learned Addl. Solicitor General heavily relied on a 11Judge Bench decision of this court in the State of Bombay V. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ors. (1962) 3 SCR 10: AIR 1961 SC 1808. This larger Bench was constituted in order to reexamine some of the propositions of law laid down by this Court in the case of M P Sharma & Ors. Vs. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and ors., (1954) SCR 1077: (AIR 1954 SC 300). ."
CC No.06/08 41/104 42
49 After discussing the matter in detail Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded as follows:
"In view of the above principles, the procedure adopted by the investigating Agency, analysed and approved by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, cannot be faulted with. In view of oral report of Rolia Soren , PW4 which was reduced into writing, the evidence of PW23, two letters dt. 01.02.2002 and 02.02.2002 addressed by Mahendra Hembram (A3) to the trial Judge facing his guilt coupled with the other materials, we are unable to accept the arugment of Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Counsel for Mahendra Hembram (A3) and we confirm the conclusion arrived by the High Court."
50 A bench of 11 judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bombay Vs. Kathikalu AIR 1961 SC 1808in this regard has held as follows:
"Testimonial compulsion - Obtaining specimen writing and thumb inpression from accused - Statement of accused in police custody used in evidence - If contravene constitutional guarantee - Constitution of India, Article 20 (3).
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers the court to obtain specimen writing or finger impression of an accused person for purposes of comparison .
Section 5 and 6 of the Identification of Prisoners Act empowers a Magistrate to obtain the photograph or measurements of an accused person. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act permits the reception in evidence of statements made by an accused person in police custody which lead to a discovery. It was contended by accused persons that the obtaining of evidence in any of these ways ammounted to compelling the person accused of an offence "to be a witness against himself" in contravention of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. It was further contended that it was implicit in the fact that the accused was in police custody when the specimen signatures or thumb impression etc. were obtained that compul was used.
CC No.06/08 42/104 43
Held, that there was no infringement of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution in compelling an accused person to give his specimen handwriting or signature, or impressions of his thumb, fingers, palm or foot to the investigating officer or under orders of a court for the purpose of comparison.
Held, further, that the provision of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act did not offend Art. 20 (3) unless compulsion was used in obtaining the information. Compulsion was not inherent in the receipt of information from an accused person in the custody of a police officer; it will be a question of fact in each case to be determined by the court on the evidence before it whether compulsion had been used in obtaining the information."
51 PW 77 L Loganathan has deposed that he did MSc in forensic science from Madrass University having questioned documents examination as one of his subject. He has more than 27 years of experience in questioned documents examination. He is working as Asstt, GEQD since January, 1999. Prior to that he was working as scientific Asstt in Forensic Department, Chennai from September, 1985. He has tendered evidence as expert witness in various courts. According to Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, opinion of a person having special skilled in a particular field and science is relevant as an expert opinion. In these circumstances, this Court is of opinion that he has special training and long experience in examination of questioned documents/ handwriting thus certainly he is an Handwriting Expert. This witness has been crossexamined at length on behalf of all the accused. In his cross CC No.06/08 43/104 44 examination he has deposed that Mark Q1 belongs to year 1985 while specimen signatures/writing were taken in the year 200607 with which it was compared. He has also deposed that writing and signatures of person may vary but not differ even after long period. Writing may show variation with the passage of time but it will not fundamentally differ. This witness has also deposed that he has examined the documents independently and other expert Vinod Kumar had also examined the case independently and signed the report. He has deposed that he had adopted the techniques/ methodology for comparing the questioned writing/signatures with the specimen writing/signatures as given in books of Osborne and Harrison. In view of above discussion, it is clear that nothing such has come out in his crossexamination to disbelieve his evidence. 52 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 Supreme Court Cases 704 with regard to evidenciary value of Handwriting Expert Report and its corroboration by other evidence has held as follows:
"Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 45, 46, 73 and 3 - Evidence of handwriting expert - Held, need not be invariably corrborated - It is for the Court to decide whether to accept such an uncorroborated evidence or not - Court should approach the question cautiously and after examining the reasonings behind the expert opinion and considering all other evidence should reach its conclusion - Even where there is no expert court has power to compare the writings itself and decide the matter - On facts, CC No.06/08 44/104 45 courts below on such comparison concurring with the exper's view and the defence raising no doubts against the reasons given by the expert for his opinion - Held, opinion evidence acceptable without any corroboration."
53 Similar view has been taken Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Narain Vs. Uttar Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 2200 wherein it is held as follows:
"Both under Section 45 and Section 47 the evidence is an opinion in the former by a scientific comparison, and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observatrions and experience. in either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become a handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in the one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case. This comparison depends on an analysis of the characterstics in the admitted or proved writings and the finding of the same characterstics in large measure in the disputed writing. In this way the opinion of the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and although relevant to start with becomes probative. Where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion whether of the expert or other witness."
54 In view of above discussion this court is of opinion that specimen writings/signatures of accused in this case were legally taken by the IO during the investigation which were used by PW CC No.06/08 45/104 46 77 L Loganathan Handwriting Expert for comparing with the questioned writings/signatures. PW 77 L Loganathan is a competent Handwriting Expert of questioned documents. His evidence and reports/reasons/ opinion given in this case are authentic and reliable without any corroboration. Role accused Ramesh Lal (A4) 55 During the year 1998, S/Sh. J.P.S. Shishodia and Rakesh Mittal, the then President and Secretary of the Society visited the O/o RCS, N. Delhi in connection with the approval of freeze list of Society. On the directions of RCS officials, they produced the relevant records of the Society on different occasions. Sh. Ramesh Lal, Inspector (A4) conducted the "Inspection" of the Society by doing 10% physical verification of resignation letters received by the Society from time to time. Sh. Ramesh Lal, Inspector submitted his Inspection Report dt. 1/2/1999 to Assistant Registrar (South West) showing that he had physically verified resignation of 24 members. Alongwith his Inspection Report, Sh Ramesh Lal, Inspector submitted 24 resignations in Certificate form bearing the signatures of members who had resigned. The said Certificates were also countersigned by Sh Ramesh Lal having verified the same. He signed all such individual Certificates. CC No.06/08 46/104 47 56 Sh. D. Bhattacharya, Dealing Clerk on the basis of records of Shantanu Apartment CGHS produced by Society prepared a note in which he indicated that during the period from 1985 to 1998 a total number of 176 members have resigned and the society enrolled 172 members. The file was further processed on the basis of Inspection Report of Sh Ramesh Lal, it was pointed out by the Dealing Hand that Society had followed proper procedure as per DCS Rules. He recommended that enrollment of 172 members may be approved and names of 195 members forwarded to DDA for allotment of land and further that 176 resignations, 172 enrollments may be taken on record. The freeze list of Society was then approved by Sh. Gopal Dixit, the then RCS on 15.3.99. After approval of freeze list of Society, it was forwarded to DDA on 21.6.99 vide their letter No. F.47/19/NGH Coop. Policy No. 1267 for allotment of land.
57 In fact Sh. Ramesh Lal Inspr. RCS had dishonestly prepared false Inspection Report dt. 01.02.1999 deliberately without verifying the respective records. Alongwith with his Inspection Report dated 1/2/1999 he appended 24 forged Certificates of the members, who had allegedly resigned. The certificate bear forged signatures of the concerned members. During investigation such CC No.06/08 47/104 48 11 members S/Sh. Veer Bhan, Lal Chand Singh, Sher Mohd., Suresh Chand, Jai Singh, Dr. Anupam Bhargav, Mahender Gola, V.K. Jain, M.L. Jain, Smt. Asha Chauhan and Ramkali whose Certificate of Resignations have been submitted by Sh Ramesh Lal, Inspector on record, were examined. They have categorically stated that Ramesh Lal, Inspector/RCS Official did not visit them and the certificates bear their forged signatures. Sh. Ramesh Lal's handwriting and signature were found on 24 Resignation certificates, thus it has also been confirmed from the GEQD report that all such 24 resignation certificates were forged and falsely verified by him.
58 Unfortunately during the pendency of this case accused Ramesh Lal has expired on 5.1.2010 hence present proceedings against him abated vide order dated 15.2.2010. Role of accused Om Prakash Gupta and Evidence against him. 59 Sh. Om Prakash Gupta (A1) was the Promoter Member of Society. He remained President, Secretary and Treasurer of Society on different occasions till the year 2002 with J.P.S Shishodia( A3). Sh. Om Prakash Gupta (A1) earlier worked in the State Bank of India and enrolled many members in the CC No.06/08 48/104 49 Society including bank employees and their relatives. Sh Om Prakash Gupta resigned from the society in year 2002 Sh Om Prakash Gupta prepared many false resignation letters and applications of members of society. He signed various false documents of society as an Office Bearer of Society. These false documents were submitted at the time of approval of freeze list of Society in the office of R.C.S Delhi for getting freeze list approved.
60 He has prepared forged resignation letters. Forged resignation letters were sent to GEQD for expert opinion. GEQD has opined that forged resignation letter of Sh. Jai Bhagwan (PW18), Sh. Rajinder Kumar (PW3), Shri Kewal Krishan Mahajan (PW9), Dr. Anupam Bhargawa (PW34), B.M. Batish (PW33), Dinesh Kumar (PW38), P.L. Sabbharwal , Lal Chand Singh (PW7), Mahender Gola (PW15), Rakesh Kumar Jain (PW43), S. Chand (PW44), Rajkumari (PW63), Amitabh Dham (PW27), MP Chaudhary (PW59), Jai Narayan (PW8), Raj Kumar (PW13),Neena Kapoor (PW28), R.N. Mitra (PW42) ,M.I.H. Ansari (PW47), Rajesh Kumar (PW67), Mauji Ram (PW24), Tek Chand (PW16), Ramkali (PW67) match with the handwriting of OP Gupta (A1) .
CC No.06/08 49/104 50 61 Jai Bhagwan has appeared in the witness box as PW 18 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 30/31.10.96 Ex PW18/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW18/B at point Q323 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
62 Rajinder Kumar has appeared in the witness box as PW 3 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 31.10.96 Ex PW3/C does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW3/C at point Q349 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta. 63 Kewal Kishan has appeared in the witness box as PW 9 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 25.11.96 Ex PW9/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it.
64 Anupam Bhargav has appeared in the witness box as PW 34 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 20.4.97 Ex PW34/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to CC No.06/08 50/104 51 PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW34/B at point Q203 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
65 B M Batish has appeared in the witness box as PW 33 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 22.12.97 Ex PW33/CB does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW33/B at point Q237 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
66 Dinesh Kumar has appeared in the witness box as PW 38 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 16.1.97 Ex PW38/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW38/B at point Q173 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
67 Lal Chand Singh has appeared in the witness box as PW 7 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 2.4.89 Ex PW7/C does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW7/C at CC No.06/08 51/104 52 point Q53 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta. 68 Mahinder Gola has appeared in the witness box as PW 15 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 31.10.96 Ex PW15/ does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW3/C at point Q349 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta. 69 Rakesh Kumar Jain has appeared in the witness box as PW 43 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 2.5.1985 Ex PW43/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW43/B at point Q7 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta. 70 Suresh Chand has appeared in the witness box as PW 344 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 21.4.85 Ex PW44/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW44/B at point Q16 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta. 71 Raj Kumari has appeared in the witness box as PW 63 and CC No.06/08 52/104 53 deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 17.5.85 Ex PW63/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW63/B at point Q30 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta. 72 Amitabh Dham has appeared in the witness box as PW 27 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 4.1.97 Ex PW27/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW27/B at point Q112 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
73 Mukesh Choudhary has appeared in the witness box as PW 59 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 25.10.96 Ex PW59/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW59/B at point Q289 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
CC No.06/08 53/104 54 74 Jai Narain has appeared in the witness box as PW 8 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 31.10.96 Ex PW8/C does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW8/C at point Q340 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta. 75 Raj Kumar has appeared in the witness box as PW 13 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 31.10.96 Ex PW13/C does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW13/C at point Q347 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
76 Neena Kapoor has appeared in the witness box as PW 28 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 7.11.96 Ex PW28/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW28/B at point Q394 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
77 R N Mitra has appeared in the witness box as PW 42 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 24.11.96 Ex CC No.06/08 54/104 55 PW42/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW42/B at point Q451 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
78 M I H Ansari has appeared in the witness box as PW 47 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 28.12.96 Ex PW47/B does not bears his signatures and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW47/B at point Q507 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta. 79 Mauji Ram has appeared in the witness box as PW 24 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 20.10.96 Ex PW24/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW24/B at point Q258 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
80 Tek Chand has appeared in the witness box as PW 16 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 20.10.96 Ex CC No.06/08 55/104 56 PW16/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW16/B at point Q261 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
81 Ram Kali has appeared in the witness box as PW 67 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 20.10.96 Ex PW67/B does not bears his signatures at point A and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW67/B at point Q279 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
82 Accused O P Gupta in his statement U/S 313 Cr P C has stated that he had written body writing of some of the resignation letter but he has not signed on any of the resignation letter. O P Gupta forged the signatures of Sh P L Sabharwal at point Q24 on his alleged resignation letter Ex PW77/Z4. Underneath the signatures of P L Sabharwal at point Q24 he has also written the name of P L Sabharwal at point Q25 as follows:
" P.L. SABHARWAL"
CC No.06/08 56/104 57
83 He has also written the body of this resignation letter at point Q26 . PW 77, GEQD has confirmed that hand writing at point Q24, Q25 and Q26 is of accused O P Gupta. 84 Accused O P Gupta in his capacity as Secretary of the Society has accepted the resignation of the following members in the year 1990.:
Sh. T C Bansal, PW6 Sh Subhash Chand Gupta PW4 Sh. S C Bansal PW5.
85 T C Bansal has appeared in the witness box as PW 6 and deposed that he had become member of Shantuna CGHS in the year 1994 through OP Gupta and paid membership fee of Rs.110/ for becoming member of the society. He had never resigned from the membership of the society. He has never received the refund money from the society vide cheque No.854659. Alleged resignation letter dated 10.7.90 Ex PW6/B has been accepted by accused Om Parkash Gupta under his signatures at point Q66 as Secretary Santanu CGHS . According to PW77 GEQD, signatures at point Q66 are of accused O P Gupta.
86 S C Gupta has appeared in the witness box as PW 5 and deposed that he had become member of Shantuna CGHS in the CC No.06/08 57/104 58 year 1984 through OP Gupta and paid membership fee of Rs.110/ for becoming member of the society. He had never resigned from the membership of the society. He has never resigned from the membership of the society . He has never received the refund money from the society vide cheque No.854661. Alleged resignation letter dated 10.7.90 Ex PW5/C has been accepted by accused Om Parkash Gupta under his signatures at point Q92 as Secretary Santanu CGHS . According to PW77 GEQD, signatures at point Q92 are of accused O P Gupta.
87 S C Bansal has appeared in the witness box as PW 5 and deposed that he had become member of Shantuna CGHS in the year 1984 through OP Gupta and paid membership fee of Rs.110/ for becoming member of the society. He had never resigned from the membership of the society. He has never resigned from the membership of the society . He has never received the refund money from the society vide cheque No.854660. Alleged resignation letter dated 10.7.90 Ex PW5/C has been accepted by accused Om Parkash Gupta under his signatures at point Q67 as Secretary Santanu CGHS . According to PW77 GEQD, signatures at point Q67 are of accused O P Gupta.
CC No.06/08 58/104 59 88 PW 4 Subhash Chand Bansal, PW Sh Suresh Chand Gupta and PW 6 Tara Chand Bansal have specifically deposed that they had not furnished their resignation from the primary membership of Shantanu CGHS . Their alleged resignation letters are forged and the same do not bear their signatures however, accused O P Gupta under his signatures at point Q66 , Q67 and Q92 had accepted all these forged resignations which proves beyond reasonable doubt that he was involved in this criminal conspiracy. 89 Copies of audit reports pertaining to year 199293 to 199697 of the Shantuna Apartment CGHS were sent to the office of RCS, at the time of approval of freeze list by the RCS by accused O P Gupta and J P S Sisodia under their signatures . Alongwith these audit reports various annexure have also been sent to the office of RCS bearing signatures of accused O P Gupta and JPS Sisodia showing resignations of 120 members most of whom have denied furnishing of their resignation from the membership of the society and deposed that their signatures on their alleged resignation have been fabricated/ forged. Annexure A which is Ex PW77/Z158 wherein it is mentioned that 120 members of society resigned during the year 199293 to 199697 bears signatures of accused O P Gupta at point Q1074. Accused O CC No.06/08 59/104 60 P Gupta has also signed various necessary required documents having false statements / facts filed alongwith the audit reports at point Q1074 Q1080, Q1083, Q1086, Q1089, Q1092, Q1095, Q1098, Q1101, Q1104, Q1107, Q1110, Q1113, Q1122, Q1125, Q1128, Q1131, Q1134, Q1137, Q1140, Q1143, Q1146, Q1149, Q1152, Q1155, Q1158, Q1161, Q1164, Q1167, Q1170, Q1175, Q1178, Q1181, Q1184, Q1187, Q1190, Q1193, Q1196, Q1199, Q1204, Q1207, Q1210, Q1213, Q1216, Q1219, Q1222, Q1225, Q1228, Q1231, Q1236, Q1239 which are on Ex PW77/Z158 to Ex PW77/Z208. PW77 L Loganathan, GEQD who had compared the specimen signatures of accused O P Gupta with the above referred questioned signatures has opined in his report Ex PW77/E that signatures on all the above referred points are in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta. The facts regarding resignation of various members from the society are falsely mentioned in these documents.
90 S/Sh. Jogeshwar Nath (PW69), Jai Singh Joon (PW21), Harikesh Bansal (PW29) Giani Ram , Veer Bhan (PW30), Suraj Bhan (PW66), Asha Chauhan (PW10), Munna Lal Jain (PW37), Nirmal Swaroop Jain (PW31) and Bimla Dwivedi (PW71)have denied their signature on the Application Forms for Membership CC No.06/08 60/104 61 of Society. Om Prakash Gupta signed applications forms of above mentioned members as a witness. The above said members denied to have filled the application forms . GEQD has confirmed the signature of Om Prakash Gupta on these application forms of members as a witness. All these persons have been shown to have applied for membership at the time of resignation from the society.
91 Jai Singh has appeared in the witness box as PW 21 and deposed that he had neither filled the membership application form available at page 40 of D25 Ex PW21/A nor signed the same at point A Somebody has forged his signatures at point A. Accused Om Parkash has witness this application form under his signatures at point Q3621. According to PW77 GEQD signature at point Q3621 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta. 92 Harikesh Bansal has appeared in the witness box as PW 29 and deposed that he had neither filled the membership application form available at page 33 of D25 Ex PW29/A nor signed the same at point A. Somebody has forged his signatures at point A. Accused Om Parkash has witness this application form under his signatures at point Q3643. According to PW77 GEQD signature at point Q3643 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
CC No.06/08 61/104 62 93 Veer Bhan has appeared in the witness box as PW 30 and deposed that he had neither filled the membership application form available at page 29 of D25 Ex PW30/A nor signed the same at point A. Somebody has forged his signatures at point A. Accused Om Parkash has witness this application form under his signatures at point Q3659. According to PW77 GEQD signature at point Q3659 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta. 94 Suraj Bhan has appeared in the witness box as PW 66 and deposed that he had neither filled the membership application form available at page 28 of D25 Ex PW66/A nor signed the same at point A. Somebody has forged his signatures at point A. Accused Om Parkash has witness this application form under his signatures at point Q3663. According to PW77 GEQD signature at point Q3663 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
95 Asha Chauhan has appeared in the witness box as PW 10 and deposed that he had neither filled the membership application form available at page 25 of D25 Ex PW10/A nor signed the same at point A. Somebody has forged his signatures at point A. Accused Om Parkash has witness this application form under his signatures at point Q3675. According to PW77 GEQD signature at point Q3675 is in the hand writing of accused O P CC No.06/08 62/104 63 Gupta.
96 Munna Lal has appeared in the witness box as PW 37 and deposed that he had neither filled the membership application form available at page 10 of D25 Ex PW37/A nor signed the same at point A. Somebody has forged his signatures at point A. Accused Om Parkash has witness this application form under his signatures at point Q3733. According to PW77 GEQD signature at point Q3733 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
97 Nirmal Swaroop Jain has appeared in the witness box as PW 31 and deposed that he had neither filled the membership application form available at page 5 of D25 Ex PW31/A nor signed the same at point A. Somebody has forged his signatures at point A. Accused Om Parkash has witness this application form under his signatures at point Q3643.
98 Bimla Dewedi has appeared in the witness box as PW 71 and deposed that he had neither filled the membership application form available at page 1 of D25 Ex PW71/A nor signed the same at point A. Somebody has forged his signatures at point A. Accused Om Parkash has witness this application form under his signatures at point Q3759. According to PW77 GEQD CC No.06/08 63/104 64 signature at point Q3759 is in the hand writing of accused O P Gupta.
99 Accused Om Prakash in his statement U/s 313 Cr. P.C admitted that he is a founder member of Shantanu Apartment, CGHS Society, however, he remained its office bearer from time to time at different intervals but continuously. He had never approached RCS for registration of the society. He has also admitted that some members were enrolled themselves as per his suggestion. He has admitted that he had written the body of resignation letters of Dr. Anubhava Bhargav PW34, B M Batish PW33, Lal Chand Singh PW7, Mahender Gola PW15, Rakesh Kumar Jain, Amit Dham, Nazar Singh, Raj Kumari, Abhay Ram PW43, Neena Kapoor PW28, R N Mitra PW42, MIH Ansari PW47, Mauji Ram PW24, Tek Chand PW16, Suresh Chand PW44 Kashmiri Lal Chaudhary PW25, Dinesh Kumar Jain PW38, Rajender Prasad Bhutani PW64, Anupam Bhargava PW34, Jai Narayan PW8, Rajinder Kumar PW3, Kewal Krishan Mahajan PW11 but he never signed on behalf of any such member on the resignation letter. He has also admitted in his statement U/s 313 Cr. P.C that he has accepted those resignations which were furnished to him by the members on their behalf. CC No.06/08 64/104 65 100 PW77 L Lognathan, GEQD in his report Ex PW77/E has opined that Certificate of resignation of Mahinder Gola Ex PW15/C (Q2781), V K Jain Ex PW22/F (Q2785), Asha Chauhan Ex PW10/D ( Q2790) and Suresh Chand Ex PW44/C( Q2832) are filled in the hand writing of accused Om Parkash Gupta. All these witnesses have deposed in the Court that they had never resigned from the membership of the society and had not given these certificate to accused Ramesh Lal Inspector of RCS who had allegedly verified the correctness of these resignation certificates. It also proves that accused Ramesh Lal, now deceased, was also acting in connivance and conspiracy with accused Om Parkash and JPS Sisodia.
101 From the above discussion it is also proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused OP Gupta has also signed resignation letter of P L Sabharwal himself . He has written the bodies of various forged resignation letters referred above . He has also witnessed various fabricated membership application which are found in the membership file of the society and has signed as witness on such fabricated membership application referred above. 102 In view of above discussion it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Om Parkash has fabricated the CC No.06/08 65/104 66 record and used that forged / fabricated record for getting the allotment of land from DDA in favour of society in connivance and conspiracy with his coaccused in furtherance of criminal conspiracy hatched with them.
Role of accused Kunwar Singh Bisht and Evidence against him.
103 Sh. Kunwar Singh Bisht (A2) worked as an employee (Accountant) of the Society and was also a member of Society in the year 2002, he was expelled from the society by the order of RCS. Sh Kunwar Singh used to write Minutes of meeting of Management Committee/AGM of Society in the Proceeding Register of society. He had also prepared Receipt of refund vouchers of resigned members. He had entered details of members in the Membership Register. He has written the address of S/Sh Rajan Jain, R.D. Verma, Ved Prakash, Smt Nivedita Singh (PW8) and Ms Mamta Chauhan (PW7) on their false resignation letters.
104 Navadita Singh has appeared in the witness box as PW 1 and deposed that her alleged resignation letter dated 21.11.96 Ex PW1/C does not bears her signatures and the same is not in her hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, writing underneath the signatures at point Q445 on CC No.06/08 66/104 67 the point Q446 is in the hand writing of accused Kunwar Singh Bhist.
105 Mamta Swain has appeared in the witness box as PW 2 and deposed that her alleged resignation letter dated 15.11.96 Ex PW2/C does not bears her signatures and the same is not in her hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, writing " Mamta Chouhan" underneath the signatures at point Q405 on the point Q406 is in the hand writing of accused Kunwar Singh Bhist.
106 PW53 Sumit Bhardwaj has deposed that Kunwar Singh Bhist used to maintained proceeding register in which details of meeting were written .
107 This is the only evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the allegations made against accused Kunwar Singh in the charge sheet. It is not clear as to why and on what allegations accused Kunwar Singh was expelled from the society by the RCS because the order of RCS has not been produced on the judicial file. According to prosecution he had written the minuets of meeting of management committee and annual general meeting of the society in the proceeding register but only the Photostat copies of the minutes have been produced on the judicial file . Handwriting expert has not given any opinion about the hand CC No.06/08 67/104 68 writing in absence of original writing . According prosecution he had prepared refund receipt of resigned members . Only photostat copies of such receipts have been produced on the judicial file . There is no opinion of Hand writing expert with regard to writing on such receipts . According to prosecution he had entered the details of members in the membership register but only photostat copies of the register has been produced . There is no opinion about the hand writing on this register because of non availability of the original register. None of the prosecution witness has deposed that he had seen accused Kunwar Singh Bhist writing the minuets of meeting of management committee and annual general meeting of the society in the proceeding register or details of members in the membership register.
108 Prosecution has only proved his hand writing at point Q445 , Q446 and Q405 and Q406 wherein he has written only the name and address of Mamta Swain and Navidita Singh. It is well settled legal proposition that in a criminal case prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and all benefits of doubt goes in favour of accused. In view of above discussion, this Court is of opinion that accused Kunwar Singh Bhist is entitled for the benefit of doubt in this case because prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against him. CC No.06/08 68/104 69 Role of Sh. J. P. S. Shishodia and Evidence against him. 109 Affairs of the Shantanu CGHS were mainly looked after by Sh. J.P.S. Shishodia (A3) and Sh. Om Prakash Gupta (A1) from the beginning. They enrolled most of the members of Society. Office of Society was functioning from the office of Sh J.P.S. Shishodia. S/Sh. Om Prakash Gupta (A1), Kunwar Singh (A2) and J.P.S. Shishodia used to look after the work of Society. J P Shishodia and Om Prakash Gupta remained President and Secretary from 1984 to 2000, Sh. JPS Shishodia is member of Society and Sh. Om Prakash Gupta had resigned from the society in the year 2002, accused Kunwar Singh (A2) was expelled from society by the order of RCS in the year 2002.
110 At the time of Registration of Society, Sh JPS Shishodia had submitted list of members in the R.C.S Office Delhi but some members have denied to have become members of Society. They also denied to have submitted affidavit to the Society. GEQD report has also confirmed signature of JPS Shishodia on Registration documents. After registration of society, some members were falsely enrolled in the society during the year 198485.
CC No.06/08 69/104 70
111 During the year 1992 to 1997 and 1998, Sh. J.P.S. Shishodia, Secretary of Society fraudulently and dishonestly accepted resignations of the members mentioned at AnnexureII. These resignations have also been reflected in Audit Report for the year 1992, 199798. The same are having the signature of JPS Shishodia. Resignations of these members were sent to GEQD for expert opinion. GEQD has opined that "Resignation Accepted"
on the resignation letter has been written by Sh J.P.S. Shishodia. JPS Sasodia also prepared the false refund voucher of the resigning members. Same were submitted in the RCS office at the time of approval of the freeze list of the society. Signature of J.P.Shishodia on forged refund voucher were identified by Mahinder Gola (PW15), Iswar Singh Dagar (PW No. 20),Jai Singh Joon (PW No. 21), Sumit Bhardwaj (PW 53), Amar Nath (PW 58) and Babar Singh (PW 62)
112 All these members have denied to resign from the Society and stated that their resignation bear forged signatures. 113 All the original resignation letters were sent to GEQD for comparison of handwriting of accused Jai Pal Singh Shishodia. CC No.06/08 70/104 71 GEQD report has opined that resignation letter of Pradeep Kr. Jain (P W No. 32), Munna Lal Jain (PW No. 37), bear the handwriting of Sh JPS Shishodia. Sh. Pradeep Kr. Jain (PW 32) and Munna Lal Jain (PW 37) have denied to submit their resignations. 114 In response to the letter of RCS Sh. JPS Shishodia, Secretary of the Society forwarded the records of election, of Management Committee, Affidavit, Photocopies of Agenda, list of members etc. of the Society to RCS and also furnished sworn affidavit dated 30.09.1997 Ex PW77/325 to the effect that 164 members have resigned from the Society between the period 1985 and 1997. The affidavit does not contain true facts, as many members have denied having submitted their resignations. GEQD has also opined that the affidavit bears the signature of JPS Shishodia at point Q534 to Q565 .
115 Society had got conducted audit for the year of 199293 to 199697. That audit report was submitted to the office of RCS by the Society intimating therein that 120 members had resigned from the Society during the year 199697. In the Audit Report accused Jai Pal Singh Shishodia, Om Prakash Gupta and Babar Singh, have been shown as Secretary, President and CC No.06/08 71/104 72 Treasurer respectively. The Society got conducted the audit for the year 199798 in the year 1999 and the audit report was submitted to RCS office. In this audit report it has been shown that 12 members resigned from the Society. All the resignation were accepted by accused Jai Pal Singh Shishodia while he was Secretary of the society.
116 Copies of audit reports pertaining to year 199293 to 199697 of the Shantuna Apartment CGHS were sent to the office of RCS, at the time of approval of freeze list by the RCS by accused O P Gupta and J P S Sisodia under their signatures . Alongwith these audit reports various annexure have also been sent to the office of RCS bearing signatures of accused JPS Sisodia showing resignations of 120 members most of whom have denied furnishing of their resignation from the membership of the society and deposed that their signatures on their alleged resignation have been fabricated/ forged. Annexure A which is Ex PW77/Z158 wherein it is mentioned that 120 members of society resigned during the year 199293 to 199697 bears signatures of accused JPS Sisodia at point Q1075. Accused JPS Sisodia has also signed various necessary required documents filed alongwith the audit reports at point Q1081, Q1084, Q1087, Q1090, Q1093, CC No.06/08 72/104 73 Q1096, Q1099, Q1102, Q1105, Q1108, Q1114, Q1116 to Q1121, Q1123, Q1126, Q1129, Q1132, Q1135, Q1138, Q1141, Q1144, Q1147, Q1150, Q1153, Q1156, Q1159, Q1162, Q1165, Q1168, Q1171, Q1173, Q1174, Q1176, Q1179, Q1182, Q1185, Q1188, Q1191, Q1194, Q1197, Q1200, Q1202, Q1203, Q1205, Q1208, Q1211, Q1214, Q1217, Q1220, Q1223, Q1226, Q1229, Q1232, Q1237, Q1238, Q1240 which are on Ex PW77/Z158 to Ex PW77/Z208. PW77 L Loganathan, GEQD who has compared the specimen signatures of accused JPS Sisodia with the above referred questioned signatures has opined in his report Ex PW77/E that signatures on all the above referred points are in the hand writing of accused J P S Sisodia. The facts regarding resignation of various members from the society are wrongly mentioned in these documents.
117 Munna Lal Jain has appeared in the witness box as PW 37 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 28.10.96 Ex PW37/B does not bears his signatures and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW37/B at point Q97 is in the hand writing of accused JPS Sisodia. This resignation has also been accepted by accused JPS Sisodia vide his signature at point Q298. PW77 GEQD, CC No.06/08 73/104 74 endorsement and signatures at point Q298 on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW37/B is in the hand writing of accused JPS Sisodia. Thus it is proved on the file that accused JPS Sisodia himself fabricated the resignation of Munna Lal Jain Ex PW37/B and also accepted the same himself as Secretary of the society. 118 Pardeep Kumar Jain has appeared in the witness box as PW 32 and deposed that his alleged resignation letter dated 28.10.96 Ex PW32/B does not bears his signatures and the same is not in his hand writing. Somebody has forged it. According to PW77 GEQD, body writing on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW32/B at point Q301 is in the hand writing of accused JPS Sisodia. This resignation has also been accepted by accused JPS Sisodia vide his signature at point Q300. PW77 GEQD, endorsement and signatures at point Q300 on the alleged resignation letter Ex PW32/B is in the hand writing of accused JPS Sisodia. Thus it is proved on the file that accused JPS Sisodia himself fabricated the resignation of Pardeep Kumar Jain Ex PW32/B and also accepted the same himself as Secretary of the society.
119 Accused JPS Sisodia had accepted the alleged resignation of Sh Amitabh Dham (PW27,Q110) Jai Singh Joon CC No.06/08 74/104 75 ( PW21,Q119) Rakesh Jain ( PW39,Q126 ), Ajay Kumar Jain ( PW65,Q130), I S Dagar (PW20,Q133), Arun Kumar ( PW36, Q139), Kashmiri Lal Choudhary ( PW25,Q168), Dinesh Kumar Jain ( PW38,Q171), Rajender Prasad ( PW64,Q178) , Suraj Bhan ( PW66, Q188), Sher Singh Jain ( PW19, Q91), Vijay Kumar Jain ( PW22, Q199) Anupam Bhargava ( PW34,Q206), Deepak Kumar Bhardwaj (PW35,Q214) B . M Batish ( PW33,Q238), Bhagwat Singh (PW46,Q249), Mauji Ram ( PW24,Q259) Tek Chand ( PW16, Q262) M S Jain ( PW26,Q268), Ram Kali ( PW67, Q280), PW Mukesh Choudhary ( PW59,Q287) Nirmal Swaroop Jain ( PW31, Q317), Jai Bhagwan ( PW18, Q324), PW Jai Narain ( PW8,Q 342), Raj Kumar ( PW13, Q346), Rajinder Kumar ( PW3, Q350) Rajinder Kumar K K Mahjan (PW11, Q367) Gyan Parkash ( PW23, Q370), Pawan Kumar Goel ( PW40, Q375) Neena Kapoor ( PW28, Q395) Mamta Chauhan ( PW2, Q 407), PW Navidita Singh ( PW1,Q447), R N Mitra ( PW42, Q450) Kewal Kishan Gosai ( PW9,Q455), Ram Niwas ( PW 57, Q465), Harikesh Bansal ( PW29, Q469) Jogi Ram ( PW45,Q470), M I S Ansari ( PW47,Q508) during the period 19961997 under his signatures with the endorsement "
Resignation accepted" ( Q number of the signatures is mentioned in the bracket against each witness ) as Secretary of the Society . CC No.06/08 75/104 76 PW77 GEQD, has opined that endorsement and signatures at point Q,110, 119, 126, 130, 133, 139, 168, 171, 178, 188, 91, 199, 206, 214, 238, 249, 259, 262, 268, 280, 287, 317, 324, 342, 346, 350, 367, 370, 375, 395, 407, 447, 450, 455, 465, 469, 470 and 508 on the alleged resignation letters of above mentioned Pws are in the hand writing of accused JPS Sisodia. All the above referred members of society have appeared in the witness box and deposed that they had never submitted their resignation from the primary membership of the society. They have also deposed that their alleged resignation letters does not bear their signature. They have specifically deposed that somebody had forged their signatures on their alleged resignation letters. Thus it is proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused JPS Sisodia intentionally and deliberately in furtherance of criminal conspiracy hatched among the accused had accepted the forged / fabricated resignation of the above members of the society.
120 PW65 Sh Ajay Son of Dherender Kumar Jain has deposed that his father was a member of Shantanu CGHS who expired in the year 29.1.93 . His father had never resigned from the membership of the society. After seeing the resignation letter of his father Ex PW65/B he has deposed that it neither bears signatures of his father nor it has been written by his father. CC No.06/08 76/104 77 Someone has forged signatures of his father on it . The alleged resignation of Dharender Kumar dated 6.1.97 is Ex PW65/B which has been accepted by JPS Sisodia as Secretary of the society vide his endorsement alongwih his signatures at point Q130. PW77 GEQD, has opined that endorsement and signature at point Q130 on the alleged resignation letter of Dharender Kumar is in the hand writing of accused JPS Sisodia. When Sh Dharender Kumar Jain has expired on 29.1.93 how can he furnished his resignation on 6.1.97 and how can accused JPS Sisodia had accepted it, speaks the volume of fraud committed by him in this case. 121 PW36 Sh Arun Kumar Son of M P Aggarwal has deposed that his father was a member of Shantanu CGHS who expired in the year 1990 . After seeing the resignation letter of his father Ex PW36/B he has deposed that it neither bears signatures of his father nor it has been written by his father. Someone has forged signatures of his father on it . The alleged resignation of M P Aggarwal dated 9.1.97 is Ex PW36/B which has been accepted by JPS Sisodia as Secretary of the society vide his endorsement alongwih his signatures at point Q139. PW77 GEQD, has opined that endorsement and signature at point Q139 on the alleged resignation letter of M P Aggarwal is in the hand writing of CC No.06/08 77/104 78 accused JPS Sisodia. When Sh M P Aggarwal has expired in 1990 how can he furnished his resignation on 9.1.97 and how can accused JPS Sisodia has accepted it, speaks the volume of fraud committed by him in this case.
122 Sh Amitabh Dham PW27, Jai Singh Joon PW21 Rakesh Jain, PW39, Ajay Kumar Jain ( PW65), I S Dagar (PW20,), Arun Kumar ( PW36), Kashmiri Lal Choudhary ( PW25,), Dinesh Kumar Jain ( PW38,), Rajender Prasad ( PW64,) , Suraj Bhan ( PW66, ), Sher Singh Jain ( PW19, ), Vijay Kumar Jain ( PW22, ) Anupam Bhargava ( PW34,), B . M Batish ( PW33,), Bhagwat Singh (PW46,), Mauji Ram ( PW24,) Tek Chand ( PW16, ) M S Jain ( PW26,), Ram Kali ( PW67, ), PW Mukesh Choudhary ( PW59,) Nirmal Swaroop Jain ( PW31, ), Jai Bhagwan ( PW18, ), PW Jai Narain ( PW8,), Raj Kumar ( PW13, ), Rajinder Kumar ( PW3, ) Rajinder Kumar K K Mahjan (PW11, ) Gyan Parkash ( PW23, ), Neena Kapoor ( PW28, ) Mamta Chauhan ( PW2, ), PW Navidita Singh ( PW1,), R N Mitra ( PW42, ) Kewal Kishan Gosai ( PW9,), Ram Niwas ( PW 57, ), Harikesh Bansal ( PW29, ) Jogi Ram ( PW45,) and M I S Ansari ( PW47,) have appeared in the witness box and deposed that they had not resigned from the primary membership of the CC No.06/08 78/104 79 society and the alleged resignation kept in the resignation file are forged by somebody.
123 Freeze list of 195 members was submitted by the Society to RCS office for approval and onward transmission to DDA for the allotment of land. In 1998, RCS office asked the Society for furnishing the requisite information and produce the records for verification so that the freeze list can be approved. Accordingly, J P S Shishodia and Rakesh Mittal produced the relevant records regarding resigned members and enrollment of new members, photocopies of Proceedings Registers for the relevant period in which the resignations/enrollment of the members were approved by the Management Committee before RCS official on different occasions in the year 199899. Sh. Rakesh Mittal was enrolled in the Society as a member in the year 1997 and was elected secretary of the society in the year 1998, all the resignation were accepted by JPS Shishodia from 199298. Sh. Rakesh Mittal did not accept any resignation of member of society. No positive report has been received from GEQD for making any false resignation letter or any document by Rakesh Mittal.
124 During investigation it has been established that false CC No.06/08 79/104 80 proceedings of meetings were shown to be held on different dates in presence of members of society and the proceedings of meetings were falsely recorded in the proceeding register of society in which false resignations were accepted by the Management Committee specially by JPS Shishodia and Om Prakash Gupta (A1).
125 Raj Kumar son of Banarsi Dass has appeared in the witness box as PW 13 and deposed that he had become member in the society in the year 1984 through Sh Om Parkash. He has attended the meeting of society once or twice in the beginning. His brother in law Abhay Ram had also become the member of the society but he had died in the year 1988. Neither he nor his brother in law had submitted resignation from the society. He has deposed that his alleged signatures at point Q1952 are actually not his signatures at Sl No.20 on proceeding of Annual/ General meeting allegedly conducted on 28.4.96 . He has also deposed that signatures at Sl No.35 at Q1967 on proceeding of Annual/ General meeting allegedly conducted on 28.4.96 are not of his brother in law Abhady Ram because he has died in the year 1988 someone had forged his signatures.
126 Smt Neena Kapoor has appeared in the witness box as PW 28 and deposed that she had become member of Shantanu CC No.06/08 80/104 81 CGHS in the year 1989 alongwith with her husband through Om Parkash Gupta neither she nor her husband resigned from the society . They had never attended the meeting of the society . However proceedings dt 28.4.96 with regard to holding of annual/general meeting of the society reflects the signatures of Neena Kapoor at Sl No.68 ( Q1948) .
127 PW37 Sh Munna Lal Jain has deposed that he had never attended any meeting of the society. After seeing proceedings dt 25.4.88, 16.6.90 and 28.4.96 he has specifically deposed that signatures at Sl No.58 on page 11, Sl No.7 on page 25 and Sl No.23 on page 18 are not of his somebody has forged the same.
128 PW29 Sh Harikesh Bansal has deposed that he had never attended any meeting of the society. After seeing proceedings dt 28.4.96 he has specifically deposed that signatures at Sl No.69 on page 17(Q2000) are not of his somebody has forged the same. PW 30 Sh Vir Bhan has deposed that he had never attended any meeting of the society. After seeing proceedings dt 28.4.96 he has specifically deposed that signatures at Sl No.11 on page 19(Q1943) are not of his somebody has forged the same. PW31 Sh Nirmal Swaroop Jain has deposed that he had never attended any meeting of the society. After seeing CC No.06/08 81/104 82 proceedings dt 28.4.96 he has specifically deposed that signatures at Sl No.38 on page 18(Q1970) are not of his somebody has forged the same.
129 Deepak Bhardwaj has appeared in the witness box as PW 35 and deposed that his father never become member of Shantanu CGHS . After seeing the page 1,2,3,11 and 14 of the proceeding register he has deposed that alleged signatures of his father on these pages are not actually the signatures of his father but someone has forged the same. In proceedings recorded on 28.12.97, 17.5.97, 5.10.97 , 22.12.96 and 24.11.96 Sh N K Bhardwaj father of Deepak Bhardwaj has been shown as office bearer of the Shantanu CGHS and he has also been shown to sign these proceedings of the society. When his son has specifically deposed that his father was not the member of the society there can be no question of his becoming the office bearer of the society. 130 Dr Jogeshwar Nath has appeared in the witness box as PW 69 and deposed that he had become member of Shantanu CGHS and attended the proceedings/meetings in the beginning for two years only. After 1990 he had never attended any meeting of the society nor signed any proceeding. Proceedings of the society Ex PW11/B shown to bear his signatures at page 1,3,6,9,14 and
19. Thus it proves that above referred proceedings showing his CC No.06/08 82/104 83 signatures are fabricated / forged proceedings. 131 PW71 Smt Bimla Dwivedi has deposed that she had never become member of Shantanu CGHS, membership form does not bears her signatures at point Q3768. She had never attended any meeting of society. She never remained executive member of the society . Her signatures on the proceeding of monthly meeting are forged by someone . After seeing the extract of proceedings register she has deposed that it does not bears her signatures. Relevant portion in this regard is as under:
"I never attended any meeting of the society. I have seen D15 i.e. file already Ex PW11/B in which proceeding relating to annual meeting commenced from 28.4.96 is kept at serial No. 1 to 19 in which I have been falsely shown as attended the meeting. Someone had forged my Signatures on these proceedings at encircled portion Q1938, at encircled portion Q2016 in monthly meeting of 24.11.96, at encircled portion Q2024 for the meeting held on 26.12.96, at encircled portion Q2046 for the meeting held on 9.2.97. at encircled portion Q2058 for the meeting held on 5.10.97, at encircled portion Q2064 for the meeting held on 17.5.97, at encircled portion Q2071 for the meeting held on 28.12.97.
Signatures appearing at encircled portion Q 2084 on Ex PW71/B is not mine, Signatures appearing at encircled portion Q 2184 on Ex PW71/C is not mine, Signatures appearing at encircled portion Q 2301 on Ex PW71/D1 is not mine, Signatures appearing at encircled portion Q 2358 on Ex PW71/D2 is not mine, Signatures appearing at encircled portion Z on Ex PW71/D3 is not mine and Signatures appearing at encircled portion Q 2474 and Q2475 on affidavit as deponent on Ex PW71/D4 are not mine, someone has forged these signatures.
I have seen D17 already Ex PW12/M in which receipt money of membership relating to myself is kept at serial No. 517. I identify my signatures at encircled portion Q2806. Same is Ex PW70/C. I have seen the extract of proceeding register for the dates 25.4.88,17.2.88, 17.2.89, 28.3.89, 28.7.89, 7.10.89, 6.3.90, 16.6.90 and 28.8.90 wherein I have been shown as having attended the meeting and my signatures has been fabricated by someone. Actually I had not attended the meeting. My CC No.06/08 83/104 84 signatures at points Z1 to Z10 have been fabricated by someone. These are not my genuine signatures."
132 PW61 Jai Singh has deposed that Om Parkash had made him President of the society without any election as as per his instructions he had signed certain papers like Audit Report . He has further deposed that Sh Gupta started insisting him for collecting more money for the society which he could not arranged therefore he had resigned from the society . After seeing the proceedings register dated 25.8.90 wherein he has been shown to be present in the Executive Meeting as President vide his signatures at point Q3452 he has specifically deposed that the same are not his signatures and someone has forged it. He has also specifically deposed that this society was being run under the control of JPS Sisodia and Om Parkash Gupta. Relevant portion of his deposition in this regard is as under:
"Sh Om Parkash Gupta had made me the President of above said society without any election and as per his instructions/ dictate I had signed certain papers like audit report etc. Thereafter, Sh Gupta started insisting on me for collecting more money for the society which I could not arranged / manage therefore I resigned from the membership of the society. I have seen resignation letter kept at Sl No. 86 in the file D27 and I identify my signatures at encircled portion Q207 , the same is Ex PW61/B. The body writing at encircled portion Q209 is not mine . Sh O P Gupta who got it prepared, took my CC No.06/08 84/104 85 signatures on it and I received back the amount which I had given . The said society was running under the control of Sh JPS Sisodia and Sh Om Parkash Gupta."
133 PW 17 Dr Surinder Kumar Nagpal has deposed that he never remained office bearer of Shantanu CGHS though he was offered to become office bearer by the JPS Sisodia. He has categorically deposed that the society was being run by JPS Sisodia. Relevant statement of this witness in this regard is as under:
" I had never remained office bearer of Society M/S Shantanu Apartment, CGHS, however I was offered to become the office bearer of above said society by Sh JPS Sisodia, who is present in court today ( Witness has correctly identified the accused). The society was being run by Sh JPS Sisodia."
134 PW62 Babar Singh has deposed that he had become member of the Shantanu CGHS through Om Parkash and JPS Sisodia who were running the society . He did not write any account book or ledger or prepared refund receipt . He did not refund any amount to any of the member in fact these works were attended by Om Parkash Gupta and JPS Sisodia. Relevant portion of his statement in this regard is as under:
" I had become the member of Santanue CGHS Ltd through Om Parkash Gupta,an employee of Central Bank of India, and Sh J P Sisodia who were running CC No.06/08 85/104 86 Santanue CGHS Ltd. I was told by Om Parkash Gupta that I have become the member of above said society. The application for membership, kept at Sl No.81 in a File D25, duly filled up in prescribed performat bears my signatures at point A . . The same is Ex PW62/A. For certain period on the insistence of Om Parkash Gupta I had signed certain audit file in good faith . I personally did not offer myself for the pot of officer bearer of the society and did not fill up any nomination form for the purpose of election. I did not write any account book, refund receipt and ledger of the society, as I am not well conversant in English and somehow can manage in Hindi but fluent in writing. I did not refund any amount to any member of the society on behalf of society . In fact, these works were attended by Om Parkash Gupta and JPS Sisodia. Except to my refund I did not receipt any amount ."
135 From the above discussion it is proves beyond reasonable doubt that Shantanu CGHS society was actually being managed and run by accused JPS Sisodia and O P Gupta since the very beginning and till the approval of freeze list of the member of the society.
136 PW11 Kewal Kishan has deposed that he had become the member of Shantanu CGHS but never attended any meeting. He had never resigned from the society nor received refund of his share money. Similarly PW15 Mahinder Gola, PW19 Sher Singh Jain, PW21 Jai Singh Joon, PW22 Vijay Kumar Jain, PW25 Kashmiri Lal PW27 Sh Amitabh Dham, PW29 Harikesh Bansal, CC No.06/08 86/104 87 PW33 B M Batish , PW32 Pardeep Kumar Jain, PW34 Dr Anupam Bhargav PW 36 Sh Arun Kumar,PW38 Dinesh Kumar and PW 42 R N Mitra have deposed that they had become member of the society but never resigned from the membership of the society nor they have received refund of their share money . But the society has sent the copies of the refund receipt of the above referred members showing that all these members resigned from the primary membership of society and received the refund of their share money .
137 PW50 Sh K G Kashyap has deposed that Shantanu CGHS was allotted a plot of 11000 sq yards. Society was asked to deposit 1,85,26,200/ within 45 days as 35% of the costs land . On 27.6.2002 society deposited this amount on 4.2.2003 DDA allotted plot No.13 Dhirpur measuring 11000 sq yards to the society. However, possession of land was not given to the society as the land offered to the society failed in soil testing report. Relevant portion of statement of this witness is as under:
"I have seen D4 i.e. file no. F.7 (32)/2001/GH/DDA relating to allotment of land to Shantanu CGHS Ltd., Plot No.13 Dhirpur. This file was maintained in DDA in official course of business. I am well conversant with the dealing and initiation of the notings as well as documents contained in this file. This file includes note sheets from page No.1 to page No.54 dealt by various staff, officers, Sr. officers and myself. This file also contains 137 correspondence sheets paginated from last page of file i.e after page 54 to upper portion of the file. This complete file alongwith correspondence and note sheets is Ex PW50/A collectively. CC No.06/08 87/104 88 At its page No.15 letter No.F47/19/NGH/Coop./Policy/1267 dt. 21.6.1999 addressed to Dy. Director, (GH) DDA from D K Gaur, Asstt. Registrar is kept trough which consolidated list of 10 societies for allotment of land was sent. In this letter the name of Shantanu Apartment is figured at serial No.9 having its registration No. 1111and showing the strength of members as 195.
From page 16 to 18 of the file Ex PW50/A collectively, a letter No. F7(32)/2001/GH/DDA/6692 dt. 2.11.2001 addressed to the Honorary Secretary/President, Shantanu Apartment CGHS Ltd. under the signatures of the then Dy. Director Sh. K D Reddy on the subject allotment of land under group housing scheme in Dwarka, Karkardooma and Dhirpur residential scheme is kept. According to this letter DDA had offered allotment of plot to society measuring 11000 sq. metres in Dwarka, Karkardoom and Dhirpur residential scheme for 195 members to this society.
As per letter dt. 19.11.2001 submitted on behalf of Shantanu Apartment CGHS Ltd. to Dy. Director (GH)DDA, New Delhi, kept at serial No.19 of the file Ex PW50/A collectively, reveals the fact that letter dt. 2.11.2001 written to Shantanu Apartment CGHS Ltd. was not received by the Society. It was requested on behalf of society that said allotment letter may be handed over to the Secretary. This fact also finds mention even in notesheet. Thereafter, DDA asked society to deposit Rs.1,85,26,200/ within 45 days on receipt of offer letter, but the society sought extension upto 27.6.2002 for depositing 35% of cost of land and finally on 27.6.02 society deposited 35% of land money.
On 4.2.2003, DDA allotted plot No. 13, Dhirpur measuring 11000 sq. metres to Shantanu Apartment CGHS Ltd. This allotment was computerised drawal and the said letter is kept at page No.64 of the file Ex PW50/A collectively.
Shantanu Apartment CGHS Ltd. applied for Bridge loan, total amounting to Rs.3.44 crores from Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Possession of the land was not given to the society as the land offered to the society failed in soil test. Concerned letter relating to bridge loan is kept at serial No.71 of the file Ex PW50/A collectively. The permission of DDA is kept at serial No.72 of said file."
138 In these circumstances, it is proved that alleged proceedings drawn on 28.4.96 with regard to conducing of Annual/ General meeting are forged and fabricated one. 139 Statements of some of the members of society who CC No.06/08 88/104 89 had been shown present in the meeting in which resignation were accepted by accused Om Parkash and JPS Shishodia have also been recorded. They have stated that they were not present in any such meeting of society in which resignations of some members of society were accepted by the Managing Committee or accused Om Prakash and J P S Shishodia. Some members of society have stated that they had never attended any meeting of society in which their names have been mentioned. They have also stated that their signatures have been forged in the proceedings register. 140 In view of above discussion it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused J P S Sisodia has fabricated the record and used that forged / fabricated record for getting the allotment of land from DDA in favour of society in connivance and conspiracy with his coaccused in furtherance of criminal conspiracy hatched with them.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF DEFENCE ARGUMENTS.
141 There is no merit in the argument of Ld Defence counsel that DCS Act is a special law while IPC is general law. Provisions of Special laws prevail over the provisions of General CC No.06/08 89/104 90 law. Similar contention has been dealt with by our Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M P Vs Rameshwar & Ors 2009 V AD ( S C) 37 wherein it is argued on behalf of petitioner as follows:
"Mr Tankha took us through the MP Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, in support of his submissions. He submitted that the said Act was a complete self contained Code by itself and provided for different eventualities relating to the administration of Cooperative Societies. Referring to Section 74 of the Act, Mr Tankha submitted that contemplated in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed of the instant type . Further - more, Section 75 provided for penalties to be inflicted in case of a proven offence and Section 76 also provides that offences under the Act 25 were triable by a Magistrate of the Ist Class."
142 While dealing with these arguments Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
" Mr Tankha's submissions, which were echoed by Mr Jain, that the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was a complete Code in itself and the remedy of the prosecuting agency lay not under the criminal process but within the ambit of Sections 74 to 76 thereof, cannot also be accepted, in view of the fact that there is no bar under the M.P Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, CC No.06/08 90/104 91 to take resort to the provision of the general criminal law, particularly when charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are invoked."
143 In D C S Act also there is no bar to take resort to the provisions of General Criminal laws .
144 While dealing with similar contention Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Ashoka Vs N L Chandrshekar and Ors (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 199 has held as follows:
"D.Cooperative Societies - Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (11of 1959) Ss. 111 and 109 - Bar to criminal proceedings, under - Applicability - Held, there is no statutory embargo on court to take cognizance of an offence under the provisions of IPC - If allegations in complaint petition or in FIR make out a case under IPC, bar under S. 111 of 1959 Act is not applicable - Bar under the section applicable only for offences committed under 1959 Act - Criminal proceedings."
145 It is further observed in para No.23 of this authority as follows:
" Section 109 of the Act provides for commission of CC No.06/08 91/104 92 offences under the said Act. Therein, no statutory embargo has been placed for a Court to take cognizance of an offence under the provision of IPC. If the allegations made in the complaint or in the first information report make out a case under IPC, Section 111 of the Act to which our attention has been drawn, would constitute no bar for maintenance thereof being applicable only in respect of offences committed under the said Act. The said statutory interdict therefore cannot be extended in regard to commission of an offence under the other Act."
146 In this case investigating agency has not filed charge sheet under the provisions of IPC only, which is the general law . In this case, charge sheet has also been filed U/S 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of P C Act 1988 which is Special Law, coupled with the provisions of IPC. P C Act 1988 being the latest Special Law will certainly prevail over the provisions of DCS Act 1972 even according to the arguments of Ld Defence Counsel. 147 Ld Defence counsel argued that prosecution has failed to prove mens era / guilty intention on the part of accused to commit the alleged fraud in this case.
CC No.06/08 92/104 93 148 Intention is the gist of offence of cheating, the person cheated must have been intentionally induced to do an act which he would not have done or to omit to do an act which he would have done, owing to deception practiced on him. The intention at the time of the offence and the consequences of the act or omission itself have to be considered. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct. Intention is defined as the purpose or design with which an act is done. Intention is an internal state of mind. Sometime it may be expressed sometime it may be implied. Implied intention is to be inferred from the acts and conducts of the parties . It is on the principle that every man knows the consequences of his act or conduct. If the consequences are foreseen as the certain results of the doer acts, it shall be taken as intended. Sometimes the intention is imputed from the act or the consequences. If a particular act has been done, the law will presume that the person doing it has the intention to do it without the enquiry as to whether actually he had the intention or not. 149 Causing of wrongful lose and wrongful gain does not CC No.06/08 93/104 94 only mean monetary loss or monetary gain. In this case accused entered in a criminal conspiracy with the object to get land allotted wrongfully in the name of Shantanu Apartment CGHS on subsidised rates by preparing/ getting prepared forged documents / record and using the same as genuine which also amounts to causing wrongful loss to DDA and wrongful gain to Shantanu Apartment CGHS/ accused. Investigating agency has produced evidence showing that there was dishonest intention from the very beginning to cause wrongful loss to DDA State and wrongful gain to Shantanu Apartment CGHS /accused. Evidence has also been produced by the investigating agency showing that documents were forged and fabricated which had been filed / used by the accused. Land was also allotted to Shantanu CGHS Ltd which has also deposited 35% of the costs of land and an amount of Rs. 1,85,26,200/ but the possession of land could not be delivered as the land fails in soil testing report.
150 From the above discussion it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused O P Gupta and JPS Sisodia had written the body of forged resignation letters of various members of the society . They had also signed some of the forged resignation letter of the member of the society as witness and CC No.06/08 94/104 95 accepted the same in the capacity of the Secretary. It is also proves on the judicial file that to give a coloration of truth and to justify the correctness of the same they had fabricated the proceedings of the society wherein such forged resignations were shown to be accepted. It is also proved on the file that both these accused had issued the refund voucher of the share money to such members falsely while all such members have depsoed they have not receivedd any refund of their share money. So much so, that accused JPS Sisodia has also shown to accept resignation of the members who had expired prior to the alleged date of their resignation. They have also filed various documents alongwith the freeze list under their signatures showing false facts. They have done so to confirm the membership of the society to their favorable members by getting the land allotted from DDA on subsidies rates. All these circumstances, proves beyond reasonable doubt that they had malafidely with malicious intention had done so.
151 Conspiracy consists in a combination or agreement between two or more person to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. A conspiracy is an inference drawn from the circumstances. There cannot always be much direct evidence about it. Conspiracy can be inferred even from the CC No.06/08 95/104 96 circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. Since Conspiracy is often hatched up in utmost secrecy, it is most impossible to prove conspiracy by direct evidence. It has to be inferred from the acts, statements and conduct of parties to the conspiracy. Thus, if it is proved that the accused pursued, by their acts, the same object often by the same means, one performing one part of the act and the other another part of the same act so as to complete it with a view to attainment of the object which they were pursuing, the court is at liberty to draw the inference that they conspired together to effect that object. Conspiracy has to be treated as a continuing offence and whosoever is a party to the conspiracy, during the period for which he is charged, is liable under this section. 152 It is not an ingredient of the offence under this section that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. The entire agreement must be viewed as a whole and it has to be ascertain as to what in fact the conspirators intended to do or the object they want to achieve. It is not necessary that each CC No.06/08 96/104 97 member of conspiracy must know each other or all the details of the conspiracy. It is also not necessary that every conspirator must have taken place in each and every act done in pursuance of a conspiracy.
153 Though to establish the charge of conspiracy there must be agreement, there need not be proof of direct meeting or combination , nor need the parties be brought into each other's presence; the agreement may be inferred from the circumstances raising presumption of a common concerted plan to carry out the unlawful design. Conspiracy need not be established by proof which actually brings the party together; but may be shown like any other fact, by circumstantial evidence. So again it is not necessary that all should have joined in the scheme from the first point; those who come in at a later stage are equally guilty.
154 Conspiracy hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness. In a case of conspiracy, it is not expected from the prosecution that it will produce evidence to show that conspirators executed agreement to commit crime before the CC No.06/08 97/104 98 witnesses to prove the existence of conspiracy. Conspirators take all precautions to keep their plan secret hence prosecution cannot produce direct evidence to prove agreement to commit conspiracy. 155 In Kher Singh Vs State AIR 1988 SC 1883 it is observed as follows:
" Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on th evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon the circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must require whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the later does. It is however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation or agreement the express agreement however need not be proved. Nor mutual meetings of the two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of CC No.06/08 98/104 99 communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other material."
156 In a case of criminal conspiracy any evidence available against any of the accused is admissible against all the accused. Once a conspiracy is proved among the accused, act of one conspirator become act of all other conspirators also. In this regard Ld. SPP placed reliance on Shiv Narain Laxmi Narain Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra, (1980 ) 2 Supreme Court Cases 465 has held as follows:
" Penal Code, 1860 Section 120B - Since it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of conspiracy, the offence can only be proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design Once such a conspiracy is proved, act of one conspirator becomes act of the other A co conspirator, who joins subsequently and commits overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, held is also liable Evidence Act, 1987 Section 10."
157 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 596 has held as follows:
CC No.06/08 99/104 100
"Conspiracy is not only a substantive crime but on the basis of it a conspirator can also be held liable for the crimes committed by conspirators in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy Conspiracy can be established on the basis circumstances evidence As regards admissibility of evidence strict standards are not necessary inasmuch as any declaration made by a conspirator in furtherance of and during pendency of a conspiracy though hearsay, is admissible against each co conspirator On facts held, Supreme Court's interference with concurrent finding that criminal conspiracy proved and on the basis offence of murder also made out not called for."
158 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Naryan Popli Vs. CBI AIR 2003, SC 2748 has held as follows:
"The essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a CC No.06/08 100/104 101 serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120B read with the proviso to sub Section (2) of Section 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 Section 120B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary."
159 Hon'ble Supreme Court in P K Narayan Vs. State of Kerala, All India Criminal Law Reporter 1994 (3) 785, has held as follows:
"Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - Criminal Conspiracy Essence of Criminal conspiracy - It is an agreement to do an illegal act - Agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both - Complicity of the accused -
Circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence required to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused But if the circumstances are compatible with the innocence of the accused persons then it could not be held that the prosecution had successfully established its case." CC No.06/08 101/104 102
160 Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Swamirathnam, Appellant Vs. State of Madras, Respondent, (s) AIR 1957 S.C. 340 in this regard has held as follows:
"If a specific instance of cheating was proved beyond doubt against any of the accused that would furnish the best corroboration of the offence of conspiracy because conspiracy was the root and the specific instances were the fruit."
161 From the above discussion in this case it is clear that accused prosecution has proved that accused Om Parkash Gupta and JPS Sisodia had fabricated / forged the record of Shantanu CGHS Society in connivance and conspiracy hatched by them and used the same for getting the land allotted on subsidized rate from DDA.
162 This case was registered and investigated by CBI in view of directions given by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Hon'ble Supreme Court and various Hon'ble High Courts have held that provisions of Section 3 and 6 of DSPE Act do not apply when the Hon'ble Supreme Court/ High Court directs CBI to conduct investigation. Reliance can be placed on State of West Bengal Vs Sampat Lal AIR 1985 SC 195 , C A Gopalan Vs Inspector General CC No.06/08 102/104 103 of Police 1993 Cr L J 1543 , Maniyeri Madhwan Vs Sub Inspector of Police , 1994 Cr L J 3063. Yashwant Vs State of Maharastra 1995 Cr L J 2228 . Dharmistha Ben Narindera Sunh Jala Vs State of Gujarat 1997 Cr L J 3866.
163 Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maniyeri Madhavan Vs. Sub Inspector of Police and Others, (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 536, in this regard has held as follows:
"Supreme Court in exercise of power under, directing CBI to make investigation against certain officers of State police - procedure under S.6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 need not be followed Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, S.6."
164 Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 333, in this regard has held as follows:
"Constitution of India - Arts. 32, 142 and 226 -
Supreme Court under Arts. 32 & 142 and High Court under Art. 226 can, in certain cases, direct CBI to conduct investigation into any offence - But this power has to be exercised sparingly."
165 From the above discussions in this judgment, it is CC No.06/08 103/104 104 clear that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Om Parkash and JPS Sisodia were involved in the criminal conspiracy and they had attempted to cheat the DDA for getting the land allotted on subsidized rates on the basis of documents forged by them and using the same in furtherance of criminal conspiracy in connivance and collusion with each other, therefore I hold guilty both these accused for committing the offence U/s 120B, r/w 468, 420 r/w Sec. 511, 471 IPC and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of P C Act 1988.
166 Prosecution has also proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused Om Parkash Gupta and JPS Sisodia for committing the substantive offence punishable U/s 468, 420 r/w Sec. 511, 471 IPC , therefore I also hold them guilty accordingly.
167 In view of above discussion accused Kunwar Singh Bisht is entitled for benefit of doubt as prosecution has failed to prove its case against him beyond reasonable doubt therefore, he is acquitted .
Announced in open court.
Dated: 17.01.2013 (V K MAHESHWARI )
Special Judge: Delhi.
CC No.06/08 104/104
105
IN THE COURT OF SH. V K MAHESHWARI :SPECIAL
JUDGE; TIS HAZARI: DELHI
C C No. 06/08
R.C No. RC 3(S)/2006 CBI/STF/ND
CBI Vs Om Parkash Gupta & Ors.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my detailed judgment dated 17.1.2013 I held guilty accused Om Parkash and JPS Sisodia for the offence punishable U/s 120B, r/w 468, 420 r/w Sec. 511, 471 IPC and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of P C Act 1988.
I also held guilty accused Om Parkash Gupta and JPS Sisodia for committing the substantive offence punishable U/s 468, 420 r/w Sec. 511, 471 IPC.
Arguments on sentence heard.
CC No.06/08 105/104 106 It is argued on behalf of convict Om Parkash that he is 75 years old, having good social background and retired from Central Bank of India after serving 35 years with unblemished record. He has roots in the society. He is not a previous convict . He is suffering from Heart disease since 2007. He has been operated in 2009 because of knee problem. It is prayed that a lenient view may be taken against him.
It is argued on behalf of convict JPS Sisodia that he is 67 years old, having good social background and running a coaching centre . He has to look after his family consisting of three daughters and two sons. He is not a previous convict. He is a patient of slip disk. It is prayed that a lenient view may be taken against him.
It is argued by Ld PP for CBI that keeping in view the deterrent theory of punishment a strict view may be taken against the convicts. Convict Om Parkash and JPS Sisodia were CC No.06/08 106/104 107 involved in a criminal conspiracy. They had attempted to cheat DDA for getting the land allotted on subsidized rates on the basis of documents forged by them and using the same in furtherance of criminal conspiracy in connivance and collusion with each other Convicts have committed serious economic offence, no leniency be shown to them. They may be awarded maximum imprisonment as per law and consecutive sentence .
I have carefully considered all the arguments raised before me and have gone through the record. After considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, and arguments raised in the Court , I consider it proper to award Two years RI each along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/ each ( Twenty Thousand Only), I D three months S I each U/s 120B, r/w 468, 420 r/w Sec. 511, 471 IPC and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of P C Act 1988 to convicts Om Parkash Gupta and JPS Sisodia.
Both the convicts are also awarded Three Years RI CC No.06/08 107/104 108 along with a fine of Rs.30,000/ each (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) I D three months S I for the substantive offence punishable u/s 468 IPC Both the convicts are also awarded Three Years RI along with a fine of Rs.30,000/ each (Rs Thirty Thousand only) I D three months S I for the substantive offence punishable u/s 420 r/w Sec. 511 IPC They are also awarded Three Years RI along with a fine of Rs.30,000/ each (Rs Thirty Thousand only) I D three months S I for the substantive offence punishable u/s 471 IPC All the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr P C is also given to both the convicts. A copy of judgment and this order on sentence be given to convicts free of costs. Ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (V K MAHESHWARI)
TODAY ON 21.1.2013 SPECIAL JUDGE: DELHI
CC No.06/08 108/104