Delhi District Court
Cc No.97/11-Cbi vs . V.P. Anand & Ors. on 7 November, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-08 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CC No. : 97/2011
RC No. : 1(A)/1998
PS : CBI/ACU-VIII/ND
U/s : 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A IPC and Section
13(2) r/w13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
Unique ID No. 02401R01151172000
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
1. Ved Prakash Anand
S/o Shri Ram Dutta Mal,
R/o B-78, Sector-9, New Vijay Nagar,
Ghaziabad.
{Accounts Officer (SFS) DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New
Delhi}
2. S.K. Kaushik
S/o Shri Chandan Singh
R/o 108 Ward No.11, Chori Gali,
Nehru Park, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
(Assistant Accounts Officer-4, HAU-IX, DDA, Vikas Sadan,
INA, New Delhi)
3. Gurdas
S/o Shri Ramdas
R/o 10399, Manakpura, Gali Pathshala,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
{UDC (Dealing Assistant -SFS), Housing Accounts, DDA,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi}
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
2
4. Gurnam Chand
S/o Shri Mangat Ram
R/o C-4H-130, DDA Staff Quarters,
Janakpuri, New Delhi.
(Assistant SFS Housing, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New
Delhi)
5. Raju Aggarwal
S/o Shri Sita Ram Aggarwal
R/o 1197, Sector-7,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
Date of FIR : 29.01.1998
Date of Institution : 17.07.2000
Arguments concluded on : 05.11.2014
Date of Judgement : 07.11.2014
JUDGEMENT
(Note: At the outset, it may be observed that since the evidence of 120 witnesses was recorded spanning over 900 pages and the chargeseheet involves scrutiny of hundreds of documents relating to submission of fraudulent challans in 16 cases which were detected during investigation, the judgement has turned to be voluminous.)
1. Briefly, the FIR was registered on complaint dated 14.1.1998 (Ex.42/B) received from Shri A.K. Baranwal, Director (Vigilance), Delhi Development Authority (DDA), New Delhi wherein it was alleged that the possession letters of 12 DDA flats at Kondli Gharoli, Delhi had been given to allottees on forged bank challans, without the actual payment being made by the allottees of the said flats. Further, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
3on verification by DDA, the bank challans purported to have been issued by Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi as detailed in the complaint were found forged and no such amount towards the cost of the flats was deposited by the allottees. It was further submitted in the complaint that Shri V.P. Anand Accounts Officer (SFS), Shri S.K. Kaushik Asstt. Accounts Officer, Shri Gurdas UDC and Shri Gurnam Chand Assistant were suspected to be involved along with some property dealers in issuing 'Possession Letter' with malafide intentions.
2. Facts of the Case As per prosecution case, during the year 1996, Delhi Development Authority had sponsored a scheme known as "9th Self Financing Scheme" under which DDA invited applications from general public for allotment of flats under Self Financing Scheme from 8.8.96 to 20.8.96. At the initial stage Rs. 50,000/- was to be deposited by the applicant and the flats were to be allotted by draw of lots which was held on 31.12.96. The successful allottees included S/Shri (1) Amit Aggarwal, (2) Mrs. Salra Devi, (3) Sunder Lal, (4) Surinder Kumar, (5) Miss Meera, (6) Laxmi Narayan Meena, (7) Kishan Lal, (8) Ram Dev, (9) Miss Ritu Gupta, (10) Amar Singh, (11) Ms. Anita, (12) D.K. Jain & Smt. Renu Jain, (13) Ramjee Lal Meena, (14) Smt. Shirley Masih, (15) N.D. Deva and (16) Miss Mona Jaiswal who were allotted flats in their names at Kondli Gharoli, Delhi.
It is further alleged that during the year 1997, accused Raju Aggarwal (Property Dealer) purchased the allotment papers from the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
4aforesaid allottees either directly or through other property agents. Further, he also managed to obtain blank and partly blank papers/non- judicial papers duly signed by respective allottees with the object to fraudulently and dishonestly utilize them.
3. It is further the case of prosecution that during the year 1997, accused Ved Prakash Anand was functioning as Accounts Officer in Housing Accounts Unit (Self Financing Scheme) in DDA, accused S.K. Kaushik was working as Asstt. Accounts Officer in the Housing Account Unit and in their aforesaid capacity both of them were looking after the Housing Accounts Section. Further, accused Gurdas (UDC) working in the Housing Accounts Section was looking after the matters relating to SFS flats of Kondli Gharoli during the aforesaid period and accused Gurnam Chand was working as Assistant in the Housing Management Section of DDA and was custodian of the files relating to SFS flats of Kondli Gharoli.
It is further alleged that accused V.P. Anand, S.K. Kaushik. Gurdas and Gurnam Chand entered into a criminal conspiracy with Raju Aggarwal and some other unknown persons at Delhi during the year 1997 in order to cheat DDA and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy arranged forged and fabricated bank challans purported to have been issued from the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi showing that the cost of the 16 flats pertaining to the said challans had been deposited with the Bank. Further, on the basis of the said forged and fake documents, the possession letters of 12 flats were issued to Raju Aggarwal and other causing wrongful loss CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
5to DDA of Rs. 1,06,46,063/- and corresponding gain to themselves.
4. Modus Operandi Investigation revealed that Raju Aggarwal obtained Pay-Orders of Rs. 1000/- each in favour of DDA bearing (i) No. 256168, (ii) 256169, (iii) 256181, (iv) 256182 and (v) 256136 dated 5.8.97, 5.8.97, 8.8.97 and 17.10.97 respectively from Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan, New Delhi, No. 237971 and 237972 dated 21.8.97 and 21.8.97 respectively from Vijaya Bank, Delhi Cantt., No. 478873, 477950 and 477951 dated 8.12.97, 11.8.97 and 11.8.97 respectively from Syndicate Bank, DTC Depot, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi No. 40010 and 40011 dated 18.8.97 and 18.8.97 respectively from Bank of Baroda, Safdarjung Enclave, No. 005661 and 005663 both of dated 14.8.97 from Andhra Bank, Sector VI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, No. 2063963 dated 18.8.97 from Central Bank of India, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and No. 039631 and 039632 both dated 21.8.97 of Syndicate Bank Delhi Cantt. through Manish Kumar and Pankaj Gauba, who were employees of Raju Aggarwal. The numbers of these Pay-Orders and names of the banks were dishonestly and fraudulently utilized by him in preparing bogus challans which were subsequently submitted by him to DDA along with other documents for obtaining possession letter from the Housing Branch of DDA without depositing the required cost of the 16 flats.
5. Investigation also revealed that accused Raju Aggarwal fraudulently and dishonestly prepared bogus challans of Central Bank CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
6of India, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi falsely showing therein that the pay- orders/demand drafts or cash of the like amount was deposited with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, although no such amount was deposited in the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi nor such pay-orders and demand-drafts of the amount mentioned therein were issued by the respective banks. The details of the 21 bogus challans showing payments in respect of 21 flats are as under :-
Sl. No. Bogus Challan No. Date of Bogus Challans
1. 97143 06.08.97
2. 97149 11.08.97
3. 80084 11.08.97
4. 97148 15.10.97
5. 97141 15.10.97
6. 97147 14.08.97
7. 97142 06.10.97
8. 004994 24.11.97
9. 97144 11.08.97
10. 97140 15.10.97
11. 97152 12.08.97
12. 80085 16.10.97
13. 82703 22.10.97
14. 000991 22.10.97
15. 001000 22.10.97
16. 97150 22.10.97
17. 71311 22.10.97
18. 71320 23.10.97
19. 71319 22.10.97
20. 95993 21.11.97
21. 71315 23.10.97 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.7
All these 21 challans were forged & fabricated and utilized as genuine to show that the payments had been duly made.
6. Investigation further revealed that accused Raju Aggarwal fraudulently and dishonestly deposited the papers 'required for' obtaining possession letters from DDA which included (i) Affidavit regarding non-membership of any other Housing Scheme, (ii) Undertaking, (iii) Acknowledgment slip of initial deposit duly signed
(iv) Two Forms for identification with photographs, (v) 3rd copy of the forged Bank Challan purported to have been issued by the Central Bank of India, (vi) Specimen signatures and photograph of allottee,
(vii) Affidavit regarding non-sale of flat, (viii) Special Power of Attorney and other papers at the receipt counter of the DDA at Vikas Sadan in respect of 16 flats on different dates. All these papers ultimately reached Gurnam Chand, Dealing Asstt. Of Housing Branch who was dealing with SFS flats of Kondli Gharoli, Delhi. Accused Raju Aggarwal also fraudulently and dishonestly submitted bogus conveyance deeds and other papers along with the abovesaid documents without depositing the amount mentioned therein with the treasury.
7. Investigation further revealed that accused Gurnam Chand, Dealing Asstt. of DDA, Housing Management Cell, in conspiracy with Raju Aggarwal and others mentioned above, fraudulently and dishonestly sent the 12 files relating to (1) Amit Aggarwal, (2) Mrs. CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
8Salra Devi, (3) Sunder Lal, (4) Surinder Kumar, (5) Miss Meera, (6) Laxmi Narayan Meena, (7) Kishan Lal, (8) Ram Dev, (9) Miss Ritu Gupta, (10) Amar Singh, (11) Ms. Anita, (12) D.K. Jain & Smt. Renu Jain to the Accounts Branch of DDA without ascertaining their genuineness. Duty of Gurnam Chand was to scrutinize the papers for their genuineness in which he deliberately failed.
Further, accused Gurdas, Dealing Asstt., Accounts Section, DDA dishonestly and fraudulently prepared "No Dues Certificate" in respect of all the aforesaid 12 flats in his own handwriting falsely mentioning therein the entire dues in respect of all these 12 flats have been deposited by the allottees with the DDA. "No Dues Certificate"
in respect of S/Shri (1) Sunder Lal, (2) Laxmi Narayan Meena, (3) Miss Ritu Gupta, (4) Ms. Meera (5) Amar Singh, (6) Kishan Lal, (7) Ms. Anita and (8) Amit Aggarwal were dishonestly prepared by Gurdas and were dishonestly signed by accused S.K. Kaushik, Asstt. Accounts Officer whereas "No Dues Certificate" in respect of (1) Surender Kumar, (2) Ram Dev, (3) Mrs. Sarla Devi, and (4) Devender Kumar Jain were signed by accused V.P. Anand, Accounts Officer falsely certifying that the amounts towards the cost of respective flats have been deposited by the allottees with the DDA although no such amount was deposited with the DDA towards the cost of the aforesaid flats.
It is further the case of prosecution that the duty of accused Gurdas, S.K. Kaushik and V.P. Anand was to ensure that No Dues Certificate is issued only after proper verification of records and CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.9
accounts after obtaining certificate from the computer section of DDA Accounts Wing confirming the complete payment towards the cost of flats. However, they did not obtain the information regarding deposit of the cost of these 12 flats and issued NOC in respect of these flats dishonestly.
Further, accused Gurnam Chand, Dealing Asstt. Housing Branch of DDA dishonestly and fraudulently delivered the allottee copy of the possession letters directly to accused Raju Aggarwal and others without obtaining any receipt instead of sending the same by registered post to the respective allottees, as a result of which the fraud was perpetrated.
As such, it is alleged that Raju Aggarwal in conspiracy with V.P. Anand, S.K. Kaushik, Gurdas and Gurnam Chand dishonestly and fraudulently obtained possession letters of the above said 12 flats without depositing the respective costs and accused cheated the DDA to the tune of Rs. 1,06,46,063.
Further, the break-up of the amounts of cost of aforesaid 12 flats, which was not deposited is as follows:-
Sl. No. Flat No. Name of the Allottee Cost
1. 4-A, Pocket-C Shri Amit Aggarwal 8,94,225.00
2. 39-A, Pocket-C Mrs. Sarla Devi 8,94,225.00
3. 43-C, Pocket-C Shri Sunder Lal 9,14,618.00
4. 30-A, Pocket-B Shri Surender Kumar 8,99,850.00
5. 47-D, Pocket-D Ms. Meera 9,12,670.00
6. 21-B, Pocket-D Shri Laxmi Narayan Meena 8,62,350.00
7. 38-A, Pocket-B Shri Kishan Lal 8,99,850.00
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
10
8. 43-D, Pocket-C Shri Ram Dev. 9,18,295.00
9. 55-D, Pocket-B Ms. Ritu Gupta 8,62,350.00
10. 50-D, Pocket-D Shri Amar Singh 8,62,350.00
11. 31-A, Pocket-B Ms. Anita 8,05,037.00
12. 34-C, Pocket-D Shri D.K. Jain & 9,20,243.00
Smt. Renu Jain
___________________
Total Rs. 1,06,46,063.00
-----------------------------
8. It is further the case of prosecution that investigation also revealed that although forged challans in respect of 4 flats allotted in favour of (i) Ramji Lal Meena, (ii) Smt. Shirley Masih, (iii) Shri N.D. Deva and (iv) Ms. Mona Jaisawal were fraudulently and dishonestly submitted in the Housing Branch by accused Raju Aggarwal without depositing the amounts (cost of the flats) but due to one reason or other the possession letters were not issued. As such, accused Raju Aggarwal attempted to cheat the DDA and its employees, but could not succeed in obtaining possession letter which constitute offence punishable U/s 511 r/w 420 IPC.
The chargesheet was accordingly filed against the accused u/s 120B, 420, 467, 471 and 201 IPC and U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
9. Charge was framed against all the five accused V.P. Anand, S.K. Kaushik, Gurdas, Gurnam Chand and Raju Aggarwal u/s 120B r/w Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 AND Section 420 IPC. Accused Raju CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.11
Aggawal was further charged for substantive offences u/s 467/468, 471 r/w 467 & 420 r/w 511 IPC. Accused V.P. Anand, S.K. Kaushik, Gurdas and Gurnam Chand were also charged u/s 467/468 IPC along with Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988.
10. In support of its case, prosecution examined 120 witnesses, namely:
1. PW-1 Sh. Jai Narayan Meena, Manager Andhara Bank, Gurgaon Branch
2. PW-2 Sh. Praveen Sachdeva, Spl. Asstt. Syndicate Bank, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
3. PW-3 Sh. VK Garg, Senior Head Cashier, Bank of Baroda, Chankyapuri, New Delhi.
4. PW-4 Sh. Rajinder Singh, S/o Sh. Mehar Singh, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, at present Assistant Advisor, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi.
5. PW-5 Sh. V.K. Sharma, Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Hissar, Haryana.
6. PW-6 Smt. Sarabjit Kaur, Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India, Mitrau, New Delhi.
7. PW-7 Sh. S.C. Maniktala S/o Sh. MC Maniktala, Assistant Engineer, Circle 15, South East Zone, DDA, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.
8. PW-8 Sh. PK Sudhir, Junior Engineer, DDA Eastern Division-10.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
129. PW-9 Sh. S.N. Singhal, S/o Sh. Jai Lal, Retd. As Asst.
Director, Housing, DDA.
10. PW-10 Sh. Raj Kumar Singh Panwar S/o Late Sh. Mani Ram, Service in DDA.
11. PW-11 Sh. Ramesh Kr Saini S/o Sh. Pooran Singh Saini, Occupation Service in DDA.
12. PW-12 S.C. Garg S/o Late Sh. Sardari Lal, Service in DDA
13. PW-13 Rajinder Kohli S/o Late Sh. Prem Prakash Kohli, UDC, LIG Housing Section, DDA.
14. PW-14 Khushewar Rai S/o Sh. Kishan Rai, Service in DDA
15. PW-15 Santosh Kumar Sharma, Service in DDA
16. PW-16 Anand Kumar Jain, Cashier in Central Bank of India.
17. PW-17 Rakesh Jaiswal, Clerk in Central Bank of India.
18. PW-18 Om Popli, Retired Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India.
19. PW-19 Sh. Avinash Gambhir.
20. PW-20 Sh. Devender Kumar Jain.
21. PW-21 Sh. Vipin Kumar.
22. PW-22 Mrs. Saria Devi.
23. PW-23 Sh. Puran Singh.
24. PW-24 Sh. Amit Aggarwal.
25. PW-25 Sh. Balbir Singh
26. PW-26 Sh. Rajat Dua.
27. PW-27 Sh. Vinay Kumar
28. PW-28 Sh. Surender Kumar
29. PW-29 Sh. Dinesh Singhal.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
1330. PW-30 Sh. Amar Singh
31. PW-31 Sh. Smt. Meera
32. PW-32 Sh. Kishan Lal.
33. PW-33 Sh. Ram Dev
34. PW-34 Sh. Pankaj Arora
35. PW-35 Sh. Rakesh Kr. Sood
36. PW-36 Sh. Hari Garg
37. PW-37 Sh. N.D. Deva
38. PW-38 Sh. Radhey Shyam
39. PW-39 Sh. Ram Kishan, Peon, DDA
40. PW-40 Sh. Asha Ram Meena, Head Clerk in Safdarjung Hospital.
41. PW-41 Ms. Shirley Masih, Nursery Teacher in MCD School at Ludhlow Castle, Club Road, New Delhi.
42. PW-42 Sh. A.K. Baranwal, Director Physically Handicapped, Govt. of UP.
43. PW-43 Sh . Ajay Kumar Khurana, Property Dealer.
44. PW-44 Sh. Mohd. Tahir.
45. PW-45 Sh. Anil Bountra
46. PW-46 Sh. Satish Sapru
47. PW-47 Sh. D.K. Gupta
48. PW-48 Sh. Harish Chander Prasad Yadav.
49. PW-49 Sh. R.P. Bhatla
50. PW-50 Sh. K.K. Sapra.
51. PW-51 Sh. Sukhpal Bansal
52. PW-52 Sh. Prabhati Lal, Asstt. Engineer, Building Section, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
14Deepali Chowk, DDA, Office Complex.
53. PW-53 Sh. Gyan Dev Gupta.
54. PW-54 Sh. Chander Kant.
55. PW-55 Sh. R.K. Nayyar. Officer (Retired) in Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan Branch, New Delhi.
56. PW-56 Sh. Arun Kumar Mudgil, Prop. of M/s. Mudgil Associates.
57. PW-57 Sh. Vijender Yohan Masih.
58. PW-58 Sh. Manish
59. PW-59 Sh. Siddharth Singh.
60. PW-60 Sh. Pankaj Gauba.
61. PW-61 Sh. Jagdish Chander Jain
62. PW-62 Sh. Bijay Kumar Pandit, Asstt. General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Camscstreet Branch, 26, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata.
63. PW-63 Sh. H.R. Khowal, Retired Sr. Accounts Officer, DDA.
64. PW-64 Sh. V.P. Jain, Asstt. Accounts Officer, DDA.
65. PW-65 Sh. Rajinder Singh.
66. PW-66 Sh. Arvind Kumar, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation.
67. PW-67 Sh. Sushil Oberoi, Retd. from State Bank of India.
68. PW-68 Sh. Sunder Lal, Safai Karamchari, MCD.
69. PW-69 Sh. Manish Malik, posted as Astt. Manager at CRIS, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.
70. PW-70 Gurvinder Singh, Internal Senior Auditor, Zonal Audit Office, Meerut.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
1571. PW-71 Sh. Shriom Gupta, Peon of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajapur, Shashtri Nagar, Ghaziabad.
72. PW-72 Sh. Madan Lal Meena, Constable in Delhi Police, Posted at PS Jaitpur.
73. PW-73 Sh. Pyare Lal, working as Dy. Manager in SBI in Raghvir Nagar Branch.
74. PW-74 Sh. Bhavnesh Kumar Gupta, working as UDC in DDA (Establishment) at Vikas Sadan, INA.
75. PW-75 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain, working as Dy. General Manager in Cairn Energy India Ltd.
76. PW-76 Sh. Danish Paul.
77. PW-77 Sh. Vijay Kumar, Jeweller in Chanakya Puri.
78. PW-78 Sh. Satish Kumar, Assistant (Cash Main), C Block, First Floor, Room no. 108, DDA, Vikas Sadan.
79. PW-79 Mrs. Pammi Mudgil.
80. PW-80 Sh. Sidharth Sarkar.
81. PW-81 Sh. Om Prakash, Presently Chief Engineer (North Zone), DDA, Vikar Minar.
82. PW-82 Sh. Amarjeet Juneja, Builder.
83. PW-83 Sh. Ramji Lal Meena.
84. PW-84 Sh. Ram Dutt Sharma.
85. PW-85 Sh. Durga Prasad, Driver in DDA.
86. PW-86 Sh. N.K. Chhabra.
87. PW-87 Sh. R.K. Gupta.
88. PW-88 Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Government Stationary Supplier.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
1689. PW-89 Sh. Ram Avtar Gupta, Real Estate Agent.
90. PW-90 Sh. Sudhakar Pakhiddey, retired as Assistant from DDA
91. PW-91 Sh. Ram Kumar, LDC in L.G. House.
92. PW-92 Sh. Laxmi Narayan.
93. PW-93 Shri Janardan Prasad Sharma, Executive Engineer
94. PW-94 Shri Rakesh Mahajan.
95. PW-95 Shri Kumar Anand, retired as Special Secretary, Vigilance Department, Govt. of Bihar.
96. PW-96 Shri Dharamvir Choudhary.
97. PW-97 Shri Surender Kumar, retired Deputy Director, DDA (Lands).
98. PW-98 Shri Daya Chand, Game Attendant, DDA Sports Complex, Tahirpur.
99. PW-99 Shri S.C. Chugh, retired from DDA as Assistant Director.
100. PW-100 Shri K.C. Saxena, retired Joint Director, DDA
101. PW-101 Shri Raj Kumar.
102. PW-102 Shri Om Prakash, Welfare Officer at DDA, Vikas Sadan, Delhi.
103. PW-103 Shri Bijender Singh, UDC in DDA in the Personal Section of Principal Commissioner.
104. PW-104 Mohd. Zafaruddin / Chamra Kujur.
105. PW-105 Shri Virender Singh Kadyan, Senior Law Officer, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
106. PW-106 Shri Bhim Singh Sharma, retired as Postmaster CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
17from Postal Department.
107. PW-107 Shri K.R. Dixit, Assistant in DDA, LSB (Rohini), Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
108. PW-108 Shri Jai Ram, retired as Deputy Director from NDMC, Vigilance Department.
109. PW109 Shri S. Krishnamurthy, Senior Manager in Indian Overseas Bank, Nehru Place Branch.
110. PW-110 Shri Jitender Kumar, presently working as AAO, Eastern Division-14, Shakarpur, DDA.
111. PW-111 Shri Kamal Kant, Advocate
112. PW-112 Shri Amar Chatterjee, presently working as Deputy Resident Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Bihar Bhavan.
113. PW-113 Shri I.P. Grover, Assistant Accounts Officer (Billing Section), DDA.
114. PW-114 Shri J.R. Kakkar, retired as Joint Director, DDA
115. PW-115 Shri Swatantra Kumar Jain retired Junior Management Grade, Central Bank of India, Service Branch, Parliament Street.
116. PW-116 Smt. R. Renuka, working as Deputy General Manager, Andhra Bank, Connaught Circus.
117. PW-117 Shri B.M. Bajaj, retired as Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India.
118. PW-118 Shri P.K. Ghosh, retired as Additional Chief Secretary, Forest and Environment, Gujarat.
119. PW-119 Shri R. Chandra, AEGQD (Scientist-B), CFSL Unit, Shimla.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
18120. PW-120 Shri M.C. Joshi, Retired Senior Superintendent of Police, CBI.
11. The evidence of the witnesses may be dealt in brief along with the relevant documents proved by the witnesses in the voluminous record relied by the prosecution in the scam relating to about 16 flats in which the allotment papers were sold by the allottees and the fraud also relates to submission of forged bank challans along with other documents.
➢ (1) PW-1 Sh. Jai Narayan Meena, Manager Andhra Bank, Gurgaon Branch.
PW-1 Jai Narayan Meena remained posted in the R.K. Puram Branch of Andhra Bank during 1974 to April, 2000. He stated that his duties included passing of cheques and further proved the following documents:
•Photocopy of application form for opening current account in the name of Pankaj Gauba, Proprietor of Pankaj Associates dated 13.10.84 (Ex.PW1/A).
•Two application forms submitted on 14.08.97 signed in the name of Atul r/o D90 Vikas Puri for obtaining DD in favour of DDA Housing. He further stated that cash was received on these applications as per endorsement on both the documents which are Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B and also identified signatures of Sh. M. Barua dealing with deposit of cash.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
19•Cash Deposit Challan dated 30.12.97 (Ex.PW1/C) whereby cash of Rs.2000/- was deposited in account no.1695 of Pankaj Associates and also identified signatures of S. Ramamurti, Departmental Officer. •Cheque dated 8.11.97 (Ex.PW1/D) whereby an amount of Rs. 20000/- was withdrawn in favour of self by holder of account no. 1695. He also identified signatures of Departmental Officer Ms. Renuka and stated that cash was paid against acknowledgment.
➢ (2) PW-2 Sh. Praveen Sachdeva, Spl. Asstt. Syndicate Bank, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi PW-2 Praveen Sachdeva stated that he was posted in Delhi Cantt Branch of Syndicate Bank during October, 1996 to May, 2000 as Clerk and proved the following documents:
• Pay-in-slip for issuance of Pay Order in the sum of Rs.1000/- submitted on 21.08.97 in favour of DDA Housing (Ex.PW2/A), purported to have been submitted by one Ram Kumar. He also identified signatures of Mr. Prabhat Verma, officer of the bank on this document, directing issuance of pay order as applied for. • Pay-in-slip for issuance of Pay Order in the sum of Rs.1000/- submitted on 02.08.97 in favour of DDA Housing (Ex.PW2/B), purported to have been made by one Ram Kumar.
He also identified signatures of Mr. Prabhat Verma, officer of the bank on this document. He further stated that the pay orders were issued against both the applications as per acknowledgment on the reverse under signatures of person presenting the applications. He CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.20
further stated that against both the applications, pay order nos. 19181/39632 and 19180/39631 were issued.
➢ (3) PW-3 Sh. VK Garg, Senior Head Cashier, Bank of Baroda, Chankyapuri, New Delhi PW-3 VK Garg stated that he was posted at Safdarjung Enclave Branch of Bank of Baroda as Sr. Head Cashier during 1995 to September, 2002 and his duties included looking after whole cash department. He proved the following documents:
• Requisition Slip (Ex.PW3/A) for issuance of pay order submitted in the name of Manish Kumar on 18.08.97 for issuance of pay order in the sum of Rs.1000/- in favour of DDA Housing.
•Another Requisition Slip (Ex.PW3/B) for issuance of pay order submitted in the name of Manish Kumar for issuance of pay order in the sum of Rs.1000/- in favour of DDA Housing. He further stated that he had received cash against both the applications.
He further stated that Mrs. Baljit Kaur, Officer had also made endorsement on both applications in connection with preparation and signing of the pay orders AND pay orders bearing nos. 40010 and 40011 were issued to the applicant. He further stated that these pay orders were never cashed and continued to be outstanding.
➢ (4) PW-4 Sh. Rajinder Singh, S/o Sh. Mehar Singh, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, at present Assistant Advisor, Central Vigilance Commission, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.21
New Delhi PW-4 Rajinder Singh stated that in 1998 he was working as Dy. Manager in State Bank of India, Noida Sector-2 and had produced the cheque dated 17.11.97 (Mark D-140) and the statement of account (Mark D-141) to CBI.
➢ (5) PW-5 Sh. V.K. Sharma, Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Hissar, Haryana PW-5 V.K. Sharma stated that in 1998 he was posted in Mayur Vihar Phase-II Branch of Canara Bank as Senior Manager and had handed over documents D-129 to D-136 to CBI.
➢ (6) PW-6 Smt. Sarabjit Kaur, Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India, Mitrau, New Delhi PW-6 Sarabjit Kaur stated that in 1997 she was posted as Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India, Safdarjung Enclave and identified her signatures at point A on pay-in-slip (Ex.PW6/A) which was signed by her in token of having issued the demand draft.
➢ (7) PW-7 Sh. S.C. Maniktala S/o Sh. MC Maniktala, Assistant Engineer, Circle 15, South East Zone, DDA, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi ?
PW7 S.C. Maniktala was posted during 1997 as Assistant Engineer in ED-12, DDA and his duty was to supervise the construction work in SFS Flats at Kondli Gharoli.
He stated that vide seizure memo (Ex.PW7/A), he had handed CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.22
over two files D-47/D and D-21/D to CBI. Further, possession was handed over on the basis of possession letter as well as production of ration card, NOC or Identity Card.
On seeing possession letter of flat no.21/D he stated that Shri Laxmi Narayan Meena is the allottee of said flat and Shri Kishan Lal, attorney of the allottee had approached him for possession of the flat. Further, he proved the copy of possession letter produced by the attorney (Ex.PW7/B), original possession letter received from the office (Ex.PW7/B1), power of attorney in favour of Kishan Lal issued by Asstt. Director SFS-I attested by Notary Public (Ex.PW7/C), photocopy of letter dated 03.11.97 i.e. certificate issued by Asstt. Director (Ex.PW7/D) which comes to the office in the file relating to the flat.
He further stated that attorney of the allottee had also brought the attested signatures (Ex.PW7/E) and submitted the same to him and identified his signatures at point A and signatures of Kishan Lal at point B on the inventory prepared by the JE at the time of handing over possession (Ex.PW7/F). He further identified his signatures at point A, signatures of Kishan Lal at point B and signatures of Shri H.C.P. Yadav, JE at point C on possession slip (Ex.PW7/E).
Further, on seeing file relating to flat no.47/D (Ex.PW7/H), he stated that Ms. Meera is the original allottee of the flat and possession of the flat was given to Shri Gyan Dev Gupta, attorney of the allottee.
➢ (8) PW-8 Sh. PK Sudhir, Junior Engineer, DDA Eastern Division-10.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.23
PW8 P.K. Sudhir stated that he was posted as JE during 1997 and had handed over possession of the flats to the allottees/attorneys of the flats.
He further stated that flat no.C-43/D (Ex.PW8/A) was allotted Ram Dev but possession of the said flat is still with DDA and is lying vacant. Further, flat no. C-39/A (Ex.PW8/B) was allotted to Smt. Sarla Devi and possession of the flat was handed over to Smt. Sarla Devi by him. The possession slip and inventory were prepared by him and Assistant Engineer along with allottee. Flat no.43/C (Ex.PW8/C) was allotted to Sunder Lal and possession was handed over to Sidharth Singh, attorney by him as mentioned in the possession slip . Flat no. C-4A (Ex.PW8/D) was allotted to Amit Aggarwal and possession was handed over by him. Identity of the person to whom possession was handed over was confirmed by seeing the documents such as ration card, election commission card.
➢ (9) PW-9 Sh. S.N. Singhal, S/o Sh. Jai Lal, Retd. as Asst. Director, Housing, DDA.
PW9 S.N. Singhal who was posted as Assistant Director in Housing Department explained the procedure for allotment of flats in the 9th Self Financing Scheme by DDA as followed in the concerned Sections. He also explained the procedure followed on issue of possession letter for possession of flats and execution of conveyance deed by the DDA.
He stated that in 1996, DDA had sponsored Ninth Self Financing Scheme for which properly filled up applications were put CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.24
in a draw. The flats under this scheme were located at Kondli Gharoli, Dwarka, East of Kailash, Narela, Vasant Kunj. Central Bank of India, INA branch and some other branches were authorised to collect the applications. Further, demand letters for some of the flats were issued by Accounts Department of DDA and for other flats by Housing Management Wing.
He further stated that every applicant was required to deposit Rs.50,000/- with his application under the scheme. The amount demanded through the demand letters was to be deposited in the bank. The documents along with the challan showing the deposit was deposited at the counter made for this purpose. These documents were sent from the counter to the Housing Management Wing where they were entered in the diary of SFS branch. The documents were handed over to the Dealing Assistant by the diarist. The diarist took receipt from the Dealing Assistants after handing over the relevant papers/dak to them. After receipt of these documents, the Dealing Assistant used to put up these documents to the Asst. Director in the respective files with his comments. He further stated that Gurnam Chand was the Dealing Assistant of Kondli Gharoli at that time. Further, if all relevant papers were in order then the Dealing Assistant proposed to send the file to the Accounts Branch for taking a No Dues Certificate in respect of the particular flat.
He further stated that V.P. Anand was the Accounts Officer in the Accounts Branch and Shri Kaushik was the Asst. Accounts Officer. Further, No Dues Certificate was issued by the Asst. Accounts Officer or the Accounts Officer. He further stated that the Dealing Assistant CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.25
after receipt of the No Dues Certificate, proposed for issue of possession letter to the allottee or SPA of the allottee in a prescribed proforma to the Asst. Director and on the basis of same, Asst. Director signed the possession letter and marked the file to the dispatcher for issue of the same, with a copy to the Executive Engineer of the area for handing over the possession along with necessary documents. Further, generally dispatch letter to the allottee was sent by registered post or through courier. However, with the permission of the Asst. Director in writing, the possession letter could be handed over to the allottee by hand.
He further proved the notings in the files D1 to D16 by various officials including the accused posted in the concerned Section, in respect of the flats dealt in the concerned files.
● In file D1 in respect of flat no. 43C, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/A), he proved the signatures on various documents i.e. Ex.PW9/A1 (No Dues Certificate), note (Ex.PW9/A2), possession letter (Ex.PW9/A3), copy of allotment-cum-demand letter (Ex.PW9/A4) and notesheet (Ex.PW9/A5).
● In file D2 in respect of flat no. 30A, Pocket-B, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/B), he proved the signatures on various documents i.e. Ex.PW9/B1 (No Dues Certificate), note (Ex.PW9/B2), copy of possession letter (Ex.PW9/B3), allotment-cum-demand letter (Ex.PW9/B4).
● In file D3 in respect of flat no. 43D, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/C), he proved the signatures on various documents i.e. Ex.PW9/C1 (No Dues Certificate), note (Ex.PW9/C2), copy of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.26
possession letter (Ex.PW9/C3), allotment-cum-demand letter (Ex.PW9/C4) and notesheet (Ex.PW9/C5).
● In file D4 in respect of flat no. 21D, Pocket-E, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/D), he proved the signatures on various documents i.e. Ex.PW9/D1 (No Dues Certificate), note (Ex.PW9/D2), copy of possession letter (Ex.PW9/D3), allotment-cum-demand letter (Ex.PW9/D4) and notesheet (Ex.PW9/D5).
● In file D5 in respect of flat no. 55D, Pocket-B, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/E), he proved the signatures on various documents i.e. Ex.PW9/E1 (No Dues Certificate), note (Ex.PW9/E2), possession letter (Ex.PW9/E3), allotment-cum-demand letter (Ex.PW9/E4) and notesheet (Ex.PW9/E5).
● In file D6 in respect of flat no. 38A, Pocket-B, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/F), he proved the signatures on various documents i.e. Ex.PW9/F1 (No Dues Certificate), note (Ex.PW9/F2), possession letter (Ex.PW9/F3), allotment-cum-demand letter (Ex.PW9/F4) and notesheet (Ex.PW9/F5).
● In file D7 in respect of flat no. 39A, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/G), he proved the signatures on various documents i.e. Ex.PW9/G1 (No Dues Certificate), note (Ex.PW9/G2), possession letter (Ex.PW9/G3), allotment-cum-demand letter (Ex.PW9/G4) and notesheet (Ex.PW9/G5).
● In file D8 in respect of flat no. 31A, Pocket-B, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/H), he proved the signatures on various documents i.e. Ex.PW9/H1 (No Dues Certificate), note (Ex.PW9/H2), possession letter (Ex.PW9/H3), allotment-cum-demand letter (Ex.PW9/H4) and notesheet (Ex.PW9/H5).
● In file D9 in respect of flat no. 47D, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.27
(Ex.PW9/I), he proved the signatures on various documents i.e. Ex.PW9/I-1 (No Dues Certificate), note (Ex.PW9/I-2), possession letter (Ex.PW9/I-3), allotment-cum-demand letter (Ex.PW9/I-4) and notesheet (Ex.PW9/I-5).
● In file D10 in respect of flat no. 50D, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/J), he proved the signatures on various documents i.e. Ex.PW9/J1 (No Dues Certificate), note (Ex.PW9/J2), possession letter (Ex.PW9/J3), allotment-cum-demand letter (Ex.PW9/J4) and notesheet (Ex.PW9/J5).
● In File D-11 with respect to flat no. 34-C, Pocket D, Kondli (Ex.PW-9/K), he proved the signatures on various documents i.e. Ex.PW9/K2 (No Dues Certificate), note (Ex.PW9/K3), possession letter (Ex.PW9/K4), conveyance deed (Ex.PW9/K5), allotment- cum-demand letter (Ex.PW9/K6) and notesheet (Ex.PW9/K1). ● In file D12 in respect of flat no. 4A, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/L), he proved the signatures on various documents i.e. Ex.PW9/L1 (No Dues Certificate), note (Ex.PW9/L2), possession letter (Ex.PW9/L3) and allotment-cum-demand letter (Ex.PW9/L4) and notesheet (Ex.PW9/L5).
● In file D13 in respect of flat no. 9C, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/M), he proved the signatures of various officials on different documents.
● In file D14 in respect of flat no. 24D, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/N), he proved the signatures on various documents i.e. notesheet (Ex.PW9/N1) including note and other documents at different pages.
● In file D15 in respect of flat no. 10D, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/O), he proved the signatures of various officials on CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.28
different documents.
● In file D16 in respect of flat no. 71A, Pocket-A, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/P), he proved the signatures of various officials on different documents apart from notesheet Ex.PW9/P1.
He further stated that on receipt of possession letter, allottee had to take possession of the flat and, thereafter, he was supposed to execute a conveyance deed. Allottee had to deposit the requisite stamp duty with Collector of Stamps and to deposit the conveyance deed (three copies) for execution in DDA office. Further, he was the authorised officer in DDA to execute conveyance deed on behalf of DDA and either allottee or Special Power of Attorney holder of the allottee had to sign the conveyance deed.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. PP on the issue of dispatch of the possession letter and further clarified that it was the duty of accused Gurnam Chand to send the possession letters to the allottees or SPA holder through the dispatcher.
➢ (10) PW-10 Sh. Raj Kumar Singh Panwar S/o Late Sh.
Mani Ram, Service in DDA.
PW10 Raj Kumar Singh was working as Clerk in SFS Wing and used to receive dak from Central Diary Section of DDA through challans after acknowledging the same. He stated that he handed over all the dak pertaining to Mayur Vihar to accused Gurnam. He further proved the entries in the Transit Register (TR) from 06.03.97 to 07.11.97 which was maintained for entry of dak.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
29He further stated that TR register from 06.03.1997 to 07.11.1997 (Ex.PW10/C) (D348) contained entries in his handwriting. Further, he proved entries in TR register Ex.PW10/C at page 250 from portion A to A (Ex. PW10/A) and the entries at page 257 from portion A to A (Ex. PW10/B) and also identified signatures of Gurnam Chand on the same.
He further stated that TR register used to be maintained in regular course of business and entries were made by him and whenever Assistant Director used to hand over documents, he used to enter in the diary register and hand over documents to dealing clerk.
He further stated that Branch Diary Register of SFS (Ex.PW10/D) (D349) contained entries in his handwriting at page 194 and 200. Further, Diary Nos. 1770 at page No. 194 (in respect of allottee Ramji Lal Meena- Flat No.B9C), 1775 at page No. 195 (in respect of allottee Vinod Kumar Sharma), 1802 at page No. 200 (in respect of allottee Krishan Kumar Garg), 1804 (in respect of allottee Ritu Gupta- Flat No.B-55-D) and 1805 (in respect of allottee Laxmi Narayan Meena- Flat No.D21D) were in his handwriting and the said documents were received by accused Gurnam Chand who signed against the said entries at point X. ➢ (11) PW-11 Sh. Ramesh Kr Saini S/o Sh. Pooran Singh Saini, Occupation Service in DDA.
PW11 Ramesh Kumar Saini was working during the relevant period in SFS Branch of DDA as LDC and used to receive dak from central diary section after acknowledging the same. Further, after CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
30entering the dak in daily diary register, he used to hand over the same to accused Gurnam Chand, Dealing Assistant, Housing Management Branch.
He deposed that after receiving the documents, he used to enter the same in the diary register and hand over the same to accused Gurnam Chand, Dealing Assistant. Further, he proved handwriting/signatures of Gurnam Chand on various notings made in file Ex. PW-9/A (D1); Ex.PW9/B (D2); Ex.PW9/C (D3); Ex.PW9/E (D5); Ex.PW9/F (D6); Ex.PW9/G (D7); Ex.PW9/I (D9); Ex.PW9/K (D11); Ex.PW9/L (D12); Ex.PW9/M (D13); Ex.PW9/N (D14); Ex.PW9/O (D15) and Ex.PW9/P (D16) at respective pages.
➢ (12) PW-12 S.C. Garg S/o Late Sh. Sardari Lal, Service in DDA PW12 S.C. Garg was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in Computer Section (Housing) of DDA and detailed the procedure for deposit of money after allotment of flats and receipt/verification of payments deposited by the allottees.
He stated that according to procedure of DDA after allotment of flats, allottee used to deposit the money with Central Bank of India or State Bank of India and one challan along with voucher of all the depositors used to be received in Computer Section. The said challans used to be fed in the computer by data operators and he used to verify payment made by allottees by virtue of said challans. Further, he used to receive files from Accounts Branch of Housing Section to verify whether the challans for deposit of money was received or not and CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
31used to verify from the challan fed in the computer and mentioned the same in the respective files. After expiry of month, he used to generate complete data regarding challans from the computer and a copy of the said data used to be sent to the concerned Section of Housing Accounts. He further stated that a diary register was maintained in the office regarding files sent by Housing Section and received by Computer Branch. After affixing the stamp regarding receipt of payment through challan, a rubber stamp used to be affixed on the file and the file used to be sent to the concerned Section from which it was received through Peon Book.
He further stated that Diary Register from 28.08.97 to 24.10.97 (Ex.PW12/A) having page no. 1 to 796 was kept and maintained in his office in the ordinary course of business and the files Ex.PW-9/A to Ex.PW-9/L (i.e D1 to D12) were never received in Computer Section during October 97 to December 99.
He further proved seizure memo (Ex.PW12/B) bearing his signatures whereby he had handed over original challans received from Central Bank of India and State Bank of India, Vikas Sadan.
He further identified signatures of Shri Sukhpal Singh, UDC, Cash Housing Computer Section on seizure memo dated 17.06.98 (Ex.PW12/C) whereby two diary registers were handed over to C.B.I. By Shri Sukhpal Singh.
He further proved seizure memo dated 17.06.98 (Ex.PW12/C) whereby he had handed over original challans D-194 to D-200 to the Officer of CBI.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
32➢ (13) PW-13 Rajinder Kohli S/o Late Sh. Prem Prakash Kohli, UDC, LIG Housing Section, DDA.
PW13 Rajinder Kohli was posted as LDC during the relevant period in DDA and used to receive the files and letters in Housing Accounts Unit-IX. He stated that he used to receive files from Management Department and enter the same in the diary register which were thereafter delivered to dealing clerk i.e. accused Gurdas, UDC. He further proved the entries in the diary register (Ex.PW13/B) containing the entries in his handwriting which was handed over vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A. He further identified his handwriting on branch diary no. 864 appearing at page no.277 with respect to file Ex.PW9/L and stated that he had given the said file to AAO through Gurdas and on the directions of Gurdas, had entered movement of file to SFS on 11.09.97.
He further identified his handwriting as well as handwriting/signatures of accused Gurdas on various entries with respect to file Ex.PW9/L, Ex.PW9/G, Ex.PW9/B etc. made in the Diary Register (Ex.PW13/B).
He further stated that he had maintained TR register (Ex.PW13/C) to show movement of files from his section to outside section. He further stated that as per TR register (Ex. PW-13/C), files Ex. PW-9/A to 9/N (D1 to D14) were never sent to Computer Section.
He identified his handwriting on entry dated 16.10.97 appearing at page 88 of Ex.PW13/C with respect to file Ex.PW9/A and also identified signatures of accused Gurdas at point A and of Shri S.K. CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
33Kaushik at point B on Ex.PW9/A1. He further identified handwriting/signatures of accused Gurdas at respective points on Ex.PW9/A1, PW9/B1, Ex.PW9/C1, PW9/D, Ex.PW9/D1, 9/E1, 9/F1, 9/G1, 9/H1, 9/I-1, 9/J1, 9/K2 and 9/L. ➢ (14) PW-14 Khushewar Rai S/o Sh. Kishan Rai, DDA PW14 Khusheswar Rai was posted as Peon in HAU-IX in 1997.
He stated that he was posted as Diarist in place of Rajinder Kohli who had met with an accident. He further proved the entries in Diary Register with respect to file no. 160(411)/97/SFS (in respect of allottee Ram Dev); file no. 160(460)/462/97/KL (in respect of Devender Kumar Jain); file no. 160(498)/97 (in respect of allottee Amar Singh); file no. 160(483)/97 (in respect of allottee Laxmi Narayan Meena). He further stated that according to the diary (Ex.PW13/B) files Mark PW9/A to PW9/L were never sent to Computer Section.
➢ (15) PW-15 Santosh Kumar Sharma, DDA PW15 Santosh Kumar Sharma worked in Computer/Housing Section of DDA from the year 1996 to 1999 as Diarist and used to receive files from Accounts Section for verification of challans through TR Register.
He identified the entries on page no. 1 to 796 for the period 28.07.97 to 14.10.97 in the Diary Register (Ex.PW15/A) along with entries in the register Ex.PW12/A. CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
34➢ (16) PW-16 Anand Kumar Jain, Cashier in Central Bank of India.
PW16 Anand Kumar Jain was working as Cashier in Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan from 1990 to 2000 and retired in the year 2001.
He stated that his duty was to deposit the cash deposited by the customers and issue receipt on challans. Further, he also used to receive cash in respect of DDA challans and issue receipts. He stated that DDA challan forms were used to be got printed by the Bank and customers used to fill file number, name, address, amount and the details of currency notes to be deposited on the challan. He stated that out of 4 copies, 2 copies used to be delivered to the customer and out of remaining two copies, one copy of challan used to be sent to DDA and one copy was retained in the bank. Further, scroll clerk used to mention scroll number on all the four copies of challans and, thereafter, cash amount was to be deposited with the cashier. After deposit of cash by customer, he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and initialed the same and the date used to be written in the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was in both English and Hindi languages. He further stated that in respect of challans of Central Bank of India Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 (D-142 to D-153), cash amount was received by him and challans bear his signatures at point A and rubber stamp of Central Bank of India in Hindi.
He further stated that challan no. 071315 Ex. PW-9/K8 (D-11), CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
35challan No. 731311 Ex. PW-11/B6 (D-2), challan no. 71320 Ex. PW-9/C7 (D-3), challan no. 711319 Ex. PW-9/F7 (D-6) were not in his handwriting and he had not received cash amount in respect of said challans. Further, the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which he used to affix on challans was in Hindi language only during the year 1997.
➢ (17) PW-17 Rakesh Jaiswal, Clerk in Central Bank of India.
PW17 Rakesh Jaiswal explained the procedure with respect to the drafts which were deposited in the bank towards the payment of cost of DDA flats.
He stated that during 1997, he was working as Clerk in Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi on clearing seat and his duty was to enter the drafts received in clearing register and to send the same for payment. The drafts used to be checked in the register by Shri B.M. Bajaj, Officer, Central Bank of India. In case the person deposited the draft along with the challans of DDA, he used to affix rubber stamp of Central Bank of India and sign on the same and hand over two copies of challan to the depositor. Thereafter, he used to enter the said drafts in the clearing register and hand over the drafts along with challans to the officer who used to check the same.
He stated that challan no. 097143 Ex. PW-9/A6 (D-1), challan no. 071311 Ex. PW-9/B6 (D-2), challan no. 080084 Ex. PW-9/C6 (D-3), challan no. 095993 Ex.PW9/H6 (D-8) and challan no. 004994 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
36Ex. PW-9/M (D-8), challan no. 97497140 Ex. PW-9/J-6 (D-10), did not bear his signatures or signatures of Shri B.M. Bajaj Officer. Further, rubber stamp of Central Bank of India affixed on the said challans did not appear to be the same which was being used by him. He had not sent said challans for clearing while working as Clerk in Vikas Sadan Branch.
He further stated that any person could deposit the amount in cash or by draft in the account of allottee and it was not necessary that allottee should come in person while depositing the amount. Further, there was no such rule that allottee must come for depositing the amount.
➢ (18) PW-18 Om Popli, Retired Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India.
PW18 Om Popli proved the challans which were forged and further identified the genuine rubber stamps which were used in the bank and was working in Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan Branch as Assistant Manager from 1989 till 1998.
He stated that the bank used to accept the challans for deposit of installments under SFS Scheme and there used to be two types of challans deposited by the allottees. In respect of the flats, 'Pink Forms' used to be deposited containing 4 portions/copies and if the amount was deposited on behalf of the allottee in cash, a cash receipt stamp was affixed on all the four copies. The first and second copy of the Challan were retained by the Bank whereas 3rd and 4th copy were CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
37handed over to the person who deposited the amount in cash. Further, if any instrument was deposited with the challan, a round stamp was put on the 3rd and 4th copy and a clearing stamp was put on the 1st and 2nd copy which was retained by the bank. In such cases, the instrument i.e. the pay order or the demand draft was sent for collection and when the amount was received on collection, the amount was credited to the DDA's account normally on the second or the third day and the second copy of the challan was sent to the DDA along with the Bank Statement of their Bank. The first copy was retained by the Bank for their record and the 3rd copy given to the allottee was to be deposited by him in the office of DDA and the 4th copy was for the record of the allottee.
He further stated that challan no. 097143 dated 06-08-1997 Ex. PW-9/A6 (D-1), challan no. 097149 dated 11-08-1997 (Ex.PW9/B5) (D2), challan no. 071311 dated 22-10-1997 (Ex.PW9/B6) (D2), Challan no. 071320 dated 23-10-1997 (Ex.PW9/C7) (D3), challan no. 080084 dated 11-08-1997 Ex. PW-9/C6 (D-3), stamp marked as Q-50 Ex. PW-9/C6 (D-3), challan no. 097148 dated 15-10-1997 (Ex.PW9/D6) (D4), challan no. 097141 dated 15-10-1997 Ex. PW-9/C10 (D-5), challan no. 097147 dated 14-08-1997 (Ex.PW9/F6) (D6), challan no. 097142 dated 06-08-1997 (Ex.PW9/G6) (D7, challan no. 095993 dated 21-11-1997 (Ex.PW9/H6) (D8), challan no. 004994 dated 24-11-1997 Ex. PW-9/M (D-8), challan no. 097144 dated 11-08-1997 Ex.PW9/I-6 (D9), challan no. 097140 dated 15-10-1997 Ex.PW9/J6 (D10), challan no. 097152 dated 12-08-1997 Ex.PW9/K7 (D11), challan no. 080085 dated 16-08-1997 Ex.PW9/L6 (D12), CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
38challan no. 082703 dated 22-10-1997 Ex.PW9/M1 (D13), challan no. 000991 dated 22-10-1997 Ex.PW9/N2 (D14), challan no. 001000 dated 22-10-1997 Ex.PW9/O2 (D15) and challan no. 097150 dated 22-10-1997 Ex.PW9/P2 (D16) were not issued by his Bank.
He further proved seizure memo dated 26-10-1998 (Ex.PW18/A) bearing his signatures at point A whereby challans and rubber stamps were seized; seizure memo dated 03-12-1998 (Ex.PW-18/B) bearing his signatures at point A whereby original challans and vouchers as mentioned therein were seized; seizure memo dated 13-04-1998 (Ex.PW-18/C) bearing his signatures at point A whereby challans and statement of account were seized; seizure memo (Ex.PW18/D) whereby he had handed over statement of account duly certified by the Bank to IO and statement running into 30 pages was signed by O.P. Saxena, Asstt. Manager of the Bank.
He proved pay in slips Ex.PW-18/E-1 to E-11 (D-275 to D-285) bearing the seal impression A-70 and A-73A to be genuine and stated that pay order vouchers bear the seal impression A-73, A-76 and A-78. Further, he identified his signatures on specimen impression of three rubber stamps marked as S-105 to 112, Ex. PW-18/F collectively (D-334) in token of having taken the impression of the rubber/seals in his presence. He also proved the seal of the Bank Ex. PW-18/G (D-363), the round rubber stamp Ex. PW-18/H (D-363), Rectangular rubber stamp Ex. PW-18/I (D-363) used for receiving the instruments after 12 noon.
➢ (19) PW-19 Sh. Avinash Gambhir CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
39PW19 Avinash Gambhir booked four flats in the Ninth SFS Scheme of DDA in different names of relations of Vinay Kumar, namely, Sarla Devi (mausi of Vinay Kumar); Sunder Lal (mama of Vinay Kumar); Surinder Kumar (relation of Vinay Kumar) and Ram Dev and was further involved in the transaction of the same with Raju Aggarwal.
He stated that he was in the business of property dealer in the year 1996 and 1997 and Vinay Kumar who was son of his friend Pratap Singh was working with him. He booked four flats in the Ninth SFS Scheme of the DDA in different names of relations of Vinay Kumar, namely, Sarla Devi (mausi of Vinay Kumar); Sunder Lal (mama of Vinay Kumar); Surinder Kumar (relation of Vinay Kumar) and Ram Dev.
He identified applications for booking along with allotment letters in files Ex. PW-9/A (D-1), Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C & Ex.PW9/D. He further stated that allotment of all the four flats was made in the respective names and allotment letters were received.
He further stated that Satish Sapru who used to run a catering van outside the office of DDA, Vikas Sadan introduced him to Raju Aggarwal and got all the four allotments to Raju Aggarwal for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- and he got Rs.20,000/- in cash and Rs.2,50,000/- by cheque. Further, he had got signed blank papers for transfer of four flats from the respective allottees and handed over the allotment letter, FDR receipt, acknowledgment and photograph of allottee to Raju Aggarwal.
He further identified various documents contained in files CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
40Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C & Ex.PW9/D. He further stated that he had not deposited any amount after the allotment of flats. Further, Sarla Devi, Surinder Kumar and Sunder Lal had gone to Sub- Registrar office for execution of documents along with Vinay Kumar. He further stated that accused Raju Aggarwal had asked him to get the documents of transfer executed in favour of the purchaser.
➢ (20) PW-20 Sh. Devender Kumar Jain.
PW20 Devender Kumar Jain is the allottee of flat no.34C, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli.
He stated that he had applied for allotment of DDA flat under 9th SFS (Flat) Scheme by depositing Rs.50,000/- by bank draft, in the joint name with his wife Renu Jain. Acknowledgement Ex.PW20/B was issued by DDA for receiving application Ex.PW20/A. Further, demand note (Ex.PW-9/K6) (D-11) was received from DDA whereby SFS Flat no. 034 C, Category -III SFS in Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli under SFS-IX scheme had been allotted and were directed to deposit Rs.8,92,310/-. Since the flat required some finishing work, he wrote letter (Ex.PW-20/C) to DDA requesting to complete the flat and to give him some time for arranging the payment. Thereupon, DDA sent reply Ex. PW-20/D in response to his letter Ex.PW-20/C but he could not deposit the demanded amount. Thereafter, he along with his wife and brother Vipin Jain went to Vikas Sadan, INA, for cancellation of the allotment of the flat.
He further stated that in front of the DDA, INA Building they all CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
41three took tea at a catering van where Raju Aggarwal approached them and told that he would get nothing if allotment of the flat is cancelled and Raju Aggarwal would give him Rs.50,000/- if the papers were signed. Thereafter, Raju Aggarwal got some blank papers signed from him and his wife Renu Jain and he handed over the original receipt of DDA and all the original papers pertaining to the allotment of the flat in their names to Raju Aggarwal and the aforesaid documents bearing signatures of PW20 and his wife Renu Jain were obtained by Raju Aggarwal.
He further stated that when he and his wife put signatures on Ex.PW-20/E, Ex.PW-20/F, Ex.PW-20/G, Ex.PW-20/H, Ex.PW-20/J & Ex.PW-20/K, the same were blank papers and they also handed over their photographs to Raju Aggarwal. He further identified the photographs affixed on Ex.PW-20/H and Ex.PW-20/K and stated that they were the same photographs which were handed over by him and his wife. However, the documents were not got attested by him from any Notary. He also stated that he did not deposit any amount in DDA and Raju Aggarwal gave him Rs.40,000/- after obtaining his signatures on blank papers and issued him a receipt (Ex.PW20/I).
He also proved signatures of his brother Vipin Jain on receipt (Ex.PW20/I) as a witness at point X and that of Raju Aggarwal at point Y. He further stated that bank challan no.097152 (Q-235) and challan no.071315 (Q-237) were neither in his handwriting nor bear his signatures.
➢ (21) PW-21 Sh. Vipin Kumar.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
42PW21 Vipin Kumar Jain stated that he had accompanied his brother and wife to DDA office on 7.8.97 and SPA Ex.PW20/J (D11) was signed by him (PW21) at point X when it was blank (As per record, the aforesaid SPA stands executed by Devender Kumar Jain and Smt. Renu Jain in favour of Dr. Sidharth Sarkar). Further, he did not attend the office of the Notary Public on any day. During cross- examination, he further stated that Rs.40000/- were paid to his brother by Raju Aggarwal.
➢ (22) PW-22 Mrs. Sarla Devi.
PW22 Sarla Devi is the allottee of flat no. 39A, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli.
She identified her signatures on the application form filled for allocation of allotment of flat at Q139 & Q140 (Point X) on Ex.PW22/A. She further stated that she had put the signatures on the application form Ex.PW22/A at the asking of her sister's son namely Vinay Kumar and did not deposit any amount as initial payment with the application. Further, the amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited by Vinay Kumar and on coming to know that the DDA flat was allotted to her at Kondli Gharoli, she signed on various papers at asking of Vinay Kumar. She also stated that she never resided at the address given in the application form i.e C/o Narula Traders, House No.123, New Ramesh Nagar, Karnal, Haryana and did not have any account in her name in any bank. She further identified various documents bearing her signatures i.e. affidavit Ex.PW9/GX1, specimen signatures bearing CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
43photograph Ex.PW9/GX2, acknowledgement Ex.PW22/B, undertaking Ex.PW22/C, affidavit Ex.PW22/D, submission of documents seeking possession of flat Ex.PW22/E, special power of attorney in favour of Rakesh Kumar Jain Ex.PW22/F. ➢ (23) PW-23 Sh. Puran Singh.
PW23 Shri Puran Singh identified the photograph of his neighbour Amar Singh on DDA flat allotment application Ex. PW-3/A(D-10) and stated that he had filled the same. He further stated that the flat was allotted to Amar Singh in Kondli Gharoli and after allotment of the flat, Amar Singh received many letters from property dealers. Since Amar Singh was an illiterate person, he showed those letters to him.
He further stated that Amar Singh was not having money to deposit for purchase of flat in question and as such was not interested in retaining or purchasing flat from DDA and decided to sell the flat to Hari Garg on premium of Rs.40,000/-. Further, Hari Garg handed over Rs.40,000/- cash to Amar Singh in presence of PW-23 and got his signatures on some papers.
➢ (24) PW-24 Sh. Amit Aggarwal.
PW24 Amit Aggarwal is the allottee of flat no.4A, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli.
He stated that he had applied for allotment of a DDA flat under CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
449th SFS (Flat) Scheme by depositing Rs.50,000/- by way of a bank draft and identified his signatures at point X on application Ex. PW-24/A (D-12) submitted in DDA. He further stated that acknowledgment Ex. PW-24/B (D-12) was issued by DDA having received application Ex. PW-24/A(D-12). Further, allotment cum demand note Ex.PW-9/I-4(D-9) was received from DDA to the effect that SFS Flat no. 004A on ground floor, Pocket-C, Category-III SFS, Kondli Gharoli under SFS-IX scheme had been allotted and was directed to deposit Rs.8,72,415/-. However, he was not in a position to deposit the demanded amount.
He further stated that he received letters from property dealers and Ex.PW-24/C (D-120) is the letter written by Raju Aggarwal on the letterhead of his concern whereby he was asked to contact Raju Aggarwal in case he was interested in selling the allotment of the flat in question. He, thereafter, contacted Raju Aggarwal and met him thrice and Raju Aggarwal proposed to pay him Rs.90,000/- to which he agreed to execute the documents. Further, Raju Aggarwal visited his house along with one Satish Sapru and gave him Rs.25,000/- in cash for which PW24 executed a receipt of which Raju Aggarwall kept the original with him and handed over a photocopy of receipt Ex.PW-24/D (D-123) to him. Raju Aggarwal had put his signatures on this receipt in his presence and he had handed over the receipt Ex.PW.24/D (D-123) to CBI during investigation of the case along with the original acknowledgment Ex. PW-24/B (D-.12) after putting his signature on the reverse at point P. He further stated that he had handed over his two photographs to CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
45Raju Aggarwal who had promised to pay the amount of Rs.60,000/- after 15 days and balance of Rs.5,000/- at the time when he would sell this flat to the purchaser. Further, Raju Aggarwal gave him Rs. 60,000/- after 15-20 days and asked him to visit Kondli Gharoli for signing some papers and he had put his signature on possession slip Ex. PW-24/E (D-27), inventory of fittings and fixtures Ex.PW-24/F (D-27) on the asking of Raju Aggarwal who told him that he would collect the possession slip from the site office of the DDA himself after it was signed by the officers. However, he (PW24) did not receive the possession slip of the allotted flat and neither it came in his hands.
Later on, after about a month Raju Aggarwal told him that the flat had been sold to R. S. Mathur and in order to execute the deal he (PW24) had to go to court at Kashmere Gate. Further, he (PW24) went to the shop of Raju Aggarwal at Mayur Vihar where R. S. Mathur was also present and he along with Raju Aggarwal and R. S. Mathur went to court at Kashmere Gate, where he executed various documents. He further stated that he had not deposited any amount in DDA for possession slip.
➢ (25) PW-25 Sh. Balbir Singh, DDA.
PW25 Balbir Singh was working as Assistant in Housing Counter of DDA at D-Block, Vikas Sadan, Delhi during 1993 to October, 1999 and used to receive Dak of the Housing Section and the papers submitted at the reception counter in order to take the possession of the flat. He explained the procedure followed after CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
46submission of papers at counter by the party.
He further stated that the receipts used to be kept in safe custody and at the reception counter. Further, he along with Vijay Shanker Sharma and Prem Shanker Mishra used to receive the dak and further identified his signatures along with those of Vijay Shankar Mishra and Prem Shankar on various transit challans i.e. Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW25/B, Ex.PW25/C. He further proved the Seal of counter, diary number and date on the concerned pages /exhibits in the files Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/N. ➢ (26) PW-26 Sh. Rajat Dua.
PW26 Rajat Dua had got the application form filled up for allotment of DDA flats in the name of Kishan Lal and subsequently, flat no. B38 Kondli Gharoli was allotted.
He deposed regarding the sale of papers of aforesaid flat to Danis Paul (PW77) since he did not have sufficient funds to purchase the flat. This witness was also cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI on certain points.
➢ (27) PW-27 Sh. Vinay Kumar PW27 Vinay Kumar stated that he joined M/s Gaurav Enterprises which was dealing in property business as Office Assistant and Avinash Gambhir was the proprietor of said firm. Further, while working in M/s Gaurav Enterprises, he got signatures of Sarla Devi CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
47(his mausi), Ram Dev and Surender (his maternal uncles) on the application forms for SFS Flats of DDA in 1995-96 at the directions of Avinash Gambhir. He further stated that flats were allotted to Sarla Devi, Surender Kumar and Ram Dev and after the allotment of flats, he got signatures of all the aforesaid applicants on bunch of papers given by Avinash Gambhir and handed over the signed papers to Avinash Gambhir.
He further stated that he he had not deposited any amount towards the cost of the flats and confirmed that flat C-39A was allotted to Sarla Devi.
➢ (28) PW-28 Sh. Surender Kumar PW28 Shri Surender Kumar stated that his nephew Vinay Kumar came to his house and asked him to sign an application for allotment of the flat and on enquiry, Vinay Kumar told him that the form pertained to the application of allotment of flats under SFS Scheme and he had signed the application form (Ex.PW-28/A) (D2) at point A, B and C. He further stated that Vinay Kumar told him that flat had been allotted in his name and visited his residence with bunch of written papers and got signed the documents (viz Ex.PW-9/BX-1 (D-2); special power of attorney Ex.PW-28/B (D-2); specimen signature Ex.PW-9/BX-2(D-2); acknowledgment Ex. PW-28/C(D-2); undertaking Ex.PW-28/D (D-2); affidavit Ex.PW-28/E (D-2) and Ex.PW-25/E (D2) which is request of Surender Kumar for issue of possession letter).
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
48He further stated that he had gone to Kashmere Gate court with Vinay Kumar, wherein Vinay Kumar gave him Rs.5,000/-.
➢ (29) PW-29 Sh. Dinesh Singhal PW29 Dinesh Singhal (Property Dealer) is the purchaser of flat no. D-21D (allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena-D4), flat no.D-50D (allotted to Amar Singh -D10) and flat no. D-55B (allotted to Ritu Gupta).
He stated that he had purchased allotment papers in respect of flat no. D-21D and D-50D, Kondli Gharoli for consideration of Rs. 90,000/- each from Hari Garg though papers of the same were not handed over to him. Further, he also purchased papers of flat no. D-55B allotted to Ritu Gupta from Satpal for Rs.90,000/- and had also deposited Rs.1 lac for each flat in DDA by way of pay order. Further, as the period of deposit of money with DDA was about to expire, he and Hari Garg submitted application for extension of time for deposit of balance amount on 16th September, 1997 and DDA extended the period of deposit amount to 30 to 35 days. However, since he could not arrange the money, he sold the papers of the flats to Raju Aggarwal through Hari Garg in the 1st week of October for Rs.1.5 lacs for each flat and received the amount from Hari Garg by cash in four installments.
He further denied having deposited any amount as shown in the copies of challan Ex.PW9/D6 pertaining to flat no. D-21D (Laxmi Narayan Meena), Ex.PW9/J6 pertaining to flat no. D-50D (Amar Singh) and Ex.PW9/E pertaining to flat no. D-55B (Ritu Gupta).
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
49➢ (30) PW-30 Sh. Amar Singh PW30 Amar Singh is the allottee of Flat No.50D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli and was mason by profession.
He stated that he had applied for a DDA flat around 1995-96 and initially deposited Rs.50,000/-. The draft to DDA was prepared from his SB A/c No. 64385 at Punjab National Bank, Karol Bagh. The form for allotment was filled by Puran Singh and he signed the same at point A and allotment cum demand letter Ex.PW9/J-4 (D-10) was received from DDA whereby he was required to deposit about Rs. 8/9 lacs.
He further stated that he had given allotment letter Ex.PW9/J-4 (D-10) to Hari Garg, who gave him Rs.50,000/- through cheque and Rs.40,000/- in cash. Further, he signed blank papers as well as written papers and given the same to Hari Garg along with photograph & copy of ration card. He further proved documents bearing his signatures i.e. special power of attorney (Ex.PW-29/A) (D-10), specimen signature Ex. PW-29/B (D-10), acknowledgment for the application form issued by DDA Ex.PW-29/C (D-10) , undertaking Ex.PW-29/D (D-10) and request for issue of possession letter Ex.PW-25/M (D-10).
He further stated that he did not deposit any amount in DDA towards the cost of the flat and his specimen signatures were taken on Ex.PW-29/S1 to Ex.PW-29/S2 (D-326) by CBI during investigation of the case.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
50➢ (31) PW-31 Meera PW31 Kumari Meera is the allottee of flat no. 47D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli.
She stated that during 1996 she came to Delhi and stayed with her brother in law Asha Ram Meena and had signed the application form for allotment of flat under IX SFS (Ex.PW31/A) at the asking of her brother in law. She further identified her specimen signatures and photograph (Ex.PW31/B), signatures on Special Power of Attorney in favour of Gyan Dev Gupta (Ex.PW31/C), signatures on affidavit (Ex.PW31/D), signatures on acknowledgment issued by DDA (Ex.PW31/E), signatures on undertaking (Ex.PW31/F), signatures on affidavit (Ex.PW31/G), signatures on application submitting documents for possession of flat (Ex.PW25/L), signgaures on undertaking (Ex.PW31/H), Special Power of Attorney for execution of conveyance deed in favour of Gyan Dev Gupta (Ex.PW31/J).
She further stated that she had not given any amount for booking of flat and Asha Ram Meena (her brother-in-law) gave her Rs.8,000/- after signing application Ex.PW31/A placed in file Ex. PW-9/I(D-9). She also identified her specimen signatures as Ex.PW25/U and Ex.PW25/V (D325). She also stated that application for conversion of lease hold system into freehold system in respect of Flat No.D-47D, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW31/K) (D244) was not signed by her.
➢ (32) PW-32 Sh. Kishan Lal.
PW32 Kishan Lal is the allottee of flat no. 38A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli and was a driver by profession.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
51He identified his signatures on the application form filled for allocation of allotment of flat at Q110 & Q111 (Point A) on Ex.PW32/A. He further stated that while working with Mr. Chhabra, one Rajat Dua had obtained his signatures on an application for allotment of DDA flat and the application was handed over to Rajat Dua along with ration card and photograph. He further denied his signatures on acknowledgement, specimen signatures, special power of attorney, affidavit, undertaking, letters submitting documents to DDA (put during examination). He also denied having deposited any amount to apply for DDA flat and also identified the photocopy of caste certificate placed in file Ex.PW9/F. He further identified the specimen signatures on Ex.PW32/B and Ex.PW32/C. He further denied his signatures on various documents in file D315 relating to transaction of aforesaid flat which was recovered during search of premises of Raju Aggarwal as per search memo (Ex.PW70/A - D352). He also stated that he did not have money to purchase any kind of flat at that time.
➢ (33) PW-33 Sh. Ram Dev PW33 Ram Dev is the allottee of flat no. 43D, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli and was an auto rickshaw driver by profession.
He stated that in 1996, his relative Vinay Kumar had asked him to sign application (Ex.PW-33/A) and identified his signatures on Ex.PW-33/A at point 'A'. He further stated that in 1997, Vinay Kumar had obtained his signatures on 2/3 papers and he handed over his photograph to Vinay Kumar.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
52He proved his signatures on various documents signed by him relating to flat in question i.e. Ex.PW33/A, Ex.PW9/CX1, Ex.PW9/CX2, Ex.PW33/B, Ex.PW33/C, Ex.PW33/D, Ex.PW33/E along with specimen handwriting Ex.PW33/F & Ex.PW33G. He further stated that he had neither made any payment nor had visited anywhere in connection with any DDA work. Further, address given in application Ex.PW33/A did not pertain to him.
➢ (34) PW-34 Sh. Pankaj Arora As per case of prosecution, PW34 Pankaj Arora is the purchaser of Flat no. 31A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli allotted in the name of Anita. However, this witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI as he resiled from his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
➢ (35) PW-35 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sood PW35 Rakesh Kumar Sood (Property Dealer) mediated the sale between Pankaj Arora and Anita Pakhidey in respect of flat no. 31A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli allotted to Anita Pakhidey. He stated that Anita Pakhidey agreed to sell the documents of the flat for Rs. 1,70,000/-. Further, a meeting was arranged between Pankaj Arora and Anita and Rs.25,000/- was paid as commission by Pankaj and Anita. He further stated that subsequently Pankaj had taken the original documents from Anita and obtained her signatures on relevant papers.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
53He further stated to have dealt D-50D allotted in the name of Ritu Gupta. The documents in respect of allotment of flat were agreed to be sold by Anant Gupta for Rs.80,000/-. Further, he sold the documents to Dinesh Singhal after taking Rs.10,000/- as commission. He further stated that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid by him to obtain the original registration form and balance amount was paid by Dinesh to Gupta. Later on he came to know that the said flat was sold to one Arun Mudgil.
➢ (36) PW-36 Sh. Hari Garg PW36 Hari Garg dealing in property business deposed as to transactions relating to flat no. D-47 (allotted to Meera), 21 Pocket D Kondli Gharoli (allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena), 50D (allotted to Amar Singh). He stated that he had sold allotment letter of D-47, Kondli Gharoli to Raju Aggarwal for Rs.50,000/- and had obtained signatures of Meera (allottee) on typed and blank papers and the documents were handed over to Raju Aggarwal.
Further, he had purchased allotment letter of 21, Pocket D (allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena) from Shyam Lal for Rs.80,000/- and sold allotment letter and other documents to Dinesh Singhal who was a property dealer for Rs.90,000/-. Since Dinesh Singhal could not deposit the balance amount, he sold the papers of the flat to Raju Aggarwal for Rs.1.5 lacs. He further stated that he had purchased documents of flat no. 50D from allottee Amar Singh through Shri Puran Singh for Rs.90,000/- and further sold the same to Dinesh Singhal for Rs.90,000/-. The same was further sold by Dinesh Singhal CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
54to Raju Aggarwal for Rs.1.5 lacs and the allotment letter and documents were handed over to Raju Aggarwal.
➢ (37) PW-37 Sh. N.D. Deva PW37 N.D. Deva is allottee of Flat No.10d, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli.
He stated that he had been working as a teacher in MCD School Delhi since 1973 and during 1996, he had applied to DDA for allotment of a flat vide application (Ex.PW37/A) in file Ex.PW-9/Q bearing his signatures and photograph. Further, he deposited Rs. 50,000/- with DDA through a draft and subsequently got the allotment letter of flat no. 10D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli. He further received a demand letter and was required to deposit a sum of Rs.8,90,410/- to DDA but since he could not arrange the money, he decided to sell the papers of the flat.
He further stated that one Vijay Kharbanda, property dealer of Sarita Vihar approached him and after seeing the papers, agreed to purchase the papers for Rs.70,000/-. Further, Vijay Kharbanda gave him Rs.5,000/- and he handed over photocopy of demand letter and FDR receipt to him. Thereafter, after 3-4 days he gave Rs.55,000/- to PW37. He had signed on some blank stamp papers brought by Kharbanda.
He further stated that he had not applied for extension of time for deposit of amount. Further, he had neither deposited any document as per letter (Ex.PW25/R) in file Ex.PW9/Q nor any amount vide fourth copy of challan Ex.PW-9/Q1.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
55He further identified his signatures on acknowledgment for the application (Ex.PW-37/B) which was handed over by him to Vijay Kharbanda, affidavit, undertaking in Ex.PW9/O. He denied having submitted letter seeking extension of time for depositing the money with DDA but identified his signatures on the same which were made in May or June, 1997. He further denied having obtained any draft from Union Bank of India, Anand Vihar. He further stated that he had not received any paper from DDA relating to this flat after selling the papers to Vijay Kharbanda. He also identified his signatures on receipt for Rs.55,000/- (Ex.PW-37/C).
➢ (38) PW-38 Sh. Radhey Shyam.
PW38 Radhey Shyam stated that during 1996 one flat was booked in the name of his father Shri Ramji Lal Meena who was residing at Village Bharton, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. The initial draft for booking the flat was got prepared through Shyam Lal, property dealer.
Further, he proved application form (Ex.PW38/A) in file Ex.PW9/M bearing his handwriting and left thumb impression of his father Ramji Lal Meena and stated that he had filled in the application form Ex.PW38/A. He further stated that a flat was allotted in favour of his father but they had not deposited any amount towards the cost of the flat. Further, the papers of the flat were sold to Shri Shyam Lal who had obtained thumb impression of his father on various papers and CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
56photographs of his father were also given to Shri Shyam Lal.
He further stated that his father had not submitted any application for extension of time for deposit of the amount and neither his father nor he deposited any amount vide third copy of challan number 082703 in Ex.PW-9/M file. He could not identify the thumb impression put on special power of attorney in Ex. PW-9/M and stated that they had not visited DDA office or SDM office for execution of any document in connection with the said flat.
➢ (39) PW-39 Sh. Ram Kishan, Peon, DDA PW39 Ram Kishan remained posted in SFS section of DDA from 1996 till 1998 and his duty included distribution of dak, dispatch of letters.
He stated that during his tenure as peon, he had dealt with the files of SFS flats at Kondli, Gharoli as the same were given to him by Gurnam Chand, UDC in DDA and further after receiving the file, he put the dispatch number on possession letters and thereafter Gurnam Chand took back the files from him.
After seeing the office copy of the possession letters Ex.PW-9/A3, Ex.PW-9/C3, Ex.PW-9/D3, Ex.PW-9/E3, Ex.PW-9/F3, Ex.PW-9/G3, Ex.PW-9/H3, Ex.PW-9/I3, Ex.PW-9/J3, Ex.PW-9/K4 and Ex.PW-9/L3, he stated that first copy of these possession letters usually used to go to the JE and second copy to allottee. He further identified the number in portion marked as 'C' in his handwriting and stated that he had written this number in all copies and had sent the copy to JE site for dispatch.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
57He also identified his handwriting on portion mark S on page no. 3 of volume I of Peon Book which had been kept and maintained in the SFS Branch during 1998 (Ex.PW-39/A).
➢ (40) PW-40 Sh. Asha Ram Meena, Head Clerk,
Safdarjung Hospital.
PW40 Asha Ram Meena is the brother-in-law of Meera who is the allottee of Flat no. 47D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli. He identified the allotment papers along with other documents signed by Meera i.e. application form Ex. PW-31/A, specimen signatures Ex.PW-31/B, Special Power of Attorney Ex.PW-31/C, affidavit Ex.PW-31/D, undertaking Ex.PW-31/F, Ex.PW-31/G, application for submission of documents Ex.PW-25/L. He further stated that flat was further sold through one Shyam Lal.
This witness was cross examined by ld. PP for CBI on the amount of consideration received for sale of said flat.
➢ (41) PW-41 Ms. Shirley Masih, Nursery Teacher in MCD School at Ludhlow Castle, Club Road, New Delhi.
PW41 Shirley Masih stated that she and her husband had applied in DDA for allotment of flat during 1996 and were allotted flats at Kondli Gharoli. The papers related to the flats were subsequently disposed off by her husband. The papers relating to flat No. D-24-D, Kondli Gharoli were sold to Pankaj Arora for Rs. 65,000/-. She further identified her signatures on various documents relating to flat no. D24-D contained in file Ex.PW-9/N (i.e. document addressed to Asstt. Director bearing her signatures Ex. PW-25/Q, Spl.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
58Power of Attorney in two pages Ex.PW41/1, Affidavit signed by her Ex.PW41/2, Undertaking in two pages bearing her signatures Ex.PW-41/3, specimen signatures bearing her signatures/handwriting/photograph Ex.PW-41/4, Anenxure J bearing her specimen signatures Ex.PW-41/5, document addressed to Asstt. Director, DDA bearing her signatures Ex.PW-41/6, Application to Housing Department for allotment of said flat bearing her handwriting/signatures.
She further stated that flat was sold to Pankaj Arora, property dealer whose photograph and document were not available in the file.
➢ (42) PW-42 Sh. A.K. Baranwal, Director Physically Handicapped, Govt. of UP.
PW42 A.K. Baranwal stated that he had worked as Director (Vigilance) in DDA from June 1995 to June 1999 and further proved the complaint made to CBI (Ex.PW42/B) contained in file Ex.PW42/A. ➢ (43) PW-43 Sh. Ajay Kumar Khurana, Property Dealer.
PW43 Ajay Kumar Khurana deposed with reference to transaction of sale of flat no. 30A, Pocket A, Kondli Gharoli allotted to Surender Kumar and Flat no. C-43C, Kondli Gharoli allotted to Sunder Lal through Raju Aggarwal.
He stated that he was in the business of property dealing in the area of Mayur Vihar and was approached by number of allottees to purchase and sell the flats after draw by DDA. Further, some of the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
59flats were allotted through him on the approach of S.P. Bansal.
He further identified files in respect of flat no. 43-C, Pocket-C of Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/A) which was allotted to Sunder Lal and flat no. 30A, Pocket-B, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW9/B) which was allotted to Sunder Lal.
He further stated that he was told by S.P. Bansal, a broker after a draw in Kondli Gharoli that Raju Aggarwal was having papers of some flats and Raju Aggarwal came into his contact through S.P. Bansal. Further, flat no. 30A was sold for a sum of Rs.14/15 lacs and payment was made to Raju Aggarwal in presence of S.P. Bansal and Satish Sapru and they all had got a commission of Rs.15,000/- each.
He further stated that they had given advance of Rs.19 lacs to Raju Aggarwal and Satish Sapru to get 2 or 3 more flats but when they came to know about the fraud, Rs.16 lacs were returned.
He further stated that flat no. 43C, Pocket C was sold to Sidharth Singh.
Further, they informed about the fraud to S.P. Bansal through whom the flats were taken and in turn, the report was lodged.
He further stated that an amount of Rs.19 lacs was due from Raju Aggarwal at the time when the fraud came to their notice. Further, Siddharth Singh had given a cheque of Rs.4 lacs to Raju Aggarwal in the name of the allottee Sunder Lal.
➢ (44) PW-44 Sh. Mohd. Tahir, JE, DDA.
PW44 Mohd. Tahir stated that he was posted as JE at Kondli during 1997 and was looking after the work of construction as well as CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
60the work of allotment of DDA flats along with other staff. He further identified his signatures along with signatures of Shri H.C.P. Yadav and Shri Manik Tala on possession slip in the name of Gyan Dev Gupta (Ex.PW44/A) in respect of flat no. D-47D, Kondli and inventory report (Ex.PW44/B).
He further stated that the possession of the said flat was handed over by him along with Shri Yadav to the genuine allottee Shri Gyan Dev Gupta and possession used to be given to the allottee after verification of photograph and signatures.
➢ (45) PW-45 Sh. Anil Bountra PW45 Anil Bountra stated that his cousin Mona Jaiswal was allotted a flat in Kondli area by DDA which was sold by her through property dealer Mr. Aggarwal and he was present at her residence at the time of said deal.
He further stated that Mrs. Mona had received Rs.55,000/- from the dealer and he had put his signatures as a witness on the deal regarding receipt of cash. Further, some papers were given by Mrs. Mona to the said property dealer and had put signatures on some blank papers. Further, she had not deposited any installment with DDA.
He further stated that Mrs. Mona Jaiswal resided in USA since 1999 and identified signatures/photograph of Mrs. Mona Jaiswal on DDA application form (Ex.PW45/A); specimen signatures card (Ex.PW45/B); letter (Ex.PW45/C & D) both addressed to DDA; affidavits (Ex.PW45/E & F); undertaking (Ex.PW45/G) and specimen signatures sheet (Ex.PW45/H). He further stated that one set of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
61documents was handed over by Mrs. Mona Jaiswal to the property dealer and it contained some blank portions.
➢ (46) PW-46 Sh. Satish Sapru, Property Dealer PW46 Satish Sapru deposed with reference to various transactions pertaining to some of the flats in question through Raju Aggarwal.
He stated that in the year 1997-98, he was running a catering van with his brother in front of Vikas Sadan, INA and Raju Aggarwal was his regular customer. Further, he sold the catering van to Raju Aggarwal. He further stated that Avinash Gambhir was his friend who had sold registration of four SFS flats to Raju Aggarwal in the year 1998. Further, allottees from DDA had handed over the relevant documents to Raju Aggarwal at the time of deal.
He further stated that Raju Aggarwal had sold one flat to SP Bansal which was situated at Kondli and he was given Rs.5000/- in this deal by accused Raju Aggarwal as well as by SP Bansal.
Further, Raju Aggarwal had sold one flat at Kondli to his neighbour Amar Singh Juneja for Rs.6,50,000/- but when Amar Singh Juneja came to know about the fraud, he contacted accused Raju Aggarwal and took Rs.6,50,000/- and his documents pertaining to the said flat from him.
He further stated that Ajay Khurana and R.S. Rathi had also purchased flats from Raju Aggarwal. Further, Raju Aggarwal had asked him to collect the consideration from Ajay Khurana and RS Rathi in the car provided by him along with his driver Bobby and he CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
62had issued chit to Ajay Khurana against the payment of approximately Rs.6 lacs received from him. Also, he had collected Rs.50,000/- or 60,000/- from R.S. Rathi and handed over the cash collected to the driver of Raju Aggarwal.
He further stated that Ram Avtar had given him a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to be given to accused Raju Aggarwal which he had deposited in his bank account and gave one 'self' cheque in the sum of Rs.1,95,000/- to Gauba, Manager of accused Raju Aggarwal as the amount belonged to Raju Aggarwal. Further, his neighbour Amar Singh Juneja had given Rs.8 lacs to accused Raju Aggarwal as a loan against post dated cheques. He identified his signatures/handwriting on receipt dtd. 30-9-97 for Rs.6 lacs (Ex.PW46/A) received from Ajay Khurana against sale of SFS flat No.C-43/C, Category-III at Kondli. He further identified his signatures along with signatures of Raju Aggarwal on documents Ex.PW46/B1 to B5. He also identified his specimen handwriting/signatures Ex.PW46/C. He further stated that he was having saving bank account no. 3285 with Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and proved his handwriting/signatures on the following documents in respect of the said account:
● Pay-in slip dtd. 24-7-97 for Rs. 3,25,000/- (Ex.PW46/D) ● Cheque No. 63485 dtd. 25-7-97 (Ex.PW46/D-1). However, amount of Rs.3,25,000/- was collected against the said cheque was collected by Shri Pankaj Gauba.
● Cheque No. 63487 dtd. 24-10-97 Ex.PW46/E. However, amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was collected against the said cheque was CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.63
collected by Shri Pankaj Gauba.
He further stated that he was also having SB account No. 9739 with SBI Vikas Sadan Branch, INA, New Delhi and proved his handwriting/signatures on the following documents:
● The cheque No. 190185 dtd. 20-9-97 (Ex.PW46/F). However, amount of Rs.1,95,000/- was collected against the said cheque was collected by Shri Pankaj Gaba.
● Cheque No. 190186 (Ex.PW46/G) and amount of Rs.4,500/-was collected by him against this cheque.
● Two pay-in slips dtd. 20-9-97 and 21-10-97 (Ex.PW46/H-1 and H-2) filled in by Pankaj Gauba who deposited cheques in his (PW46's) account against which he had issued self cheques. ● Pay-in slip dtd. 22-10-97 Ex.PW46/J pertaining to Central Bank of India, SB Account No. 3285 filled in by Shri Pankaj Gauba who had deposited the cheques in his (PW46's) account against which he had issued self cheque Ex.PW46/E. He further stated that he did not know Sunder Lal, Surender Kumar and Ram Dev personally. However, Avinash Gambhir was known to him at whose instance he had put his signatures on the documents which were containing all the particulars except the name of the person in whose favour the documents were to be executed at the time of attestation by him and the documents after attestation were handed over to Raju Aggarwal. Also, he knew Gurdas and V.P. Anand.
➢ (47) PW-47 Sh. D.K. Gupta, DDA CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.64
PW47 D.K. Gupta was working as Jr. Engineer in DDA during 1998 at Kondli Gahroli.
He stated that Surender Kumar was the original allottee of flat no. 30A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli and possession letter of the said flat was issued by DDA in the name of Smt. Vijay Laxmi W/o Shri J.P. Sharma vide letter dtd. 5-11-97 (Ex.PW9/B-3). Further, possession was handed over to Smt. Vijay Laxmi on 18.12.97 by him. He identified various documents contained in file Ex.PW9/B and stated that subsequently possession was taken back from Smt. Vijay Laxmi on 29.01.98 by him on the instructions of department after detection of fraud and the flat was sealed by him on the directions of Dy. Director (SFS) vide letter dated 21.01.98 (Ex.PW47/E).
He further proved/identified various documents contained in file Ex.PW9/E pertaining to flat no. 55D, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli allotted to Ms. Ritu Gupta. He further stated that possession of the said flat could not be given in view of instructions of Dy. Director SFS, Housing Department, DDA vide letter dtd. 13-2-98 (Ex.PW47/F-3).
Further, he proved various documents contained in file Ex.PW9/F pertaining to flat no. 38-A, pocket-B, Kondli Gahroli, possession of which was handed over to Manish Kumar. Further, vide letter dtd. 28-1-98 of Dy. Director SFS, DDA (Ex.PW47/G6) the allotment of the said flat was cancelled. Notice was sent to Manish Kumar for returning the possession of the aforesaid flat who did not turn up and the flat was sealed by him.
Further, he identified various documents contained in file CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
65Ex.PW9/H pertaining to flat no. 31-A, Kondli Gahroli allotted to Smt. Anita vide allotment letter (Ex.PW9/H-3). He stated that allotment of the said flat was also cancelled vide letter dtd. 9-2-98 issued by Dy. Director SFS, Housing Department, DDA (Ex.PW47/H-3).
➢ (48) PW-48 Sh. Harish Chander Prasad Yadav, JE, DDA.
PW48 Harish Chander Prasad Yadav stated that he was working as JE (Civil) at ED-XII, DDA, New Delhi during February, 1998 and had handed over two part files of DDA J.E. Section pertaining to flat No. 34-C & 50D (Ex.PW48/A & Ex.PW48/B).
He further stated that flat no. 34C Pocket D was allotted to Devender Kumar Jain and Renu Jain and further, original allotment letter (Ex.PW48/A-1), notorised photo and specimen signatures of Devender Kumar Jain and Smt. Renu Jain (Ex.PW48/A-2) were obtained in JE section. The possession of the said flat was not given as none came to take the possession.
He further stated that flat no. 50D, SFS Flats, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to Amar Singh and possession of the same was to be given to Pankaj Gauba, attorney of Amar Singh. Further, original allotment letter (ExPW48/B-1) and notarised photo and specimen signatures of attorney of Amar Singh (Pankaj Gauba) (Ex.PW48/B-2) were received by JE section. Thereupon, possession letters in two copies (Ex.PW48/B-3 and B-4) were prepared and the same also bear the signatures of concerned JE Mohd. Tahir and of AE Manik Tala. He further stated that Pankaj Gauba never turned up for taking the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
66possession of the said flat.
➢ (49) PW-49 Sh. R.P. Bhatla PW49 R.P. Bhatla stated that during 1998 he was posted as Clerk in Andhra Bank, R.K. Puram Branch and proved letter no. 481/4/853/97-98 dated 14.02.98 (Ex.PW49/A) bearing handwriting and signatures of Shri B.B. Bansal, Manager whereby various documents handed over to CBI.
He further proved various documents which were handed over to CBI as mentioned in letter Ex.PW49/A.
(a) Account opening form cum specimen signatures card pertaining to SB account No. 17250 in the name of Sarla Devi Ex.PW49/B. This account was allowed by Sh. B.B. Bansal on 18.11.97 whose signatures are at point-X. This account was opened on the introduction of Sh. Gyan Dev Gupta having SB account No. 11360 and Sh. Pankaj Gauba having current account No. 1659 in the branch.
(b) Account opening form cum specimen signatures card pertaining to SB account No. 11360 in the name of Gyan Dev Gupta Ex.PW49/C. This account was opened on the introduction of account holder of current account No. 1033.
(c) Account opening form cum specimen signatures card pertaining to SB account No. 12063 in the name of Raju Aggarwal Ex.PW49/D. This account was opened on the introduction of account holder of SB account No. 11115.
(d) Three pay-in-slips pertaining to SB account No. 17250 dated CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
6718.11.97 and 19.11.97 Ex.PW49/E, F and G.
(e) Statement of account pertaining to SB account No. 17250 from 18.11.97 to 03.2.98 Ex.PW49/H, SB account No. 12063 from 20.2.95 to 03.02.98 Ex.PW49/J and SB account No. 11360 from 04.4.96 to 09.2.1998 running in 20 sheets Ex.PW49/K. He further proved letter No. 481/4/854/97-98 dated 14.2.1998 of Andhra Bank, R.K. Puram Branch in the the handwriting and signatures of Sh. B.B. Bansal at point A (Ex.PW49/L) along with documents mentioned therein i.e account opening form cum specimen signatures card pertaining to SB account No. 15469 in the name of Raju Aggarwal Ex.PW49/M; statement of account pertaining to SB account No. 15469 from 25.4.94 to 06.2.98 running in eight sheets Ex.PW49/N and bearing attesting signatures of Sh. B.B. Bansal at point A; statement of account Ex.PW49/H, Ex.PW49/J, Ex.PW49/K and Ex.PW49/N which are computer generated statement of account; debit vouchers (cheques) pertaining to SB account No. 17250 Ex.PW49/P-1 to P-6.
➢ (50) PW-50 Sh. K.K. Sapra PW50 K.K. Sapra working at the relevant time at Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan proved the account opened by PW101 Raj Kumar in the name of Sunder Lal at behest of Raju Aggarwal which was used for the purpose of transactions relating to sale of flats including C43-C, Kondli Gharoli.
He stated that SB account No. 5673 (Ex.PW50/A) (D29) in the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
68name of Sunder Lal was opened on 07.11.97 on introduction of account holder of account No. 5486 and this account was allowed by him under his signatures at point A. Prior to allowing of SB account No. 5673, signatures of introducer were verified by Shri Nathu Lal Verma, Officer of the branch whose signatures he identified at point B on (Ex.PW50/A) (D29). Further, account holder put his specimen signatures at point Q-286 in his presence.
He proved the pay-in-slips pertaining to aforesaid SB account dated 07.11.97 and 08.11.97 as Ex.PW50/B(D-30), C(D-31) & D(D-32) and debit vouchers (cheque dated 12.11.97 and 17.12.97) pertaining to aforesaid SB account No. 5673 as Ex.PW50/E, F and Ex.PW50/G. He further stated that pay order No. 228406 dated 12.11.97 (Ex.PW50/H) for Rs.1,76,000/- favouring Rajender Singh was issued by the branch under his signatures at point A on the basis of application Ex.PW50/J which bears his signatures at point A and of Sh. Nathu Lal Verma at point-B. He further identified signatures of Shri D.K. Sawhney, the then Branch Manager at point A and B on statement of SB account No. 5673 from 01.4.97 to 17.2.98 Ex.PW50/K and also on statement of SB account No. 5486 from 01.2.97 to 31.1.98 Ex.PW50/L. ➢ (51) PW-51 Sh. Sukhpal Bansal, Property Dealer PW51 Sukhpal Bansal stated that he was a property dealer for the last 22-23 years and knew Raju Aggarwal a property dealer, who was running catering van in front of DDA office, Vikas Sadan, INA.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
69Further he also knew Satish Sapru who was earlier running the aforesaid catering van and subsequently sold the same to Raju Aggarwal.
He further stated that during the year 1997, Satish Sapru contacted him in connection with sale of some flats purchased by Raju Aggarwal at Kondli Gharoli some of which bear number 4A Pocket C, 39A Pocket-C, 34C Pocket-D, 47D Pocket-D, 50D Pocket-D and 9C Pocket-B. However, he was not interested to work with Raju Aggarwal due to bitter past experience but Satish Sapru requested him to work with Raju Aggarwal. Further, he contacted some property dealers at Mayur Vihar and Kondli Gharoli, namely, Ajay Khurana, Ravi Chopra and Ram Avtar Aggarwal and arranged sale of some flats referred to above and received commission of Rs.10,000/- per flat from the prospective purchasers. He also arranged meeting of expected purchasers with Satish Sapru who used to deal with price of the flats and all the payments by the intending purchaser used to be made to Satish Sapru either in cash or through cheque/draft.
During 1996 he arranged sale of three flats No. 71A, 71D and 99A, Jhilmil Colony, Pocket-C which were arranged by Raju Aggarwal. Satish Sapru was having the papers relating to allotment of the flats at the time of deal and at the time of documentation, original allottee or the owner used to remain present in the Registrar office.
He further stated that he was involved in the deal of Flat No. 4A Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli which was sold through property dealer Ram Avtar Aggarwal. Flat No. 47D Pocket-D was sold to Gyan Dev Gupta through property dealer Ravi Chopra, a neighbour of Raju CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
70Aggarwal and he had introduced purchaser of this flat to Ravi Chopra. Further, property dealer Ravi Chopra, Ajay Khurana and Ram Avtar Aggarwal had given an amount of Rs.25 lacs as advance to Raju Aggarwal for 4-5 flats.
He further stated that Ram Avtar Aggarwal told him that conveyance deed of flat No. 34C Pocket-D was forged and payment against those was not deposited in Delhi Government. On this they decided to check the challan as well as in Central Bank Vikas Sadan and he along with Ravi Chopra, Ajay Khurana, Ram Avtar Aggarwal,Satish Sapru and Amarjeet Singh Juneja visited Central Bank, Vikas Sadan. It was found that challans were bogus and no payment had been deposited against the challans. Thereafter, they went to the office of Raju Aggarwal at R.K. Puram and told him that payment had not been deposited in the bank against the challan which were with Ram Avtar Aggarwal but Raju Aggarwal assured them to verify the same in the bank on the next day.
He further stated that thereafter he asked Satish Sapru to arrange the refund of Rs.25 lacs which was given to Raju Aggarwal as advance and also to return the money for which deal had already been entered into. Within one or two days Raju Aggarwal returned him Rs. 16 lacs in cash and also gave cheque of Rs.9 lacs which bounced later on. Further, when the cheque of Rs. 9 lacs bounced and Raju Aggarwal failed to return the money for which deal had already been entered into, he (PW 51) made a complaint to LG, Vice Chairman DDA, Chief Vigilance Officer DDA and CBI regarding the fraud being committed in DDA in which Raju Aggarwal, Satish Sapru and CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
71the officials of DDA were involved.
He further stated that he had handed over documents to CBI vide production memo dated 12.8.98 Ex.PW51/A(D-362) bearing his signatures at point A. Further, Satish Sapru had given documents pertaining to flat No. 50D, Pocket-D to him which was allotted to Amar Singh, against the advance given to Raju Aggarwal and the said documents PW51/B1 to Ex. PW51/B25 (D-245 to D-250) bear signatures of original allottee Amar Singh which were handed over to CBI vide production memo Ex. PW51/A(D-362).
He further stated that Satish Sapru had given PW51 documents pertaining to flat No. 9C, Pocket-B which was allotted to Ramji Lal Meena, against the advance given to Raju Aggarwal and further the said documents Ex. PW51/C1 to Ex. PW51/C23 (D-251 to D-254) bear the thumb impression of original allottee Ramji Lal Meena which were handed over to CBI.
He further proved Production Memo Ex.PW51/D dated 18.08.98 bearing his signatures whereby documents were handed over to CBI pertaining to flat No. 21D allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena. He further stated that Satish Sapru had given the original papers of flat No. 21D, Pocket-D to him which was allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena, against the advance given to Raju Aggarwal and the said papers were duly signed by original allottee Laxmi Narayan Meena. He further stated that Raju Aggarwal had not paid any cash amount to him for obtaining draft and depositing the same in Central Bank of India.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
72➢ (52) PW-52 Sh. Prabhati Lal, Asstt. Engineer, Building Section, Deepali Chowk, DDA Office Complex.
PW52 Prabhati Lal stated that during the year 1997 he was posted as Asstt. Engineer in Eastern Division No. X of DDA, Seed Bed Park, Shakarpur, Delhi and vide possession slip Ex.PW22/G had given the possession of the flat to Sarla Devi. Further, the inventory slip Ex.PW52/A bears his signatures.
He further stated that vide possession slip Ex.PW52/B he had given the possession of the flat to Sidharth Singh. Further, the inventory slip Ex.PW52/C bears his signatures.
He further stated that vide possession slip Ex.PW24/E he had given the possession of the flat to Amit Aggarwal. Further, the inventory slip Ex.PW24/F bears his signatures.
➢ (53) PW-53 Sh. Gyan Dev Gupta.
PW53 Gyan Dev Gupta was used by accused Raju Aggarwal in various transactions and he proved the documents signed by him for aforesaid purpose.
He stated that he was the owner of Shop No. 66, DDA Market, Sector-6, R.K. Puram and the said shop was rented out to Raju Aggarwal but as he did not vacate the said shop, PW53 sold the shop to Raju Aggarwal. Further, Raju Aggarwal and Bansal informed him regarding purchase of a flat in his name at Kondli Gharoli on which he told them that he had no concern with any flat and why the flat had been taken in his name. However, Raju Aggarwal and Bansal sent him to take possession of flat D-47-D at Kondli and some official CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
73from DDA obtained his signatures at 5 or 6 places.
He further proved his signatures on possession slip Ex.PW44/A (D-23) in token of taking possession of the said flat, letter Ex.PW-53/A.(D-23) addressed to DDA, inventory item Ex.PW-44/B (D-23), specimen signatures sheet Ex.PW-53/B (D-23) in file Ex.PW-7/H (D-23) and notarised copy of his Election I-card Ex.PW-53/C (D-23).
He denied his signatures on Account opening form pertaining to account no. 11360 at Andhra Bank, R.K. Puram (at A14 & A15 Ex.PW49/C (D-41). He identified his photograph and signatures at Q204 & 206 on the Conveyance Deed Ex.PW-53/D (D-9) which was executed at the instance of Mr. Bansal, Ravi Chopra and Raju Aggarwal. He further stated that flat no.D-47-D was sold to Narender Chaturvedi by Ravi Chopra and Mr. Bansal. He identified his signatures at Q185 on specimen signatures sheet pertaining to flat No. D47D Ex.PW9/I (D-9); at Q190 & Q199 on Ex.PW31/C (D-244) and Ex.PW53/E (D-9).
He further stated that account opening form pertaining to SB A/c No. 17250 in the name of Sarla Devi bears his signatures at Q-306 but denied having known Sarla Devi.
➢ (54) PW-54 Sh. Chander Kant.
PW54 Chander Kant stated that he was working at Vijaya Bank and had handed over documents Ex.PW54/A-1 to A-4. (D-105 to D-108) to CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW54/A.(D-361) bearing his signatures at point A. CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
74➢ (55) PW-55 Sh. R.K. Nayyar, Officer (Retired) Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan Branch, New Delhi.
PW55 R.K. Nayyar was working at Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan Branch and had handed over documents Ex.PW55/A-1 to Ex.PW55/A-4 (D-83 to D-86) to CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW55/A (D-361) bearing his signatures at point A. He proved signatures of Shri Sapra, Accountant at point A on application form for preparation of Pay Orders Ex.PW55/A-1 to A-4 (D-83 to D-86) which were issued in favour of DDA Housing for Rs. 1000/- each.
He proved the application forms for preparation of pay order Ex.PW55/A1 to A4 which were got prepared by Raju Aggarwal for sum of Rs.1,000/-.
It may be mentioned that the draft numbers prepared against the aforesaid application forms were referred in the challans submitted towards deposit of payment of total cost of flats but was never actually submitted along with the forged challan which was subsequently seized during investigation from the concerned allottee files.
➢ (56) PW-56 Sh. Arun Kumar Mudgil, Prop. of M/s.
Mudgil Associates (Property Dealer) PW56 Arun Kumar Mudgil (Property dealer) stated that he was introduced to Raju Aggarwal by one Mahesh Chaudhary and the deal in respect of D55-B Kondli Gharoli was settled for Rs.10.60 lacs out of which Rs.1.5 lacs was paid to Raju Aggarwal in his office. Further, amount of Rs.1.5 lacs was taken towards aforesaid flat in the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
75same evening by Shri Mahesh Chaudhary. He further stated about payment of Rs.60,000/- & Rs.80,000/- to Raju Aggarwal who further handed over the original file of aforesaid flat. He also deposed that during the relevant period Mahesh Chaudhary had also offered him flat no. D-10D Kondli Gharoli (which pertains to allottee N.D. Deva- D15) and an amount of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.80,000/- was paid towards aforesaid flat initially. Further, an amount of Rs.4 lacs was paid to Raju Aggarwal in his office and he handed over the file relating to said flat with blank set of documents duly signed by original allottee N.D. Deva. He further stated that Raju Aggarwal had assured that physical possession of both the flats would be delivered within 10-15 days but later on put off on various pretexts. He further proved the cheques D266 and D267 for Rs.4 lacs and Rs.4.4 lacs given by Raju Aggarwal when insisted for refund of money. He further stated that Raju Aggarwal also handed papers pertaining to two khokhas (temporary structures) in Vasant Vihar and assured to return the money back in 10 days and take back the papers and blank cheques. However, later on Raju Aggarwal failed to make the payment.
➢ (57) PW-57 Sh. Vijender Yohan Masih.
PW57 Vijender Yohan Masih deposed that he was allotted flat no. D-24D Kondli, Gharoli, Delhi by DDA. Further, Pankaj Arora contacted him through property dealer Raju Aggarwal.
During cross-examination, he stated that he and his wife (Shirley Masih) were independently allotted flats and he had not returned the allotment to DDA because he was getting premium on the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
76allotment.
➢ (58) PW-58 Sh. Manish PW58 Manish is the star witness of the prosecution who worked for Raju Aggarwal. He proved the various bank drafts which were got prepared from different banks at the instructions of Raju Aggarwal and some of them were also filled by him. The said forms were used in the bank for preparation of drafts of RS.1000/-. The particulars of the drafts were used in the forged challans without annexing the drafts and wrongly mentioning the amount of the draft which was linked in the concerned files towards the cost of the flats. He also identified his handwriting/signatures on various cheques and account opening forms and his testimony shall be dealt with in the respective instances.
➢ (59) PW-59 Sh. Siddharth Singh.
PW59 Siddarth Singh is the purchaser of flat no. C-43C Kondli Gharoli from Raju Aggarwal and proved various documents.
He stated that he resided in Agra and was inclined to purchase a house in Delhi and visited Shiv Properties where he met Raj Kumar who telephoned one Ajay Khurana. Ajay Khurana met him for the first time in October, 1997 and showed him a flat at Kondli Gharoli and was shown a file and terms were discussed with Raju Aggarwal over telephone. The file was containing an NOC given by DDA to the effect that flat was ready for delivery/possession and its possession could be taken and steps could be taken for getting water and CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
77electricity connection apart from a bank challan regarding entire payment made, allotment letter and one or two other letters.
Further, the deal was finalised for Rs.11,85,000/- in respect of Flat no. 43-C, Pocket-C, 2nd Floor, S.F.S. Flats CAT-III, Kondli, Delhi with Ajay Khurana and he paid some amount as advance. Thereafter, Power of Attorney was executed in his favour by allottee Sunder Lal at Kashmere Gate. Upon delivery of documents at DDA site office at Kondli Gharoli, he was delivered possession on 21.11.97. He further stated that payment was made by way of two bank drafts of Rs. 2 lacs each and rest in cash.
He identified his handwriting and also signatures of his mother Reeta Rani Singh at point A on Ex.PW59/A (D137) & Ex.PW59/B and stated that the same were handed over to allottee Sunder Lal at the time of signing of the final receipts and other documents at Kashmere Gate. He further deposed that later he came to know about scam in DDA through some newspapers and on enquiry, came to know that actual payment was not made to DDA and the bank challan was fake. Thereafter, he contacted Ajay Khurana and demanded his money back, who after speaking to Raju Aggarwal promised to return the same and gave a cheque of Rs. 4 lacs which was dishonoured upon presentation. He further identified his signatures on Ex.PW59/C & Ex.PW59/D. He also proved signatures of Vijay Verma and J.K. Sehgal on Ex.PW59/D. He also stated that the 3rd copy of challan of DDA for Rs.9,14,618/- (Ex.PW-9/A-6) was also present in the file containing documents which were handed over to him by Ajay Khurana. He also identified his photograph on Ex. PW-59/E but denied his signatures.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
78He identified his signatures on photocopy of ID-proof (Ex.PW-59/F), Ex.PW-59/G, Ex. PW-52/B and Ex.PW52/C. He identified statement of account in the name of his mother Smt. Reeta Rani Singh of SBI, Agra Cantt. as PW-59/H (Ex. PW-67/C). He further stated that he had filed a criminal complaint for bouncing of cheque against Raju Aggarwal.
➢ (60) PW-60 Sh. Pankaj Gauba.
PW60 Pankaj Gauba worked with Raju Aggarwal and deposed in respect of various transactions entered by Raju Aggarwal.
He stated that during 1992-93, he came in contact with Raju Aggarwal who was a property dealer having his office at Sector-VI, R.K. Puram and offered him a seat in his office. Further, current account in the name of Pankaj Associates at Andhra Bank Sector-6 was opened by him. He used to sit at the catering van in front of DDA office, Vikas Sadan, which was purchased by Raju Aggarwal from the brother of Satish Sapru.
He further stated that Raju Aggarwal had purchased 8-10 flats at Kondli Gharoli. and had purchased one flat allotted at Ghazipur from Sunil Sabharwal in his name which was subsequently sold but he did not recollect the name of the buyer or the exact amount of sale. Further, he had applied for possession letter of the flat in DDA which was purchased in his name and other flats which were purchased by Raju Aggawal.
He further stated that in 1995-96, property dealer Bansal and Khurana had come to the office of Raju Aggarwal and asked him CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
79about the payment of DDA flats purchased by him upon which Raju Aggarwal had issued receipt showing that he had deposited the amount and had also given an affidavit on judicial stamp paper.
He further stated that he had withdrawn amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- against cheque Ex.PW46/F from account no.9739 belonging to Satish Sapru.
He further stated that flat no.50D, Kondli Gharoli was purchased by Raju Aggarwal in his name from allottee Amar Singh and proved various documents existing in the file Ex.PW9/J1. He also stated that he along with Satish Sapru were collecting the payment from the party to whom Raju Aggarwal used to sell the DDA flats. This witness was also cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI as he resiled from his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On cross-examination by ld. PP, he further proved his signatures on account opening form of Sarla Devi (Ex.PW49/B). He further proved his signatures on Cheque (Ex.PW1/B) in respect of account no. 1695 in the name of Pankaj Associates at Andhra Bank, R.K. Puram.
➢ (61) PW-61 Sh. Jagdish Chander Jain PW61 Jagdish Chander Jain filled up the form relating to allotment of flat no.43C, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli allotted to Sunder Lal.
He stated that he was working with MCD, Shahdara South Zone as a Public Health Inspector and knew Avinash Gambhir, who was doing property business and also Sunder Lal who was working in MCD, Lajpat Nagar with him.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
80He further stated that Avinash Gambhir told him about the Self Finance Scheme of DDA sponsored for Schedule caste and Sunder Lal had come to dispensary and asked him to get the form filled up. Then, he introduced him to Avinash Gambhir for the said purpose who got the form filled and Sunder Lal signed the application form in his presence.
He identified photograph and signatures of Sunder Lal on Ex.PW61/A contained in Ex.PW9/K. He further stated that later, in the month of November and December next year, Avinash Gambhir asked him to bring Sunder Lal to the office of Sub Registrar at Kashmere Gate where Avinash Gambhir obtained signatures of Sunder Lal on many documents in his presence. He further identified the photograph/signatures of Sunder Lal on Ex.PW9/AX1, Ex.PW9/AX2, Ex.PW61/B, Ex.PW61/D, Ex.PW61/E, Ex.PW25/D. ➢(62) PW-62 Sh. Bijay Kumar Pandit, Asstt. General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Camscstreet Branch, 26, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata.
PW62 Bijay Kumar Pandit was posted at Syndicate Bank, Sarojini Nagar Depot from June 1996 to July 1998 as Branch Manager and identified his signatures as well as signatures of other bank officials on various documents/cheques.
● Account opening form of savings bank account no. 115782 (Ex.PW62/A) in the name of Manish Kumar which was allowed to be opened by him as Branch Manager.
● Specimen signature card (Ex.PW62/B - D92) bearing signatures of Manish Kumar, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
81● Statement of account for the period 13.08.96 to 03.01.97 (Ex.PW-62/C) in respect of account no. 115782, ● Statement of account for the period 01.03.97 to 23.02.98 (Ex.PW-62/D) in respect of Manish Kumar.
● Pay order application form D94 dated 11.08.97, D95 dated 11.08.97, D96 dated 08.12.97 (Ex.PW62/E, Ex.PW62/F & Ex.PW62/G respectively), ● Cheque dated 17.12.97 (D97) for Rs.15,000/- in favour of Self (Ex.PW62/H), ● Cash withdrawal slip dated 28.01.98 in favour of Self (D98) (Ex.PW62/I), ● Cheque (D99) dated 21.11.97 for Rs.1,50,100/- of Account No. 115782 (Ex.PW-62/J) and cheque (D100) dated 04.02.98 for Rs. 2,000/-(Ex.PW62/K), ● Cheque (D101) dated 21.11.97 for Rs.2,80,000/- in favour of Self (Ex.PW62/L), ● Pay Order Application Form (Ex.PW62/M) (D102) for issuance of pay order for Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of Rajender Singh. ● Credit voucher (D103) dated 19.11.97 for depositing cheque dated 19.11.97 in account no. 115782 for Rs.4,50,000/-.
➢ (63) PW-63 Sh. H.R. Khowal, Retired Sr. Accounts Officer, DDA.
PW63 H.R. Khowal joined HAU-IX DDA in January, 1998 as Accountant/Assistant Accounts Officer in place of accused S.K. Kaushik and identified the handwriting and signatures of S.K. Kaushik and V.P. Anand on the documents. He also explained the procedure CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
82followed after the deposit of the amount by the allottee in the Management and in the Accounts Branch of DDA.
He deposed that the demand letter of IX Self Finance Scheme generated by the Computer Branch was issued to the allottees by the Accounts Branch and a copy of the demand letter after placing in the file was sent to the Management Branch for further action. The demand letters were issued under the signatures of Incharge Accounts Officer. Further, the Management Department after attaching the challans and other documents of the allottee were sending the file to the Accounts Branch for NOC. The Accounts Department after going through the Management File, looked into the challans deposited by the allottee and verified from C-form whether the amount was received or not. If the amount was not received in the C- form, then the Accounts file was sent to the Computer Housing Section for verification of the challan deposited by the allottee. After the clearance of the report of challans by the Computer Housing Branch, transfer entry of the amount initially deposited by the allottee was also placed in the Accounts file. The NOC was issued under the signatures of AAO/AO and the files were returned back to the Management Wing with NOC for further action.
This witness further on going through the concerned files D1 to D12 i.e. Ex.PW63/A, Ex.PW63/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/E, Ex.PW9/F, Ex.PW9/G, Ex.PW9/H, Ex.PW9/I, Ex.PW9/J-1, Ex.PW9/K & Ex.PW9/L identified the signatures of Shri S.K. Kaushik and V.P. Anand on the notings and NOC in the respective files.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
83➢ (64) PW-64 Sh. V.P. Jain, Asstt. Accounts Officer, DDA.
PW64 V.P. Jain who was posted as Accountant in the Computer Section of DDA in 1997 explained the procedure regarding the receipt of challan in the Computer Housing Section. Further, with reference to the Diary Registers Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW12/A maintained in the Section, he deposed that there was no entry pertaining to the 12 files in the aforesaid Diary Registers.
➢ (65) PW-65 Sh. Rajinder Singh.
PW65 Rajinder Singh stated that after finalization of the deal with regard to SFS flats, Mr. Gauba had handed over him the original GPA, SPA, Will Ex. PW-65/A to C which were executed by Sunil Sabarwal in favour of Pankaj Gauba. Further Sunil Sabarwal executed GPA along with other other documents in favour of father of PW65 Sh. Nehar Singh (i.e. GPA, SPA, Will etc. collectively Ex.PW65/D). Further, at the time of finalization of deal, several papers Ex.PW65/E1 to E11 were also received by him. When he intended to get the payment deposited with DDA verified, Shri Gauba evaded the same and offered him an alternative flat and offered to refund back the amount. However, on verification by him, it was revealed that amount of Rs.4,54,250/- as mentioned in Ex.PW-65/E-4 had not been deposited with DDA. He further stated that amount paid by him towards purchase of said flat was refunded by way of bank drafts. This witness was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI as he resiled from CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
84his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
➢ (66) PW-66 Sh. Arvind Kumar, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation.
PW66 Arvind Kumar stated that on 13.03.2000, he was posted as Commissioner Personnel DDA, Vikas Sadan and being the competent authority, he granted sanction for prosecution of Gurnam Chand and proved the sanction order (Ex.PW66/A) bearing his signatures and office seal.
➢ (67) PW-67 Sh. Sushil Oberoi, Retd. Official State Bank of India.
PW67 Sushil Oberoi stated that he was posted as Assistant Manager, SBI, Sadar Bazar, Agra and handed over Ex.PW59/A, Ex.PW59/B & Ex.PW67/C as per seizure memo Ex. PW67/A to the CBI officials. He also identified signatures of Rita Rani Singh, account holder of a/c no. 19447 on debit voucher Ex.PW59/A and stated that her consent was obtained for issuance of draft for Rs. 2,00,300/- in favour of Sunder Lal. He also proved the entry against the same in statement of account (Ex.PW67/C).
➢ (68) PW-68 Sh. Sunder Lal, Safai Karamchari, MCD.
PW68 Sunder Lal is the allottee of flat no. 43C, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli.
He stated that he had not filled up form for any plot but had CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
85signed some papers at the request of one Mr. Jain who was working as a Clerk in a dispensary at Trilok Puri. He identified his signatures on Ex.PW-61/A, Ex.PW-9/AX-1, Ex.PW-9/AX-2, Ex.PW-61/B, Ex.PW-61/C, Ex.PW-16/D, Ex.PW-16/E, Ex.PW-25/D. However, he denied the signatures appearing on the back of Ex.PW-61/C. He also denied having SB A/C No.5673 with Union Bank of India in his name and stated that cheque book bearing leaves from 177821 to 177840 in his name had not been issued to him at any point of time.
Further, he denied his signatures on cheques bearing No. 177830 to 177840 (Ex.PW68/1 to Ex.PW68/6 & Ex.PW68/7 to Ex.PW68/11).
He further stated that the request letter for issuance of new cheque book (Ex.PW-68/12) appended in the aforesaid cheque book was not filled and signed by him. He further denied his signatures on various documents including Ex.PW-50/A, Ex.PW-50/B to Ex.PW-50/G. However, he identified his signatures at Q-1,Q-2 & Q-3 of Ex. PW-61/A, Q-6 of Ex. PW-9/AX-1, Q-7 of Ex. PW-9/AX-2, Q-8 of Ex. PW-61/B, Q-12 on Ex. PW-61/C, Q-13 & Q-14 on Ex. PW-16/D, Q-15 on Ex. PW-16/E, Q-16 on Ex. PW-25/D. He further identified his specimen signatures on S1 to S4 (Ex.PW68/13). He stated that he was accompanied by Mr. Jain and another person to Kashmere Gate Court for the purpose of signing some documents.
➢ (69) PW-69 Sh. Manish Malik, posted as Astt. Manager at CRIS, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
86PW69 Manish Malik is the witness to production memo dated 10.02.98 (Ex.PW69/A) D362 whereby documents Ex.PW69/B1 to B3 (D66 to D68) were produced by Raju Aggarwal.
➢ (70) PW-70 Gurvinder Singh, Internal Senior Auditor, Zonal Audit Office, Meerut.
PW 70 Gurvinder Singh is the witness to search memo dated 07.02.98 whereby the documents were seized as per search list Ex.PW70/A from the residence and office of Raju Aggarwal. He further identified his signatures on various pages contained in file D313 collectively Ex.PW70/C, D314 Ex.PW70/D, D316 Ex.PW70/E, D315 Ex.PW70/F, D317 Ex.PW70/G. ➢ (71) PW-71 Sh. Shriom Gupta, Peon, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajapur, Shashtri Nagar, Ghaziabad.
PW71 Shriom Gupta posted as Peon in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajapur, Shastri Nagar, Ghaiabad Branch proved letter Ex.PW71/A bearing signatures of Shri N.C. Jain, the then Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce whereby he handed over certain papers regarding statement of account in respect of account no.015352, photocopies of drafts and application form to CBI officials.
➢ (72) PW-72 Sh. Madan Lal Meena, Constable in Delhi Police, Posted at PS Jaitpur.
PW72 Madan Lal Meena is the brother of PW92 Laxmi Narayan Meena who was the allottee of flat no. 21D, Pocket-D, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
87Kondli Gharoli. He identified the signatures and photograph of his brother on the application form (Ex.PW72/A), letter addressed to Director SFS for extension of time (Ex.PW72/C), SPA bearing signatures of his brother in favour of one Kishan Lal (Ex.PW72/D), specimen signatures (Ex.PW72/E), acknowledgement (Ex.PW72/F), affidavits for issue of possession letter (Ex.PW72/G & Ex.PW72/I), specimen signatures given by his brother at CBI office (Ex.PW72/J & K).
➢ (73) PW-73 Sh. Pyare Lal, working as Dy. Manager in SBI in Raghvir Nagar Branch.
PW73 Pyare Lal posted as Assistant Manager, SBI, Naraina Branch in 1998 proved statement of account certified under Bankers Book of Evidence Act pertaining to account no.12132 in the name of R.S. Mathur and Anuj Shankar for the period Sept. 97 to 10.01.98 bearing his signatures (Ex.PW73/A) which was supplied to CBI.
He further stated that two cheques dated 17.09.97 drawn in favour of Mr. Satish Sapru for Rs.1 Lac each were presented in clearing from SBI Vikas Sadan and were cleared for payment. He further stated that entry for clearance dated 19.09.97 was reflected in the ledger sheet for account no.12132 (Ex.PW73/A) and further proved cheques (Ex.PW73/B & C).
He further stated that cheques dated 14.10.97 drawn in favour of Mr. Satish Sapru for Rs.1.75 lacs each were presented in clearing from SBI Vikas Sadan and were cleared for payment and corresponding entry for clearance was reflected on 23.10.97 in the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
88ledger sheet for account no.12132 (Ex.PW73/A) and proved the cheques as Ex.PW73/D and E. He further stated that as per statement of account Ex.PW73/A, an amount of Rs.20/- was debited vide entry dated 18.10.97 from the account, due to return of cheque. Further, he identified his signatures on seizure memo Ex.PW73/G whereby the documents were handed over and seized by CBI.
➢ (74) PW-74 Sh. Bhavnesh Kumar Gupta, UDC, DDA (Establishment) Vikas Sadan, INA.
PW74 Bhavnesh Kumar Gupta stated that in 1996 he was posted in SFS Section DDA wherein he was dealing with out of turn allotment and Shri S.N. Singhal was Assistant Director during the relevant time. Further, Gurnam Chand was dealing with Kondli Gharoli area.
He further stated that at the relevant period, there was no superintendent in the concerned Branch dealing with the 9th SFS Scheme and the files used to be put up before Assistant Director S.N. Singhal and routed through the then Dy. Director K.C. Saxena who was later on replaced by J.R. Kakar followed by M.C. Sharma. Further, the dak pertaining to SFS Scheme section used to be received at counter no.4 of DDA office and was thereafter, forwarded to SFS section. The file was entered in the daily diary register at the time of receipt in the department and thereafter, the file was dealt at the level of Assistant Director and above. Further, the relevant papers for consideration received in dak were processed in the relevant file and CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
89the files which were moved used to be entered in movement register maintained by Ram Kishan, at the relevant time.
He further proved the seizure memo dated 2.6.98 (Ex.PW74/A) bearing his signatures whereby the documents were handed over to CBI.
➢ (75) PW-75 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain, Dy. General Manager in Cairn Energy India Ltd.
PW75 Rakesh Kumar Jain is the purchaser of flat no. 39A, Pocket-C, SFS Flats, Kondli Gharoli from allottee Sarla Devi. He stated that he was earlier residing at 39 A Pocket C SFS Flats, Delhi which was purchased from the original allottee Smt. Sarla Devi in the year 1997 and identified the application for allotment (Ex.PW22/A) bearing the photograph of Sarla Devi, allotment letter of the said flat (Ex.PW9/G4), affidavits and specimen signatures of Sarla Devi along with photograph (Ex.PW9/GX1 and GX2).
He further stated that he had been handed over copies of some documents at the time of purchase of said flat and the possession letter, allotment letter, site possession letter, electricity connection letter were handed over in original. The original sale deed of purchase of the said flat was also in his possession. The conveyance deed effected in favour of Sarla Devi by DDA (Ex.PW75/A) was applied through him being the SPA holder of Sarla Devi and he identified his photograph on the same. Thereafter sale deed in respect of said flat was executed in his name.
He also identified his signatures on cheque dated 17.11.97 for a CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
90sum of Rs.7.75 lacs issued in favour of Sarla Devi as a consideration for purchase of the said flat (Ex.PW75/B). The said transaction was reflected in statement of account pertaining to his account no. 1190/21466 of SBI dated 22.11.97 (Ex.PW75/C). He further stated that at the time of execution of conveyance deed, he had also deposited some amount on account of said flat in DDA against challan dated 27.10.97 (Ex.PW12/D8) bearing his initials.
➢ (76) PW-76 Sh. Danish Paul.
PW76 Danis Paul (Document Writer) stated that he knew Raju Aggarwal, Satish Sapru and one Rajan Dua dealing in finance and property business and mediated for settlement of deal between Rajan Dua and Raju Aggarwal for consideration of Rs.30,000/- with respect to flat no.B38A Kondli Gharoli.
➢ (77) PW-77 Sh. Vijay Kumar, Jeweller in Chanakya Puri.
PW77 Vijay Kumar stated that around 10-12 years back, he came into contact with Raju Aggarwal through M/s Arun Car Deck Company for purchase of one car make Nishant. Further, he had purchased car no. DL 1C 9997 from Satish Sapru who had purchased it at STC auction for consideration of Rs.3,25,000/- vide cheque no. 193200 dated 22.07.1997.
He further stated that the vehicle was purchased through M/s Arun Car Deck, Hauz Khas but did not recollect if any amount for CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
91purchase of car was paid to Raju Aggarwal.
➢ (78) PW-78 Sh. Satish Kumar, Assistant (Cash Main), C Block, First Floor, Room no. 108, DDA, Vikas Sadan.
PW78 Satish Kumar was working as UDC, Cash Housing, Computer Cell during 1997-98 and was assigned the duty of maintaining records regarding data entry of challans, issuing advice, scrolling of challans & thereafter entering the challans.
He stated that during that period, he used to enter challans of SBI, Malviya Nagar, Punjabi Bagh, Wazirpur, Janakpuri, Himmatpuri and Delhi Cantt. He further explained that advice along with scroll and challan from different branches of different banks were received for data entry purposes. Thereafter, advice was issued and challans were subsequently entered in computer along with the detail of advice and scroll received from bank to tally the amount. The process was used to be completed in 15 to 20 days and after completing the process, challans were used to be sent to store of computer room. The files of challans were used to be received by the then Diary Clerk Santosh Kumar Sharma and were to be kept date wise in racks and thereafter verification job was used to be done. Further, the then AAO Shri S.C. Garg used to put his signatures for verification of the details of challans.
He proved diary register of computer section (D344) (Ex.PW15/A) and D345 (Ex.PW12/A) maintained by Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, UDC the then Diary Clerk and on scrutiny of entries stated that file no. 160/363/97/SFS/K.L.III, 160/30/97, 160/411/97, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
92160/483/97, 160/223/97, 160/38/97, 160/263/97, 160/31/97, 160/496/97, 160/498/97, 160/462/97 & 160/228/97 do not appear to have been received or further moved as per entries required to be made in the register.
➢ (79) PW-79 Mrs. Pammi Mudgil.
PW79 Pammi Mudgil stated that she knew Raju Aggarwal, a property dealer who used to run his shop in Vasant Palace near her house and around 1996-97, Raju Aggarwal took loan of Rs.2.00 lakhs from her. Further, the loan amount was returned by way of cheque issued by some lady but she could not recollect the name of that lady. She was made to understand by Raju Aggarwal that he was known to the lady who had issued the cheque and same may be settled against the loan amount. The cheque was accordingly encashed in her account and the entire loan amount had been paid by Raju Aggarwal.
➢ (80) PW-80 Sh. Sidharth Sarkar.
PW80 Sidharth Sarkar stated that he shifted from Baroda to Delhi on transfer in July, 1997 and intended to purchase a small house in Delhi and one of his colleagues R.K. Jain introduced him to Ram Avtar Aggarwal, Property Dealer of Mayur Vihar Phase-III who offered him flat No.D34C, Kondli Gharoli, DDA, out of resale, at a consideration of Rs.10.50 lacs plus registration and brokerage which was amounting to Rs.12 lacs.
He further stated that he paid Rs.4 lacs in cash upto November, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
931997 against receipts and Rs.4 lacs in installments as bayana. Thereafter, he went to his home town Ajmer to see his ailing father and when he came back in January 1998, he came to know through newspaper Times of India about the fraud regarding allotment of flats in Kondli Gharoli area. He immediately contacted Ram Avtar and requested him to pay back his money. Ram Avtar returned his money on 14.01.98 and took back the receipts of Rs.4 lacs and got one paper signed from him.
He further identified his signatures on Special Power of Attorney dated 02.12.97 (Ex.PW20/J) executed by Devender Kumar Jain and Renu Jain in his favour regarding flat no.34C IInd Floor; Conveyance Deed dated 2.12.97 executed in his favour (Ex.PW9/K5); copy of agreement dated 20.11.97 regarding flat in question (Mark PW80/A); another Conveyance Deed (D236) (Ex.PW80/X) along with his photograph and of Devender Kumar and Renu Jain. He further identified signatures of Ram Avtar Gupta and his wife Sushmita Sarkar on Ex.PW80/X. ➢ (81) PW-81 Sh. Om Prakash, Presently Chief Engineer (North Zone), DDA, Vikar Minar.
PW81 Om Prakash proved the notings /documents regarding issuance of possession letter as received from the Housing Branch in respect of various flats.
He stated that he was posted as Executive Engineer in Eastern Division-12 during the period 1995 to 1998 and the possession letters were received from the housing branch and diarised in the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
94correspondence branch. Further, the dak was put up before him which was marked to the concerned officials and he was dealing with the letters pertaining to Pocket A of Kondli (Mayur Vihar Phase-III).
He further stated that the file containing documents (D18) i.e. Ex.PW48/B1, B2 along with other documents was received from SFS section and was marked by him under his noting and signatures at point X on 04.11.1997 to AE Shri Manik Talla. Further, he identified various notings made in the said file and stated that possession of flat no.D-50D, Kondli Gharoli was handed over to one Shri Pankaj who was acting attorney of the original allottee as per inventory slip which was part of the complete file of D-50D (Ex.PW48/B). He further proved the possession slip (Ex.PW48/B3).
He further stated that in normal routine, physical possession to the allottee was given at the time of completion of the flat and upon satisfaction of allottee.
He further stated that as per noting on letter dated 11.09.97 (Ex.PW81/A), possession of flat no. 47D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli was handed over on 24.09.97 by AE1 and the formal possession slip (Ex.PW44/A) was issued under the signatures of Shri H.C.P. Yadav, JE. Further, as per noting dated 19.09.97 at point C by Sh. Manik Talla, the flat was incomplete on 19.09.97 and as per noting dated 22.09.97 at point D under the signatures of Sh. Manik Talla, the flat was taken in possession on "as is where is" basis.
He further stated that as per marking at point A on letter dated 03.11.97 (Ex.PW7/B1) regarding possession of D-21 Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli, the same was marked by him on 10.11.97 to AE CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
95concerned and the possession of the said flat vide noting at point B was handed over on 17.12.97.
He further stated that there were certain instructions from the then Vice Chairman regarding sealing of flats which included D-21D, D-47D, D-50D because there was some irregularity in the payment. Later on, the present occupant of D-47D broke open the seal and put his lock and the matter was reported to SHO concerned and the occupant of D-47D also moved to the High Court and obtained stay.
He further stated that possession letter dated 11.11.97 (Ex.PW48/A1) contained his noting dated 17.1.98 along with his signatures whereby he had specifically mentioned that possession is not to be given since flat is not completed and cleared by the housing branch.
He further stated that possession letter of flat no.B-31A (Ex.PW47/H1) was marked by him on 17.12.97 to Executive Engineer ED 14 vide his endorsement and signatures since the flat was not pertaining to his division.
➢ (82) PW-82 Sh. Amarjeet Juneja, Builder.
PW82 Amarjeet Juneja deposed regarding the transaction of flat no.B38A Kondli Gharoli which was allotted in the name of Kishan Lal and was dealt by accused Raju Aggarwal.
He stated that he was apprised by Satish Sapru regarding availability of flat no.38A, Pocket B Kondli Gharoli for sale and he placed the proposal to Subhash Kohli. Further, Satish Sapru introduced him to Raju Aggarwal, who was also a property dealer.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
96Thereafter, he along with Subhash Kohli contacted Abhinav Rastogi who agreed to purchase the flat and gave a draft of Rs.4.5 lacs and Rs. 3 lacs cash to them which was handed over to Raju Aggarwal against a receipt. He stated that they remained in touch with Satish Sapru and Raju Aggarwal as they were to get it free hold from DDA.
He further stated that after about 3 months, on coming to know about the fraud, they contacted Raju Aggarwal who returned whole of the money including amount of draft and cash handed over to him and took all the documents back which were handed over back to Mr. Rastogi.
He further stated that he had given about Rs.8 lacs to Raju Aggarwal through Shri Satish Sapru against mortgage of some registration paper of one MIG flat and had given him cheques of Rs.8 lacs which were dishonoured and he got his money back through a court case.
➢ (83) PW-83 Sh. Ramji Lal Meena.
PW83 Ramji Lal Meena stated that his son Radhey Shyam worked with DDA and he had applied through his son for a flat in DDA. Further, he had given around Rs.30,000/- at the time of applying for the same. He further identified his thumb impression and photograph on the application form of DDA (Ex.PW38/A) and also proved the caste certificate containing his particulars (Ex.PW83/A).
He further stated that he had sold the flat for around Rs. 30,000/- and at the time of sale of flat, certain documents were executed on which he had put his thumb impression.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
97➢ (84) PW-84 Sh. Ram Dutt Sharma, DDA.
PW84 Ram Dutt Sharma stated that he had joined HAU-IX branch in April, 97 and was looking after Mukherjee Nagar and Pitampura area. Further, he knew Gurdas who was looking after Kondli Gharoli area and at aforesaid time, S.K. Kaushik was AAO Unit IV, HAU-IX and V.P. Anand was working as AO, SFS-II.
He further stated that the files from management wing used to be received through diary and Mr. Kohli was diarist in the section at the relevant time who used to distribute the files after making their respective entries in his record. Further, he and Gurdas used to open new files for accounts branch in which account sheet was used to be prepared in the Accounts File and, thereafter, demand letter used to be issued to the respective parties & one office copy used to be kept in Accounts File in the office. They used to receive C forms which were made available by the computer or generated manually for the verification of cash deposits and in case of non availability of C form due to any reason the verification of deposits could be made directly from the Cash Branch/Computer Branch.
He further stated that the file used to be received through diary against acknowledgment and in case it was verified that the entire amount had been deposited then file was moved for no dues certificate. The fact of no dues certificate used to be mentioned in the main file and it used to be sent to management branch.
He further proved diary register (Ex.PW13/B) through which files were received from Management wing and TR register CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
98(Ex.PW13/C) through which files were sent to computer section for verification of challans. He further proved handwriting/signatures of Gurdas/Kohli on various entries in TR Register and stated that as per entry dated 5.11.97 on page 303 bearing no. 1147 (D346), entry dated 13.10.97 page 294 bearing no. 1086 (D346), entry dated 17.10.97 page 297 bearing no. 1099 (D346), entry dated 27.10.97, page 3000 bearing no. 1125 (D346), entry dated 10.11.97 page no. 304 bearing no. 1149 (D346), entry dated 29.09.97 page 280 bearing no. 991 (D346), entry dated 5.11.97 page no. 304 bearing no. 1148 (D346), the files were never sent to computer section.
He further stated that it was the duty of Kohli to maintain diary register and he was the person who was authorized to make entry in this register.
He further proved signatures of V.P. Anand, Gurdas and S.K. Kaushik on the following demand letters and on the notings for issuance of demand letter:
● Demand letter (Ex.PW9/A4) in respect of flat no.43C, Second Floor, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli under SFS scheme.
● Demand letter (Ex.PW9/B4) in respect of flat no.30A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli under SFS scheme.
● Demand letter (Ex.PW9/CH) in respect of flat no.43D, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli under SFS scheme.
● Demand letter (Ex.PW9/D4) in respect of flat no.21D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli under SFS scheme.
● Demand letter (Ex.PW9/E4) in respect of flat no.55D, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.99
Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli under SFS scheme.
● Demand letter (Ex.PW9/F4) in respect of flat no.38A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli under SFS scheme.
● Demand letter (Ex.PW9/G4) in respect of flat no.39A, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli under SFS scheme.
● Demand letter (Ex.PW9/H4) in respect of flat no.31A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli under SFS scheme.
● Demand letter (Ex.PW9/I-4) in respect of flat no.47D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli under SFS scheme.
● Demand letter (Ex.PW9/J4) in respect of flat no.50D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli under SFS scheme.
● Demand letter (Ex.PW9/K6) in respect of flat no.34C, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli under SFS scheme.
● Demand letter (Ex.PW9/L4) in respect of flat no.4A, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli under SFS scheme.
He further stated that in all the above files, transfer entries in respect of Rs.50,000/- had been forwarded to AAO by Gurdas and duly countersigned by S.K. Kaushik at respective places.
He also stated that No Dues Certificate (Ex.PW9/A1) in respect of Sunder Lal dated 16.10.97; No Dues Certificate (Ex.PW9/D1) in respect of Laxmi Narayan dated 29.10.97; No Dues Certificate (Ex.PW9/E1) in respect of Ritu Gupta dated 10.11.97; No Dues Certificate (Ex.PW9/F1) in respect of Kishan Lal dated 29.10.97; No Dues Certificate (Ex.PW9/H1) in respect of Anita Gangoli dated 15.12.97; No Dues Certificate (Ex.PW9/I1) in respect of Meera dated 11.09.97; No Dues Certificate (Ex.PW9/J1) in respect of Amar Singh CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.100
dated 29.10.97; No Dues Certificate (Ex.PW9/L1) in respect of Amit Aggarwal dated 26.09.97 were prepared by Gurdas and signed by Sh. S.K. Kaushik at respective places.
He further stated that No Dues Certificate (Ex.PW9/B1) in respect of Surender Kumar dated 05.11.97; No Dues Certificate (Ex.PW9/C1) in respect of Ram Dev dated 11.11.97; No Dues Certificate (Ex.PW9/G1) in respect of Sarla Devi dated 30.09.97; No Dues Certificate (already Ex.PW9/K2) in respect of Devender Kumar dated 11.11.97 were prepared by Gurdas and signed by V.P. Anand at respective places.
➢ (85) PW-85 Sh. Durga Prasad, Driver in DDA.
PW85 Durga Prasad deposed in respect of transaction in respect of flat no. B-30A, Kondli Gharoli allotted to Surender Kumar which was purchased by Vijay Laxmi wife of J.P. Sharma through Ajay Khurana, Property Dealer.
He stated that after the maturity of the said deal, possession of flat was taken over by Shri J.P. Sharma and later on informed him that he had come to know that there was some fraud in the flat on which PW85 contacted Shri Khurana. He further identified signature of Vijay Laxmi wife of J.P. Sharma on possession slip Ex.PW47/C, specimen signatures and photograph on Ex.PW47/B2.
➢ (86) PW-86 Sh. N.K. Chhabra.
PW86 N.K. Chhabra stated that he knew Kishan Lal, Driver CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
101whom he had once recommended for services to his brother-in-law Rajat Dua. He further stated that he might have handed over caste certificate of Kishan Lal Ex.PW86/A to Shri Rajat Dua which was given to him by Kishan Lal. Further, he identified photograph/signatures of Kishan Lal on application form for allotment of DDA flat (Ex.PW32/A) and stated that the same was filled by him and handed over to his brother in law Rajat Dua. The postal address for correspondence at point C in the form was that of Shri Rajat Dua.
➢ (87) PW-87 Sh. R.K. Gupta As per prosecution PW87 R.K. Gupta (Property Dealer) had participated in transaction of flat no. D47 Kondli Gharoli which stands allotted in favour of Ms. Meera and was purchased by N.K. Chaturvedi.
However, this witness did not support the case of prosecution and was cross-examined on behalf of ld. PP for CBI as he resiled from his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
➢ (88) PW-88 Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Government
Stationary Supplier.
PW88 Raj Kumar Gupta stated that he knew Raju Aggarwal, property dealer who was introduced to him by one Mr. Kedia who happened to be friend of his brother.
Further, in 1996-97, he had given a pay order of Rs.2.50 lacs in favour of DDA which was got prepared at the request of Raju Aggarwal. The said amount bay way of pay order as loan from him CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
102which was to be deposited by him against some installments for the cost of a flat. He further stated that the loan amount of Rs.2.50 lacs had not been returned by Raju Aggarwal till date.
➢ (89) PW-89 Sh. Ram Avtar Gupta, Real Estate Agent.
PW89 Ram Avtar Gupta is a Real Estate Agent and deposed as to the transactions in respect of various flats and documents executed in respect of the same.
● He stated that he was in real estate business since 1997 in the name of Aggarwal Properties and knew Sukhpal Bansal, property dealer who met him during a deal relating to property no. Pocket C, 4A, Kondli Gharoli, Delhi (i.e. a flat allotted to Amit Aggarwal File D12) Further, he was informed by Sukhpal Bansal that aforesaid flat was available for sale which stood in the name of Amit Aggarwal and financed by Mr. Sapru. He further stated that one Shri R.S. Mathur had agreed to purchase the said flat for an amount of Rs.12.65 lacs and some amount of bayana (advance) was paid by R.S. Mathur to Sukhpal Bansal through him for purpose of purchase of the flat in the year 1997. Further, before the deal was finalized with Shri R.S. Mathur, he had entered into the deal with Sukhpal Bansal for purchase of said flat for an amount which was less than Rs.12.65 lacs. Shri Sapru, Raju Aggarwal and Sukhpal Bansal were aware of the aforesaid deal.
He further stated that when the deal was struck with Sh. R. S. Mathur for purchase of the aforesaid flat, subsequently he CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
103was asked to pay the amount / cheque in the name of Sh. Sapru who was the financier as demanded by Sh. Sapru and Sh. Sukhpal Bansal. However, he objected to pay the amount/ cheque in the name of Sh. Sapru/ Sukhpal Bansal since the allotment was in the name of Amit Aggarwal. Sh. Sapru and Raju Aggarwal informed that since the finance had been arranged by Sapru, some amount would have to be paid in the name of Sapru. As such, some amount of cheque was accordingly issued by R.S. Mathur in the name of Shri Sapru and cheques for part payment were also issued by R.S. Mathur in the name of Amit Aggarwal at the time of final payment. Also, some amount was also handed over by way of cash as the consideration price. He further stated that he was a witness to the execution of documents of sale between Amit Aggarwal and Mr. Mathur in respect of aforesaid flat and was paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- by R.S. Mathur as commission for the deal. Further, he identified his signatures on receipt dated 14.10.97 (Ex.PW89/B) vide which commission of 2% was paid with respect to property no. 4A, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli, Delhi.
● He further stated that sale of flat no. C-39A, SFS Flats, Kondli Gharoli, Delhi allotted in the name of Sarla Devi (i.e. file D7) was finalized by him with Shri R.K. Jain for Rs. 12,75,000/- after discussing with Ajay Khurana, property dealer and keys of the flat were handed over by Sarla Devi to R.K. Jain in his presence. Further, out of the advance received by CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
104him from R.K. Jain, he had paid Rs.75,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- to Ajay Khurana, about Rs.2,00,000/- to one Bansal and Mukesh at asking of Ajay Khurana with respect to transaction of aforesaid flat. He further stated that cheque of Rs.7,75,000/- was handed over to Bansal at the time of registration of documents before the Sub-Registrar. Further, during the course of aforesaid transaction, one Shri Gambhir had also come along with Smt. Sarla and he had made an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the said deal as commission as well as investment.
He further stated that he was informed by one Bansal involved in property business that flat no. D34C, Kondli Gharoli, Delhi was available for sale for consideration of Rs. 10,50,000/- and for the purpose of transaction of aforesaid flat, he had paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to one Rathi through his employee Ran Singh. He was approached by one Sidharth Sarkar for purpose of purchase of flat no. D34C and the deal was settled for consideration of about Rs.12 lacs. He further identified his signatures and photograph of Sidharth Sarkar on conveyance deed Ex.PW80/X in respect of aforesaid flat which was executed before the Sub-Registrar office.
He stated that he had handed over various documents to CBI vide production memo dated 10.08.98 (Ex.PW89/A) and identified his signatures on the same.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
105● He further stated that during December 1997, he noticed some discrepancy in respect of documents relating to flat no. D34C, Kondli Gharoli (i.e. flat allotted to Devender Kumar Jain File D11) after execution, as the challan vide which the amount was deposited for purpose of deposit of stamp duty (Ex.PW89/C) was bearing the number "1207" while on the conveyance deed (Ex.PW80/X) it was reflected as "1208". Thereafter, he contacted document writer Praveen Kumar of Seelampur who informed that file relating to challan no. 1207 is pending with the Registrar of Stamps since the stamp duty was not deposited against the same and he also personally verified the said fact from the office of Sub-Registrar, Nand Nagri. Further, on verification from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, he was informed that challan showing payment of deposit of about Rs.9 lacs favouring DDA in respect of payment of aforesaid flat was also fake and no such amount was credited to DDA. He accordingly informed Bansal about the aforesaid discrepancies and also contacted the concerned parties who had participated in the deal, namely, Bansal, Khurana, Juneja, Sapru, Rathi and Mukesh and they all collected at office of DDA, Vikas Sadan where it transpired that the documents were procured from Raju Aggarwal. At the aforesaid time Pankaj Gauba was also seated with Raju Aggarwal and they were assured by Raju Aggarwal that he would look into the matter as he had tuning in DDA. Thereafter, on being questioned as to the authenticity of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
106transactions with respect to other flats by Khurana, Raju Aggarwal handed over blank cheques to Shri Khurana and assured that he would look into the issue and deposit the amount with DDA and thereafter take back the blank cheque. Further, he was also given one blank cheque of Rs.6 lacs in respect of flat no.D34C and assured to deposit the money with DDA and took back the cheque thereafter. He identified signatures of Raju Aggarwal on cheque for Rs.6 lacs (Ex.PW89/D). He further stated that thereafter they contacted Raju Aggarwal on four or five occasions but he failed to respond and did not deposit the amount in respect of the flats transacted through him.
He further stated that in January 1998, Raju Aggarwal had also handed over amount of Rs.1.50 lacs to him in two installments at instance of Bansal in respect of flat no. D34C since he had invested the amount in transaction towards aforesaid flat.
He further stated that Raju Aggarwal had not deposited the amount in DDA towards flat no. C4A and C39A, Kondli Gharoli and neither any amount was paid to him.
➢ (90) PW-90 Sh. Sudhakar Pakhiddey, retired as Assistant from DDA PW90 Sudhakar Pakiddey is a witness to production memo dated 11.11.98 (Ex.PW120/U) D362 whereby documents (D271 to CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
107D274) were seized from Anita Pakiddey.
He is further witness to specimen handwriting/signatures of Anita Pakiddey D324 mark S15 to S17 (Ex.PW119/A95 to A97).
➢ (91) PW-91 Sh. Ram Kumar, LDC.
PW91 Ram Kumar posted as LDC in August, 1998 as Reader to SDM Preet Vihar proved seizure memo (Ex.PW91/A) bearing his signatures vide which he had handed over certain files to CBI.
He further stated that the Treasury challan of Rs.74,764/- Ex.PW91/B deposited at Tis Hazari Courts contained in file Ex.PW91/C in respect of allottee Ms. Meera of flat no. D-47D, Kondli Gharoli bearing the detail endorsement in CD / treasury challan at Sr. No.1256 was prepared by the then dealing Assistant Mr. Mahinder Singh. Further, application for conversion of lease hold into free hold (Ex.PW31/K) contains certification regarding payment of CD amount.
He further stated that Treasury challan of Rs.73,324/- Ex.PW91/D deposited at Tis Hazari Courts contained in file Ex.PW91/F in respect of Smt. Sarla Devi (allottee of flat no. C-39A, Kondli Gharoli) bearing the detail endorsement in CD / treasury challan at Sr. No.1176 was prepared and signed by the then dealing Assistant Mr. Mahinder Singh.
He further stated that file Ex.PW91/L in respect of Amit Aggarwal allottee of flat no. C4A Kondli Gharoli contains CD amount challan of Rs.73324/- was deposited in Treasury, Tis Hazari Courts. The detailed endorsement in CD / treasury challan at Sr. No. 1205 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
108Ex.PW91/G was prepared by dealing assistant Mahinder Singh. Further, the application for conversion from lease hold to free hold Ex.PW91/H contained certification regarding payment of CD amount.
He further proved the application for conversion of lease hold property into free hold in respect of flat no. 34C allotted to Devender Kumar Jain (Ex.PW91/K), conveyance deed (Ex.PW91/L) in file D306 along with signatures of attesting authority on verification of challan (Ex.PW91/L1), conveyance deed (Ex.PW91/M) in file D308 along with signatures of attesting authority on verification of challan (Ex.PW91/M1), conveyance deed (Ex.PW91/N) in file D309 along with signatures of attesting authority on verification of challan (Ex.PW91/N1), conveyance deed (Ex.PW91/O) in file D310 along with signatures of attesting authority on verification of challan (Ex.PW91/O1), conveyance deed (Ex.PW91/P) in file D312, conveyance deed (Ex.PW91/Q) in file D311 along with signatures of attesting authority on verification of challan (Ex.PW91/Q1), conveyance deed (Ex.PW91/R) in file D307 along with signatures of attesting authority on verification of challan (Ex.PW91/R1).
He further proved seizure memo Ex.PW91/S vide which documents were handed over to CBI bearing signatures of Shri Ranjit Singh, LDC in the office of SDM.
➢ (92) PW-92 Sh. Laxmi Narayan.
PW92 Laxmi Narayan Meena is the allottee of flat no. 21D, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli. He stated that he came to Delhi during CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
1091996 and stayed with his brother Madan Lal at Meethapur. Further, he had applied for a DDA flat at instance of his brother and identified his signatures/photograph on application no. 108322 (Ex.PW72/A) for the allotment of flat before DDA and caste certificate enclosed therewith as Mark PW92/A. He further identified his signatures on application for extension of time made to DDA (Ex.PW72/B), Special Power of Attorney dated 12.10.97 (Ex.PW72/D), specimen signature bearing his photograph (Ex.PW72/E), affidavit running in two pages (Ex.PW72/G), undertaking dated 21.10.97 (Ex.PW72/H), letter written by him to Dy. Director SFS DDA Vikas Sadan (Ex.PW25/G) vide which he had submitted documents for issuing possession letter.
He further stated that he knew Shyam Lal who was neighbour of his brother Madan Lal and was working in DDA. Further, he had once visited the office of DDA along with Shyam Lal and also the form for allotment of DDA flat (Ex.PW72/A) was filled in by Shyam Lal & signed by him. He stated that the amount to be deposited along with the form was paid by Shyam Lal.
➢ (93) PW-93 Shri Janardan Prasad Sharma, Executive Engineer PW93 Janardan Prasad Sharma is the husband of allottee Smt. Vijay Laxmi of flat no. 30A Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli. He stated that Smt. Vijay Laxmi LIG flat no.203/F Pocket 1, Mayur Vihar-I was purchased in the name of his wife in the year 1995. He further stated that the said flat was disposed of to one Ms. Padmanabham in October, 1997 through Shri Ajay Khurana.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
110Thereafter, flat no. 30A, Ground Floor, Pocket B Kondli Gharoli, Mayur Vihar Phase-III was purchased in the name of his wife Vijay Laxmi through Ajay Khurana against adjusting the amount of sale of aforesaid LIG flat and remaining amount was paid to Ajay Khurana and on 18.12.97, physical possession of the said flat was taken by them on execution of certain documents at Kashmeri Gate Registrar Office.
He identified signatures of his wife Vijay Laxmi on SPA (Ex.PW28/B) and also the photograph and signatures of his wife on Ex.PW93/A. He also stated that the possession letter dated 5.11.97 (Ex.PW9/B3) was shown to him by Mr. Ajay Khurana reflecting the name of his wife as allottee/ attorney.
He further stated that, thereafter, in January 1998 he came to know about some problem in the allotment of the said flat and contacted Ajay Khurana who did not disclose anything. Further, on 21.01.98, he received cancellation letter of the said flat (Ex.PW47/E) and, thereafter, on 29.01.98 the said flat was handed over back to DDA authorities vide Ex.PW47/D and C bearing signatures of his wife Vijay Laxmi. He identified cheque (Ex.PW93/B) which was given to him by Ajay Khurana and stated that he had not presented the same with bank for encashment and during the course of investigation, handed over the same to CBI official vide seizure memo Ex.PW93/C. He also identified his signatures on the cheque of Rs.5 lacs and challan form (Ex.PW93/D).
➢ (94) PW-94 Shri Rakesh Mahajan.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
111PW94 Rakesh Mahajan stated that he had been running Estate Agency in the name and style M/s Unique Estate Agency in Kondli Gharoli since 1995 and in 1997 one Rajender Singh approached him in response to an advertisement for purchase of flat in Ghazipur Area. Thereafter, he contacted Raju Aggarwal who offered a flat in Ghazipur area and demanded Rs.1.50 lacs premium and Shri Rajender Singh finally agreed to pay premium of Rs.1.50 lacs apart from the cost of flat. Further, certain documents were executed at the office of DDA for purpose of sale of said flat.
He further identified his signatures on GPA along with SPA bearing stamp dated 28.04.97 executed by Sunil Sabarwal in favour of Mehar Singh; Will dated 28.04.97; Revocation of GPA; Revocation of SPA; Cancellation of Will (collectively Ex.PW65/D) and stated that the payment was handed over to the person who was sent by Raju Aggarwal in shape of DD as well as cash.
He further stated that in November, 1997 Rajender Singh again contacted him for refund of money paid against the said flat and he in turn contacted Raju Aggarwal who gave some amount to Rajender Singh. Thereafter, Rajender Singh informed him that he had got all his paid amount from Raju Aggarwal.
➢ (95) PW-95 Shri Kumar Anand, retired as Special Secretary, Vigilance Department, Govt. of Bihar.
PW95 Kumar Anand was posted as OSD (Housing) around July 1997 and stated 9th SFS Scheme of DDA was launched prior to his joining. He further stated that files were dealt in his Section CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
112relating to extension of time whereby the request was made by depositors for depositing the requisite amount. The delay in depositing the amount upto one month could be condoned by Joint Director, upto 3 months by Director, for a period beyond 3 months to 9 months by Commissioner (Housing). Above this period by Principal Commissioner/Vice Chairman, DDA and above 1½ years by Hon'ble LG. In the aforesaid context, signatures and notings on the respective files whereby the delay in depositing the amount was condoned or may have been processed.
He further stated that as per office guidelines, certain pre requisites were to be fulfilled before the possession letters were issued. The applicant was required to make full payment of the amount demanded by DDA. The same was also required to be verified by Accounts Department and NOC was issued by the Accounts Department. Also, the identity of the applicant was required to be verified to ensure the genuineness of the allottee. At aforesaid time, the possession letter was thereafter posted through post. A copy of the possession letter was also forwarded to Accounts Department and the concerned Engineer who was to handover the possession at site.
➢ (96) PW-96 Shri Dharamvir Choudhary PW96 Dharamvir Choudhary stated that Arun Kumar Mudgil was dealing in business of sale and purchase of property in the area of Kondli Gharoli and having office at SFS Flats, Kondli Gharoli but he was not aware of any deal for sale and purchase regarding D-55, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
113Kondli Gharoli. Further, he denied having known any person/property dealer by the name of Mahesh Choudhary or Raju Aggarwal.
This witness was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI as he resiled form his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
➢ (97) PW-97 Shri Surender Kumar, retired Deputy Director, DDA (Lands).
PW97 Surender Kumar stated that he was posted as Assistant in MIG Section of DDA at Vikas Sadan from January 1995 to October 1997 and was dealing with MIG flat pertaining to sector 23, 24 Rohini, Jhilmil, Jahangir Puri and other areas. He denied having known Gurnam and further stated that area of Kondli Gharoli was also dealt in the department but he did not recollect the name of the official who was dealing with the same. He also denied having known any person by the name of Raju Aggarwal.
This witness was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI as he resiled from his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
➢ (98) PW-98 Shri Daya Chand, Game Attendant, DDA Sports Complex, Tahirpur.
PW98 Daya Chand who was posted as Peon in SFS Section, DDA Vikas Sadan in 1998 and had also performed the duties as a Dispatcher for about a period of 3 years in SFS Section.
He stated that as per directions of higher officers, possession letter was either dispatched by post or handed over in person if the allottee was present and the entry of dispatch was recorded in peon CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
114book and dispatch register. He proved the dispatch of the possession letter in the respective files as per the dispatch number reflected on the possession letter and the corresponding entry in the dispatch register which had been made by Ram Kishan, Dispatch Peon who had been working prior to him.
He accordingly proved entries in the Dispatch Register in the handwriting of Ram Kishan, Dispatch Peon.
● Dispatch no. 1239 on possession letter dated 17.10.97 in file Ex.PW9/A (D1) and its corresponding entry in Dispatch Register Ex.PW99/B at serial no. 239 dated 17.10.97. ● Dispatch no. 267 on possession letter dated 05.11.97 in file Ex.PW9/B (D2) and its corresponding entry in Dispatch Register Ex.PW99/B at serial no. 267 dated 05.11.97. ● Dispatch no. 280 on possession letter dated 11.11.97 in file Ex.PW9/C (D3) and its corresponding entry in Dispatch Register Ex.PW99/B at serial no. 280 dated 11.11.97. ● Dispatch no. 262 on possession letter dated 03.11.97 in file Ex.PW9/D (D4) and its corresponding entry on dispatch register Ex.PW99/B at serial no. 262 dated 03.11.97. ● Dispatch no. 276 on possession letter dated 10.11.97 in file Ex.PW9/E (D5) and its corresponding entry on dispatch register Ex.PW99/B at serial no. 276 dated 10.11.97. ● Dispatch no. 263 on possession letter dated 03.11.97 in file Ex.PW9/F (D6) and its corresponding entry on dispatch register Ex.PW99/B at serial no. 263 dated 03.11.97. ● Dispatch no. 201 on possession letter dated 01.10.97 in file CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
115Ex.PW9/G (D7) and its corresponding entry on dispatch register Ex.PW99/B at serial no. 201 dated 01.10.97. ● Dispatch no. 326 on possession letter dated 15.12.97 in file Ex.PW9/H (D8) and its corresponding entry on dispatch register Ex.PW99/B at serial no. 326 dated 15.12.97. ● Dispatch no. 136 on possession letter dated 11.09.97 in file Ex.PW9/I (D9) and its corresponding entry on dispatch register Ex.PW99/B at serial no. 136 dated 11.09.97. ● Dispatch no. 264 on possession letter dated 03.11.97 in file Ex.PW9/J1 (D10) and its corresponding entry on dispatch register Ex.PW99/B at serial no. 264 dated 03.11.97. ● Dispatch no. 279 on possession letter dated 11.11.97 in file Ex.PW9/K (D11) and its corresponding entry on dispatch register Ex.PW99/B at serial no. 279 dated 11.11.97. ● Dispatch no. 191 on possession letter dated 29.09.97 in file Ex.PW9/L (D12) and its corresponding entry on dispatch register Ex.PW99/B at serial no. 191 dated 29.09.97.
He further proved handwriting of Ram Kishan on entry at point A and B dated 30.09.97 and entries at serial no. 1,2,3 & 4 on page no. 2 & 3 of respective files in the Peon Book (Ex.PW39/A) along with entries at point X on page no. 11 in the Peon Book Volume II (Ex.PW99/C). He further proved entries in the Movement Register at point X on 14.10.97, entry at point Y dated 05.11.97, point Z dated 05.11.97, point Z1 dated 10.11.97, point Z2 dated 11.11.97, entry at point Y dated 05.11.97 in the handwriting of Ram Kishan.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
116➢ (99) PW-99 Shri S.C. Chugh, retired from DDA as Assistant Director.
PW99 S.C. Chugh stated that he was posted as Assistant Director in SFS Section and certain documents were handed over to CBI vide seizure memo dated 13.11.98 (Ex.PW99/A).
He further identified his signatures on the relevant pages of Dispatch Register (Ex.PW99/B) and two Peon Books (Ex.PW39/A & Ex.PW99/C).
He further identified signatures of Shri S.N. Singhal on :
● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/A3) and Check list (Ex.PW/A2) contained in the file in respect of flat no. 43C, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Sunder Lal (Ex.PW63/A & Ex.PW9/A). ● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/B3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/B2) contained in the file in respect of flat no. 30A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Surender Kumar (Ex.PW9/B & Ex.PW63/B).
● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/C3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/C2) contained in the file in respect of flat no. 43D, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Ram Dev (Ex.PW9/C). ● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/D3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/D2) contained in the file in respect of flat no. 21D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Laxmi Narayan Meena (Ex.PW9/D).
● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/E3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/E2) contained in the file in respect of flat no. 55D, Pocket B, Kondli CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.117
Gharoli in the name of Ritu Gupta (Ex.PW9/E). ● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/F3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/F2) contained in the file in respect of flat no. 38A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Kishan Lal (Ex.PW9/F). ● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/H3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/H2) contained in the file in respect of flat no. 31A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Anita (Ex.PW9/H).
● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/i3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/i2) contained in the file in respect of flat no. 47D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Meera (Ex.PW9/i). ● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/J3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/J2) contained in the file in respect of flat no. 50D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Amar Singh (Ex.PW9/J1). ● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/K4 and Check list (Ex.PW9/K3) contained in the file in respect of flat no. 34C, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli in the name of D.K. Jain (Ex.PW9/K). ● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/L3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/L2) contained in the file in respect of flat no. 4A, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Amit Aggarwal (Ex.PW9/L).
He also identified signatures of Shri D.P. Shokeen on possession letter (Ex.PW9/G3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/G2) contained in the file in respect of flat no. 39A, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Sarla Devi (Ex.PW9/G).
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.118
➢ (100) PW-100 Shri K.C. Saxena, retired Joint Director, DDA PW100 K.C. Saxena remained posted in SFS Section, DDA Vikas Sadan during the year 1996 & 1997 and retired in October, 1997. He stated that Shri S.N. Singhal, Assistant Director, SFS Section (examined as PW9 in this case) was working under him at the aforesaid time. He further deposed as to receiving of applications, scrutiny of applications and computerized draw under 9th SFS scheme for allotment of flats floated by DDA.
He further stated that as per draw, further steps were taken for processing in the office of DDA and letters were issued to the successful applicants by the Accounts Branch but possession letters in respect of some of the flats were postponed since the necessary services were not available and the same were to be issued by the Assistant Director being the competent authority, subject to deposit of payment including penalty and restoration charges and completion of necessary formalities. Further, the flats situated at Kondli Gharoli area were yet to be provided with necessary services and the allottees were informed accordingly to deposit payment including interest, cancellation charges, restoration charges etc. He further stated that delay in depositing the amount upto one month could be condoned at the level of Joint Director and upto three months the delay could be condoned by the Director. He further clarified that in the cases of condonation, a part payment was already made by allottee and the condonation was made for depositing the balance amount, as per rules.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.119
He further identified his signatures and various notings whereby the delay in depositing the amount was condoned or processed in the office in respect of different flats in the following files:
● D4 relating to flat no. 21D, pocket D, Kondli Gharoli allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena (Ex.PW9/D colly) containing letter submitted by the allottee Laxmi Narayan Meena (Ex.PW72/C) and his approval dated 12.09.97 at point D on Ex.PW9/D5 along with signatures of Shri S.N. Singhal at point C. ● D10 relating to flat no. 50D, pocket D, Kondli Gharoli allotted to Amar Singh (Ex.PW9/J1 colly) containing letter submitted by the allottee Amar Singh (Ex.PW95/A) which was processed in the department bearing signatures of various officials. He further stated that the proposal was signed by him vide signatures dated 16.09.97 at point D (Ex.PW95/B) which was further approved by the Director as per signatures at point C. ● D5 relating to flat no. 55D, pocket B, Kondli Gharoli allotted to Ms. Ritu Gupta (Ex.PW9/E colly) containing letter submitted by the allottee Ritu Gupta Ex.PW95/C which was processed in the department bearing signatures of various officials. He further stated that the proposal was signed by him vide signatures dated 16.09.97 at point D which was approved by Director vide signatures dated 19.09.97 at point C (Ex.PW95/D).
● D8 relating to flat no. 31A, pocket B, Kondli Gharoli allotted to Ms. Anita (Ex.PW9/H colly) containing letter submitted by the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.120
allottee Anita (Ex.PW90/B) which was processed in the department bearing signatures of various officials. He further stated that the proposal was signed by him vide signatures dated 25.09.97 at point D and the extension was granted by the Director as per signatures dated 29.09.97 at point C (Ex.PW95/E).
● D11 relating to flat no. 34C, pocket D, Kondli Gharoli allotted to Devender Kumar Jain (Ex.PW9/K colly) containing letter submitted by the allottee Devender Kumar Jain (Ex.PW20/C) which was processed in the department bearing signatures of various officials. He further stated that the file was considered by him as per signatures at point D and recommended that request for extension of time may be rejected.
He further identified signatures of Shri S.N. Singhal on possession letter issued in the respective files as follows: ● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/A3) and Check list (Ex.PW/A2) contained in the file (Ex.PW63/A & Ex.PW9/A) in respect of flat no. 43C, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Sunder Lal.
● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/B3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/B2) contained in the file (Ex.PW9/B & Ex.PW63/B) in respect of flat no. 30A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Surender Kumar.
● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/C3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/C2) contained in the file (Ex.PW9/C) in respect of flat no. 43D, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.121
Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Ram Dev. ● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/D3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/D2) contained in the file (Ex.PW9/D) in respect of flat no. 21D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Laxmi Narayan Meena.
● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/E3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/E2) contained in the file (Ex.PW9/E) in respect of flat no. 55D, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Ritu Gupta. ● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/F3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/F2) contained in the file (Ex.PW9/F) in respect of flat no. 38A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Kishan Lal. ● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/H3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/H2) contained in the file (Ex.PW9/H) in respect of flat no. 31A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Anita.
● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/i3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/i2) contained in the file (Ex.PW9/i) in respect of flat no. 47D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Meera.
● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/J3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/J2) contained in the file (Ex.PW9/J1) in respect of flat no. 50D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Amar Singh. ● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/K4) and Check list (Ex.PW9/K3) contained in the file (Ex.PW9/K) in respect of flat no. 34C, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli in the name of D.K. Jain. ● Possession letter (Ex.PW9/L3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/L2) contained in the file (Ex.PW9/L) in respect of flat no. 4A, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Amit Aggarwal.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.122
However, he could not identify signatures on Possession letter (Ex.PW9/G3) and Check list (Ex.PW9/G2) contained in the file (Ex.PW9/G) in respect of flat no. 39A, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli in the name of Sarla Devi.
➢ (101) PW-101 Shri Raj Kumar.
PW101 Raj Kumar had opened an account in the name of Sunder Lal at Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan at behest of Raju Aggarwal which was used for purpose of carrying out transactions for sale of flats including C43-C, Kondli Gharoli.
He stated that he came to Delhi in 1987 and was working with his brother Parmeshwar Yadav at his tea shop in DDA Market, Sector-6, R.K. Puram. Further, he knew Raju Aggarwal, dealing in sale purchase of properties and running a shop as Property Dealer in R.K. Puram market. Further, he had worked on the catering van belonging to Raju Aggarwal, parked near DDA office, and also in other business activities as directed by Raju Aggarwal and was used to be paid a monthly salary of Rs.1,000/-. He stated that he knew Chamra Khajur @ Pappi who used to carry the job of repairing the punctured tyres in the same market and also used to drive the vehicle for Raju Aggarwal as and when required.
He further stated that he was asked by Raju Aggarwal to bring his four photographs in the presence of Pankaj and Manish and had also signed as Sunder Lal on an account opening form at the instance CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.123
of Raju Aggarwal. He identified his signatures/photograph on the account opening form (Ex.PW50/A) and also identified signatures of Chamra Khajur as introducer on Ex.PW50/A. He stated that he was accompanied by Manish and Pankaj to the Union Bank at Anand Niketan for purpose of signing the account opening form and the form was handed over to the concerned Manager of the bank. Further, an amount of Rs.4,000/- which was given by Raju Aggarwal was deposited along with the form vide pay-in-slip (Ex.PW50/B) bearing his signatures. A cheque book was received by Raju Aggarwal but he had signed the cheques and identified cheque book (Ex.PW69/B1) on which he had placed his signatures on the blank cheques on the instructions of Raju Aggarwal and proved tcheques bearing his signatures as Ex.PW68/1 to Ex.PW68/11.
He further identified his signatures on cheques (Ex.PW50/E to G) pertaining to account no. 5673 as Sunder Lal on each cheque and stated that the amount was withdrawn vide aforesaid three cheques but did not know as to who had withdrawn the same.
He also proved his specimen signatures voluntarily given to CBI in presence of witnesses as Ex.PW101/A1 to A4.
➢ (102) PW-102 Shri Om Prakash, Welfare Officer at DDA, Vikas Sadan, Delhi.
PW102 Om Prakash was posted in 1997 in the Accounts Branch as UDC. He identified the signatures of the concerned officials on various notings/documents in the respective files D1 to D12 which had been dealt in HAU-IX Section of the Accounts Branch CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
124pertaining to Kondli Gharoli.
➢ (103) PW-103 Shri Bijender Singh, UDC in DDA in the Personal Section of Principal Commissioner.
PW103 Bijender Singh was working in N&C Housing Branch and looking after the work relating to dispatch of dak of SFS Branch and had handed over to CBI Dispatch Register (Ex.PW103/B) and Peon Book (Ex.PW103/C) vide seizure memo (Ex.PW103/A). He stated that Ram Kishan from SFS used to deliver dak against signatures of PW103 and further proved entries on various dates in the Dispatch Register.
He stated that as per Dispatch Register, on 20.10.1997 he was handling dispatch work and a letter was received by him from Ram Kishan. Further, the same was returned back to Ram Kishan as he had told him that the party will be approaching him after lunch and he will be delivering the letter directly to the party. He proved entry in this respect made in the Dispatch Register at serial no. 14 which was later on cut by him against the acknowledgment of Ram Kishan at point X on 20.10.1997 and entry of letter and returning the same was available at point A in the register.
Further, as per dispatch register, on 06.11.97 he was handling dispatch work and a letter was received by him from Ram Kishan. Further, the same was returned back to Ram Kishan as he had told him that the party will be approaching him after lunch and he will be delivering the letter directly to the party. He proved entry in this respect made in the dispatch register at serial no. 87 which was later CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
125on cut by him against the acknowledgment of Ram Kishan at point X on 06.11.1997 and entry of letter and returning the same was available at point B in the register.
He stated that only Ram Kishan had come to him and asked to return the letters.
Further, he had received copy of possession letter meant for site office in respect of file no.160(31)/97/KL.III/326 dated 15.12.1997, file no.160(223)/97/KL/III/276 dated 10.11.1997 and file no.160(411)/97/SFS/KL/280 dated 12.11.1997 and the same were dispatched by him, entries of which were available on page 45 at point A , page 119 at point B and page 44 at point C (in the Peon Book (Ex.PW103/C).
He further stated that during the course of his duties, he only dealt with five letters and letter no. 160(363)/97/KL-III/239 dated 17.10.1997 and letter no. 160(30)/97/KL-III/267 dated 05.11.1997 were received by him from Ram Kishan. Further, entries in this respect were done in dak register of SFS section (Ex.PW99/B) which was available at page no. 290 against his signatures as acknowledgment of possession letter at point A and on page no. 292 on entry at point Y against his initials at point B. He further deposed that both the possession letters were taken back by Ram Kishan, entries of which were cut down in the dispatch register which he used to maintain during the course of his duties.
➢ (104) PW-104 Mohd. Zafaruddin / Chamra Kujur.
Prosecution has relied upon statement of PW104 Chamra Kujur CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
126@ Mohd. Zafaruddin. It may be pointed out that the witness stated his name as Chamra Kujur s/o Shri Barua Kujur in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. but on the appearance in the court clarified and deposed his name as Mohd. Zafaruddin s/o Chotte Khan.
He stated that earlier he was running a puncture shop at the petrol pump of Bharat Petroleum located near DTC Bus Depot, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and knew Raju Aggarwal who used to visit his shop for tyre repair purposes. He opened tyre shop in the market of Sector 6, Vasant Palace at the instance of Raju Aggarwal and was also doing jobs of clearing, serving tea etc. in the shop of Raju Aggarwal.
He further stated that he had opened an account at the instance of Raju Aggarwal in Union Bank, near Moti Bagh. He proved his signatures at point A and his photograph at point B on the account opening form (Ex.PW104/A1) which was opened in the name of Chamra Kujur for which he had visited the bank with one person who was running a shop in the name of Sai Video at Moti Bagh.
He also proved his signatures at point A on letter dated 12.02.98 addressed to Bank Manager, Union Bank of India, Branch Anand Niketan (Ex.PW104/B1) whereby he had informed the change of his shop address.
He also identified his signatures as introducer at point D on account opening form of Shri Sunder Lal (Ex.PW50/A) which was signed by him at the request of Raju Aggarwal. He also identified the photograph of Sunder Lal who was known in the market by the name of Raj Kumar on account opening form. He also identified his specimen signatures on the sheet Ex.PW104/C at point A. CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
127➢ (105) PW-105 Shri Virender Singh Kadyan, Senior Law Officer, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
PW105 Virender Singh Kadyan stated that from 1996 to 1999, he was posted as Junior Law Officer in DDA Housing Department and knew Shri D.R. Srivastava, the then Legal Assistant, DDA and Shri M.R. Sharma, the then Legal Assistant, DDA who were posted in Housing Department of DDA with him. Further, at the aforesaid time, Shri D.R. Srivastava was looking after SFS branch.
Further, the files relating to housing purchase were marked to him by the concerned Assistant Director for vetting of the Special Power of Attorney and other legal documents for handing over physical possession and execution of conveyance deed papers.
He stated that he knew accused Gurnam who was working in the SFS Section of Housing Department during the relevant period and used to send the files to the then Assistant Director. Further, Shri D.P. Shokeen, Shri Pritam Singh, one Shri Singhal were working as Assistant Director. Further, he used to mark the files for vetting to Shri D.R. Srivastava, Legal Assistant and, thereafter, used to re- examine the documents and countersign the same. He stated that no conveyance deed was executed on the basis of Special Power of Attorney but the possession was handed over on the basis of SPA in respect of file relating to flat no. D-50D Kondli Gharoli allotted to Amar Singh, B-30A Kondli Gharoli allotted to Surender Kumar, B-38A Kondli Gharoli allotted to Kishan Lal, D-21D Kondli Gharoli allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena, C-43C Kondli Gharoli allotted to CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
128Sunder Lal, D-34C Kondli Gharoli allotted to Devender Kumar Jain, C-39A Kondli Gharoli allotted to Sarla Devi, D-47D Kondli Gharoli allotted to Kumari Meera but the possession was handed over on the basis of SPA. Further, as per practice, the files should have been sent to Legal Branch for scrutiny of SPA as well as papers related to conveyance deed but the file Ex.PW9/J1, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/F, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/K, Ex.PW9/G and Ex.PW9/I were never dealt in his Section for the same purpose.
➢ (106) PW-106 Shri Bhim Singh Sharma, retired as Postmaster from Postal Department.
PW106 Shri Bhim Singh Sharma deposed that in 1991, he was allotted quarter no. 561, Sector -6, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-22 where he stayed from 1991 to 2002. Further, he knew Raju Aggarwal, who was having a property dealer shop in Vasant Place Market and on his recommendation, he had given a room to a lady for stay along with her children in 1998 as Raju Aggarwal disclosed her to be his bhabhi. However, later on, he came to know that the aforesaid lady was a mohammadan and was wrongly disclosed as bhabi of Aggarwal belonging to baniya community. Also, Raju Aggarwal visited the said lady.
➢ (107) PW-107 Shri K.R. Dixit, Assistant in DDA, LSB (Rohini), Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
PW107 K.R. Dixit was posted as UDC in Housing Accounts Branch-IX proved the notings in the handwriting of Gurdas, V.P. CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
129Anand and S.K. Kaushik in the relevant files D1 to D12 along with other relevant documents.
He stated that Shri V.P. Anand, was the Accounts Officer, Shri G.B. Sharma was the then AAO, Shri Gurdas was UDC & Shri S.K. Kaushik was the AAO with whom he had worked from January, 1996 to August, 1996 and Shri Gurnam was working in the Management Branch of DDA at the aforesaid time. Further, he had seen Shri Gurdas, Shri S.K. Kaushik, AAO-5 and Shri V.P. Anand signing and writing and had also received files in official course of duties.
He identified signatures of Shri V.P. Anand at point A on NOC on page no. 3 (Ex.PW9/C1) in respect of Flat No.C-43D, Third Floor in the name of Ram Dev contained in file D-3 (Ex.PW9/C) and stated that the same was prepared by Shri Gurdas under his signatures at point B. He further proved noting made on page no.2 on the aforesaid file whereby transfer entry had been made by AAO-5 at point X1. He further stated that the file was initially processed as per noting on page no.2 at point X through Mr. Gurdas under his signatures at point C and, thereafter, the same was put up before Shri S.K. Kaushik who had signed at point D and then the file was marked to AAO-5 whose signatures appear at point X1. Further, the file was finally put up before Mr. V.P. Anand whose signatures he identified at point E. He also identified signatures of Shri V.P. Anand at point A on NOC on page no. 3 (Ex.PW9/B1) in respect of Flat No.B-30A, Ground Floor in the name of Surinder Kumar contained in the file D-2 (Ex.PW9/B) and stated that the same was prepared by Shri Gurdas CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
130under his signatures at point B. He further proved noting made on page no.2 on the aforesaid file whereby transfer entry had been made by AAO-5 at point X1. He further stated that the file was initially processed as per noting on page no.2 at point X initially through Mr. Gurdas under his signatures at point C and, thereafter, the same was put up before Shri S.K. Kaushik who had signed at point D and then the file was marked to AAO-5 whose signatures appear at point X1. Further, the file was finally put up before Mr. V.P.Anand whose signatures he identified at point A. He further identified signatures of V.P. Anand at point A on NOC on page no. 4 (Ex.PW9/K2) in respect of Flat No.B-34C, Second Floor in the name of Devinder Kumar Jain contained in file D-11 (Ex.PW9/K) and stated that the same was prepared by Shri Gurdas under his signatures at point B. Further, he proved noting made on page no.3 on the aforesaid file whereby transfer entry had been made by AAO-5 at point X1. He further stated that the file was initially processed as per noting on page no.2 at point X initially through Mr. Gurdas under his signatures at point C and, thereafter, the same was put up before Shri S.K. Kaushik who had signed at point D and then the file was marked to AAO-5 whose signatures appear at point X1. Further, the file was finally put up before Mr. V.P.Anand whose signatures he identified at point C. He also identified signatures of Shri V.P. Anand at point A on NOC on page no. 3 (Ex.PW9/G1) in respect of Flat No.C-39A, Ground Floor in the name of Sarla Devi contained in file D-7 (Ex.PW9/G) and stated that the same was prepared by Shri Gurdas CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
131under his signatures at point B. He also proved the noting made on page no.2 on the aforesaid file whereby transfer entry had been made by AAO-5 at point X1. He further stated that the file was initially processed as per noting on page no.2 at point C initially through Mr. Gurdas under his signatures at point C1 and, thereafter,, the same was put up before Shri S.K. Kaushik who had signed at point D and then the file was marked to AAO-5 whose signatures appear at point X1. Further, the file was finally put up before Mr. V.P. Anand whose signatures he identified at point E. Further, he identified signatures of Shri S.K. Kaushik at point A on NOC on page no. 3 (Ex.PW9/E1) in respect of Flat No.55D in the name of Ritu Gupta contained in file (Ex.PW9/E) and stated that the same was prepared by Shri Gurdas under his signatures at point B. He proved noting made on page no.3 on the aforesaid file whereby transfer entry had been made by AAO-5 at point X1. He further stated that the file was initially processed as per noting on page no.3 at point X through Mr. Gurdas under his signatures at point C1 and, thereafter, the same was put up before Shri S.K. Kaushik who had signed at point D1 and then the file was marked to AAO-5 whose signatures appear at point X1. Further, the file was finally put up before Mr. V.P. Anand whose signatures are at point C. He also identified signatures of Shri S.K. Kaushik at point A on NOC on page no. 4 (Ex.PW9/D1) in respect of Flat No.D21D in the name of Laxmi Narayan Meena contained in file D-4 (Ex.PW9/D) and stated that the same was prepared by Shri Gurdas under his signatures at point B. He proved noting made on page no.3 on the aforesaid file CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
132whereby transfer entry had been made by AAO-5 at point X1. He further stated that the file was initially processed as per noting on page no.3 at point X through Mr. Gurdas under his signatures at point C1 and, thereafter, the same was put up before Shri S.K. Kaushik who had signed at point D and then the file was marked to AAO-5 whose signatures appear at point X1. Further, the file was finally put up before Mr. V.P. Anand whose signatures he identified at point C. He further identified signatures of Shri S.K. Kaushik at point A on NOC on page no. 3 (Ex.PW9/A1) in respect of Flat No.C43 in the name of Sunder Lal contained in file D-1 (Ex.PW9/A) and stated that the same was prepared by Shri Gurdas whose signatures are at point B. Further, he proved the noting made on page no.2 on the aforesaid file whereby transfer entry had been made by AAO-5 at point X1. He further stated that the file was initially processed as per noting on page no.2 at point X through Mr. Gurdas under his signatures at point C1 and, thereafter, the same was put up before Shri S.K. Kaushik who had signed at point D and then the file was marked to AAO-5 whose signatures appear at point X1. Further, the file was finally put up before Mr. V.P. Anand whose signatures he identified at point A. He also identified signatures of Shri S.K. Kaushik at point A on NOC on page no. 3 (Ex.PW9/L1) respect of Flat No.E4A in the name of Amit Aggarwal contained in file (Ex.PW9/L) and stated that the same was prepared by Shri Gurdas under his signatures at point B. He proved the noting made on page no.2 on the aforesaid file whereby transfer entry had been made by AAO-5 at point X1. He stated that the file was initially processed as per noting on page no.2 at point X CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
133through Mr. Gurdas under his signatures at point C1 and, thereafter, the same was put up before Shri S.K. Kaushik who had signed at point D1 and then the file was marked to AAO-5 whose signatures appear at point X1. Finally the file was put up before Mr. V.P. Anand whose signatures he identified at point C. He further identified signatures of Shri S.K. Kaushik at point A on NOC on page no. 4 in respect of Flat No.D50D allotted in the name of Amar Singh contained in D-10 (Ex.PW9/J1) and stated that the same was prepared by Shri Gurdas under his signatures at point B. He proved the noting made on page no.3 on the aforesaid file whereby transfer entry had been made by AAO-5 at point X1. He stated that the file was initially processed as per noting on page no.3 at point X through Mr. Gurdas under his signatures at point C1 and, thereafter, the same was put up before Shri S.K. Kaushik who had signed at point D1 and then the file was marked to AAO-5 whose signatures appear at point X1. Finally the file was put up before Mr. V.P. Anand whose signatures he identified at point C. He further identified signatures of Shri S.K. Kaushik at point A on NOC on page no. 3 (Ex.PW9/I1) in respect of Flat No.D47D allotted in the name of Meera contained in file D-9 (Ex.PW9/I) and stated that the same was prepared by Shri Gurdas under his signatures at point B. He proved the noting made on page no.2 on the aforesaid file whereby transfer entry had been made by AAO-5 at point X1. He stated that the file was initially processed as per noting on page no.2 at point X through Mr. Gurdas under his signatures at point C1 and. Thereafter, the same was put up before Shri S.K. Kaushik who had CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
134signed at point D1 and then the file was marked to AAO-5 whose signatures appear at point X1. Finally the file was put up before Mr. V.P. Anand whose signatures he identified at point C. He also identified signatures of Shri S.K. Kaushik at point A on NOC on page no. 5 (Ex.PW9/H1) in respect of Flat No.B31A allotted in the name of Anita contained in file D-8 (Ex.PW9/H) and stated that the same was prepared by Shri Gurdas under his signatures at point B. He proved the noting made on page no.4 on the aforesaid file whereby transfer entry had been made by AAO-5 at point X1. He stated that the file was initially processed as per noting on page no.4 at point X through Mr. Gurdas under his signatures at point C1 and, thereafter, the same was put up before Shri S.K. Kaushik who had signed at point D and then the file was marked to AAO-5 whose signatures appear at point X1. Finally the file was put up before Mr. V.P. Anand whose signatures he identified at point C. He further identified signatures of Shri S.K. Kaushik at point A on NOC on page no. 3 (Ex.PW9/F1) in respect of Flat No.B38A allotted in the name of Kishan Lal contained in file D-6 (Ex.PW9/F) and stated that the same was prepared by Gurdas under his signatures at point B. He proved the noting made on page no.2 on the aforesaid file whereby transfer entry had been made by AAO-5 at point X2. He stated that the file was initially processed as per noting on page no.2 at point X1 through Mr. Gurdas under his signatures at point C1 and, thereafter, the same was put up before Shri S.K. Kaushik who had signed at point D and then the file was marked to AAO-5 whose signatures appear at point X2. Finally the file was put up before Mr. CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
135V.P. Anand whose signatures he identified at point C. ➢ (108) PW-108 Shri Jai Ram, retired as Deputy Director from NDMC, Vigilance Department.
PW108 Jai Ram stated that in November 1998, he was posted as SO in Vigilance Department, NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi. Further, he was joined by CBI and specimen handwriting/signatures of Satish Sapru, Gyan Dev Gupta and Pankaj Gauba were obtained in his presence.
He further identified his signatures on Ex.PW46/C (D327) comprising of 11 sheets in respect of Satish Sapru; Ex.PW108/A (D328) comprising of 3 sheets in respect of Gyan Dev Gupta and Ex.PW108/B (D329) comprising of 112 sheets in respect of Pankaj Gauba.
➢ (109) PW109 Shri S. Krishnamurthy, Senior Manager in Indian Overseas Bank, Nehru Place Branch.
PW109 S. Krishnamurthy stated that on 07.02.1998, he was posted as Officer in Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office, Rajendra Palace, New Delhi. Further, he was joined by CBI and specimen handwriting/signatures of Raju Aggarwal were obtained in his presence. Further, he identified his signatures at point A on D332 (Ex.PW109/A).
He further stated that after taking specimen handwriting, he was joined for conducting search at premises of Raju Aggarwal and CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
136he had signed on seizure memo Ex.PW70/A. Thereafter, a search was conducted at the office of Raju Aggarwal in his presence. He further identified his signatures at point B on seizure memo Ex.PW70/B. Further, both the search memos (Ex.PW70/A & Ex.PW70/B) were signed by Raju Aggarwal in his presence at point C. He further identified his signatures on various files which were seized from premises of Raju Aggarwal i.e. ● File D-313 comprising of 77 pages (Ex.PW70/C). ● File D-314 comprising of 82 pages and a brochure of DDA (collectively Ex.PW-70/D).
● File D-316 comprising of 9 pages (collectively Ex.PW-70/E). ● File number D-315 comprising of 68 pages (collectively Ex.PW-70/F).
● File D-317 comprising of 22 loose pages (collectively Ex.PW70/G).
He further identified his initials at point A on the title (front & back) of the yearly planner, address book and memo pad (Ex.PW109/B) contained in planner D356 of the year 1997 which was seized from the office of Raju Aggarwal.
➢ (110) PW-110 Shri Jitender Kumar PW110 Jitender Kumar stated that in 1998, he was posted as LDC in Vigilance Branch, DDA,Vikas Sadan and as per instructions of his senior officers, he had visited CBI office at Lodhi Road, New Delhi wherein specimen signatures/handwriting were voluntarily CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
137given by several persons in his presence.
He further identified his signatures at respective places on the following documents:
● D319 (Ex.PW28/F & G) comprising of two sheets bearing specimen signatures of Surender at portion B on both the sheets.
● D320 (Ex.PW33/F & G) comprising of two sheets bearing specimen signatures of Ram Dev at portion B on both the sheets.
● D323 (Ex.PW22/H) comprising of two sheets bearing specimen signatures of Smt. Sarla Devi at portion B on both the sheets.
● D327 (Ex.PW46/C) comprising of 12 sheets bearing specimen signatures/handwriting of Satish Sapru at portion B on all the sheets.
● D329 (Ex.PW108/B) comprising of 12 sheets bearing specimen signatures/handwriting of Pankaj Gauba at portion B on all the sheets.
● D333 (Ex.PW110/A-colly) comprising of 13 sheets and D336 (Ex.PW110/B-colly) comprising of 06 sheets respectively bearing specimen signatures/handwriting of Manish Kumar at portion B on all the sheets.
➢ (111) PW-111 Shri Kamal Kant Gupta, Advocate PW111 Kamal Kant Gupta stated that in 1996, he was doing CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.138
the job of Document Writer at Sub-Registrar office Seelampur. Further, he knew Ram Avtar, property dealer who used to visit Sub- Registrar office and had also met him at Mayur Vihar Phase-III.
He further stated that he was asked by Ram Avtar to get the papers relating to Flat No.34C Pocket D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps. On showing the papers relating to aforesaid flat contained in file Ex.PW9/J (D242) to Shri Mahender, Clerk posted at office of Collector of Stamps, it was informed to him that the file pertaining to aforesaid flat was already lying in the office and amount in respect of the said flat was not deposited and he conveyed this information to Ram Avtar.
➢ (112) PW-112 Shri Amar Chatterjee, Deputy Resident Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Bihar Bhavan.
PW112 Amar Chatterjee was posted as Director (Housing) SFS, DDA from July, 1999 till November, 2001 and Shri Kumar Anand was his predecessor Director (Housing) SFS. He deposed with respect to the practice prevailing in DDA and further identified the documents which were processed in various files relating to the flats in question.
He stated that as per practice prevailing in DDA, possession letters were used to be dispatched by Assistant Director to the allottee through registered post.
Further, in file of flat no. 21D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli which was allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena (Ex.PW9/D), an application for extension of time addressed to Director SFS CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.139
(Ex.PW72/C) was made by alleged allottee and dealt on 15.09.1997 . The same was marked at point B to Joint Director, SFS and at that time, Shri Kumar Anand was working as Director (SFS).
He further stated that in file of flat no. 55D, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli which was allotted to Ritu Gupta (Ex.PW9/E), an application for extension of time addressed to Director SFS (Mark PW112/A) was made by alleged allottee and dealt on 15.09.1997 and was marked at point A to Joint Director, SFS. Further, at that time, Shri Kumar Anand was working as Director SFS.
He further stated that in file of flat no. 50D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli which was allotted to Amar Singh (Ex.PW9/J1), an application for extension of time addressed to Director SFS (Mark PW112/A) was made by alleged allottee and dealt on 15.09.1997 and was marked at point A to Joint Director, SFS. Further, at that time, Shri Kumar Anand was working as Director SFS.
He further deposed that the Commissioner and Director used to conduct public hearing where any aggrieved person including allottee or his representative could raise his grievance. There was prescribed grievances proforma which could be filled by the person to present his grievance before the Commissioner or Director or the same could also be presented on a plain paper. The person who used to fill in the proforma used to indicate whether he was the allottee or his representative and the same was assumed to be correct. The application used to be forwarded to concerned branch for examination and, thereafter, the decision was taken on the grievance put up by the allottee/representative. Further, the possession of the flat was to be CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.140
handed over to the allottee or his authorized representative.
➢ (113) PW-113 Shri I.P. Grover, Assistant Accounts Officer (Billing Section), DDA.
PW113 I.P. Grover was posted in Housing Accounts Section of DDA, Vikas Sadan during 1994 to 1997 as AAO under Shri V.P. Anand, Accounts Officer.
He proved the notings relating to deposit of registration amount of Rs.50,000/- by the allottee/applicant in respect of files D1 (Ex.PW9/A); D3 (Ex.PW9/C5); D11; D12 (Ex.PW9/L); D5 (Ex.PW9/E); D9 (Ex.PW9/I); D2 (Ex.PW63/D); D4 (Ex.PW9/D); D6 (Ex.PW9/F); D7 (Ex.PW9/G); D8 (Ex.PW9/H).
He further identified his signatures along with other officers posted at relevant time when the file was dealt in the Accounts Department. He also proved the receipt/acknowledgement given by DDA to the applicant in respect of registration amount and application in the respective files.
➢ (114) PW-114 Shri J.R. Kakkar, retired Joint Director, DDA PW114 J.R. Kakkar stated that he joined Housing Department, SFS as Dy. Director in 1996/97 and at the aforesaid time Shri Kumar Anand was the Director and Shri S.N. Singhal was Asstt. Director who was looking after the scheme of SFS Kondli Gharoli.
He further stated that as per procedure followed in the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.141
department every file used to be routed through Supdt. and was to be put up before AD by concerned dealing clerk. He was empowered to grant one month extension to condone the delay of payment and thereafter Director was empowered to give extension upto 3 months. Beyond the period of 3 months, Commissioner was the competent authority. Further, in case of absence of Supdt. the file could be directly put up before AD by the concerned dealing hand.
He proved the noting dealing with condonation of delay and further cancellation of flat due to non payment by the allottee in respect of files D16 (Ex.PW9/P); D13 (Ex.PW9/M); D14 (Ex.PW9/N); D15 (Ex.PW9/O) and also identified signatures of other officers posted at the aforesaid time. He stated that during his tenure, Shri Gurnam was the dealing Assistant and when the aforesaid four files were put up before him for extension of time, the fact of cancellation was not highlighted.
He also proved the application regarding submission of documents by the allottee in respect of files D1 (Ex.PW9/A); D2 (Ex.PW9/B); D3 (Ex.PW9/C); D4 (Ex.PW9/D); D5 (Ex.PW9/E); D6 (Ex.PW9/F); D7 (Ex.PW9/G); D8 (Ex.PW9/H); D9 (Ex.PW9/I); D10 (Ex.PW9/J1); D11 (Ex.PW9/K); D12 (Ex.PW9/L) and identified initials of Shri S.N. Singhal in respective files.
➢ (115) PW-115 Shri Swatantra Kumar Jain retired Junior Management Grade, Central Bank of India, Service Branch, Parliament Street.
PW115 Swatantra Kumar Jain working as Computer Terminal Operator at Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan Branch from CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.142
1997 to February, 1999 proved the cheques and submission of challans in the bank and stated that challan Ex.PW115/A1 to Ex.PW115/A9, Ex.PW16/A1, Ex.PW16/A2, Ex.PW16/A4 to Ex.PW16/A12 were received in the bank by the concerned cashier. Further, the cheques Ex.PW115/B1 to Ex.PW115/B4 were presented for outward clearing. He further deposed with reference to the signatures/stamps appearing on the challans Ex.PW115/C1 to Ex.PW115/C9, Ex.PW9/B5 & Ex.PW9/B6, Ex.PW9/C6 & Ex.PW9/C7, Ex.PW9/D6, Ex.PW115/C10, Ex.PW9/F6 & Ex.PW9/F7, Ex.PW9/G6, Ex.PW90/M, Ex.PW9/H6, Ex.PW9/i6, Ex.PW9/J6, Ex.PW9/K6, Ex.PW9/K8, Ex.PW9/L6, Ex.PW115/C11, Ex.PW9/N2, Ex.PW9/O2 and Ex.PW9/P2.
➢ (116) PW-116 Smt. R. Renuka, working as Deputy General Manager, Andhra Bank, Connaught Circus.
PW116 Smt. R. Renuka posted as Officer in Andhra Bank, R.K. Puram Branch in 1998 proved her signatures on Ex.PW116/A1 & A2 containing specimen signatures of Ibrana Khan @ Sarla Devi and stated that the same were obtained in her presence.
➢ (117) PW-117 Shri B.M. Bajaj, retired as Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India.
PW117 B.M. Bajaj posted as Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India in 1997-98 deposed with reference to the challans whereby amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotment in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.143
India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He also proved the genuine stamps appearing on other challans which were deposited in routine course.
He identified his signatures at point A on the bank challans Ex.PW117/A1 to A16 and stated that the same were presented in the bank for deposit in the account of DDA. He further stated that as per procedure, the challan is filled in 4 copies for purpose of depositing the pay order. First copy of the challan is retained by Central Bank of India; second copy along with the statement of account is sent to DDA for verification; the third copy of the challan is given to the depository for submitting to the DDA for information; fourth copy of the challan is retained by the depository. The pay order submitted along with the challan is forwarded for clearing by the bank.
He further stated that challan Ex.PW9/B5, Ex.PW9/B6, Ex.PW9/C6, Ex.PW9/C7, Ex.PW9/D6, Ex.PW115/C10, Ex.PW9/F6, Ex.PW9/F7, Ex.PW9/G6, Ex.PW9/H6, Ex.PW90/M, Ex.PW9/I-6, Ex.PW9/J6, Ex.PW119/A45, Ex.PW119/A46, Ex.PW119/A44, Ex.PW115/C11, Ex.PW9/N2, Ex.PW9/O-2 and Ex.PW9/P2 did not belong to the Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India as it did not bear initial of any bank official on the seal at point A. ➢ (118) PW-118 Shri P.K. Ghosh, retired as Additional Chief Secretary, Forest and Environment, Gujarat.
PW118 P.K. Ghosh, the then Vice Chairman, DDA (i.e. the competent authority) proved the sanction order Ex.PW118/A which was accorded u/s 19 of the PC Act in respect of. accused V.P. Anand, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.144
Accounts Officer and S.K. Kaushik, Assistant Accounts Officer.
➢ (119) PW-119 Shri R. Chandra, AEGQD (Scientist-B), CFSL Unit, Shimla.
PW119 R. Chandra, AGEQD proved his opinions (Ex.PW119/A-101 & Ex.PW119/A-102) and also the detailed reasons of his opinions (Ex.PW119/A-103 & Ex.PW119/A-104) in respect of the documents which were forwarded for examination/opinion by CBI to CFSL.
He stated that documents of this case were received by office from SP, CBI, ACU-VIII, New Delhi vide their letter nos. 3/1(A)/98- ACU-VIII/4170 (D353) and 3/1(A)/98-ACU-VIII/4007 (D353) dated 14.12.98 and 07.12.99 (Ex.PW119/A1 & Ex.PW119/A2) along with disputed writings, signatures and seal impressions. He further identified his signatures on report (Ex.PW119/A-101 & Ex.PW119/A-102) and detailed reasons (Ex.PW119/A-103 & Ex.PW119/A-104) at point A and signatures of Shri N.C. Sood, Dy.
GEQD at point B who had also examined the case and came to the same conclusion.
➢ (120) PW-120 Shri M.C. Joshi, Retired Senior Superintendent of Police, CBI (IO).
PW120 M.C. Joshi deposed as to the conduct of investigation. He stated that during 1998, he was posted as DSP, CBI, ACU-VIII, Delhi and was entrusted with the investigation of complaint received from Director (Vigilance), DDA, New Delhi (Ex.PW42/B) on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PW120/A) was registered which was signed CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
145by the then SP Shri R.K. Prasad at point A. He further stated that during the course of investigation, he collected documents from different sources which were required for the purpose of investigation and recorded statements of witnesses to prove the documents and other circumstances in the case. He further proved various seizure/production memos vide which he had seized documents from different sources. He further stated that on 07.02.98, he had conducted search at the residence as well as at the office of accused Raju Aggarwal in presence of independent witnesses and seized the documents vide search list (Ex.PW70/A). Further, during the investigation, he also obtained specimen handwritings/signatures of various persons along with specimen of rubber stamps used at Central Bank of India (Ex.PW118/F1 colly). He further stated that opinion from GEQD Shimla was obtained regarding handwritings/signatures/impression of stamps as per marks on various documents and the documents were forwarded for opinion vide letter and forwarded the same to GEQD Shimla vide letter dated 14.12.97 (Ex.PW119/A1) and 07.12.99 (Ex.PW119/A2) signed by Shri R.K. Prasad, the then SP and the reports (Ex.PW119/A-101 & Ex.PW119/A-102) were thereafter obtained.
Further, sanction for prosecution u/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was obtained in respect of accused S.K. Kaushik and V.P. Anand vide sanction order Ex.PW118/A and in respect of accused Gurdas and Gurnam vide sanction order Ex.PW66/A.
12. In their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused denied the case of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
146prosecution and claimed that they had been falsely implicated. No evidence in defence was led on behalf of accused V.P. Anand, S.K. Kaushik, Gurdas and Raju Aggarwal. However, one witness was examined in defence on behalf of accused Gurnam Chand, namely, Shri Vikas Pandey to prove the relevant circulars.
DW1 Shri Vikas Pandey Deputy Director (Housing), Vikas Sadan, DDA, New Delhi proved circular no.F.2(23)/86/PC/II dated 16th November, 1988 (Ex.DW1/A) and stated that copy of circular no. F.2(35)/90/P&C(H) dated 10.10.91 issued by Shri Kewal K. Sharma, Commissioner (Housing) (Mark DW1/B) could not be traced in the Coordination Branch.
He further stated that he was posted as Deputy Director (Housing LIG) and looking after additional charge of Deputy Director (Coordination) from October, 2013. Further, presently, the verification of the payment is made by the Accounts Branch and thereafter the same is acted upon by the Housing Branch for purpose of issuing possession and completion of other formalities. However, he was not aware of circular Mark DW1/B and the practice prevailing during 1997-98 for the purpose of verification of payment and issue of possession letter by the Housing Branch.
13. Contentions on behalf of accused V.P. Anand, by Shri Manjeet Godara, Advocate and on behalf of accused S.K. Kaushik by Shri R.C. Chopra, Advocate.
Counsels for accused assailed the case of prosecution on various grounds as detailed as under:
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.147
i.It was contended that Shri S.K. Kaushik (AAO) and Shri V.P. Anand (AO) being the officers in HAU-IX used to sign on the basis of noting made by the Dealing Assistant Shri Gurdas and primarily it was the duty of the Dealing Assistant to check the receipt of payments against the challan from the concerned Computer Section which generated Form-C (i.e. the consolidated monthly statement as to the challans in respect of which the payments had been received) and on the basis of the same the No Dues Certificate was issued.
It was further submitted that file regarding the allotment was received from the Management Section of DDA and a separate file was opened in the Accounts Section for the purpose of confirmation of payments from the Computer Section in which the requisite noting was made by the Computer Section as to the payment received in respect of the allotted flat.
It was pointed out that the Investigating Officer failed to collect the C-Form which was generated by the Computer Section for the respective months which is the only document which could have shown if the payment received in the bank was confirmed by the Computer Section or not on the basis of which the No Dues Certificate was issued by the Accounts Section in the respective Management Files. It was also submitted that the Investigating Agency failed to trace and collect the corresponding files opened in the Accounts Section which were forwarded to the Computer Section for purpose of verifying the payment received from the respective allottee and in the absence of the same it cannot be conclusively inferred that the No Dues Certificate had been wrongly issued.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
148For the aforesaid purpose, reliance was placed upon statement of PW12 Shri S.C. Garg who was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Computer Section (Housing) DDA and deposed with respect to the procedure followed in the DDA on receipt of challans deposited on behalf of the allottee.
ii. Reliance was further placed by counsel for accused on statement of PW13 Rajender Kohli who was working as LDC in DDA and his duty was to diary the files and letters received in HAU- IX (Accounts Section). It was contended that the he used to receive the files from Management Department and handover the same to Gurdas, UDC after making entry in the Diary Register and proved the diary entries contained in the Diary Register (Ex.PW13/B) and further stated that the files Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/N were never sent to Computer Section.
It was contended that in cross-examination, PW13 admitted that a computerized statement of amount received from allottees is sent to Accounts Section every month by the Computer Cell (Housing) known as Form-C for purpose of credit verification of payment made by the allottee and issuance of No Dues Certificate. Further, in case the credit was not available in Form-C, the same used to be got verified by the concerned Dealing Assistant personally from Computer Cell (Housing) or Cash Section (Housing) as per procedure.
It was further submitted that the witness further admitted that in all cases the Dealing Assistant of Accounts Section process the case in the Account File which is already opened at the time of issue of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
149demand letter and the credit verification was to be recorded in the Account File which was maintained by the Dealing Assistant and remained in his custody. Further, after due verification as per Form-C or otherwise as per personal verification made by Dealing Assistant from Computer Cell (Housing) or Cash Section (Housing), the Dealing Assistant put up the No Dues Certificate prepared by him in the Management File for signatures of AAO/AO and also attached the Account File with the Management File. As such, it was contended that primarily the responsibility of verifying the payment was of the Dealing Assistant Gurdas.
It was further contended that the Accounts File Opening Register (Ex.PW13/DA) was never seized by the Investigating Officer and has been proved from the office record during cross-examination and there is nothing on record to suggest that the account files for purpose of verification had not been opened.
iii.Counsel for accused further relied upon testimony of PW13 as circular no. PS/FA(H)NPRS/96/34 dated 07.06.96 (Ex.PW13/DB) was further proved by the aforesaid witness which was produced during cross-examination by the concerned Officer from DDA which reflected that the verification of credits i.e. the amount deposited by the allottee was done in separate Accounts Files opened in the Accounts Department and not in the Management Files.
iv. For the purpose of proving the procedure followed in Accounts Section, reliance was further placed upon statement of PW107 Shri CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
150K.R. Dixit who was posted as UDC in Housing Accounts Management Branch in 1997 and in the cross-examination of accused S.K. Kaushik by Shri R.C. Chopra, Advocate explained the verification of credits on the basis of 'C' form by the Computer Section (Housing) in the separate Accounts Files opened in the Accounts Section.
Similarly, reliance was further placed upon statement of PW84 Shri Ram Dutt Sharma who was also working in HAU-IX Branch during 1997 and in the cross-examination made on behalf of accused S.K. Kaushik corroborated the procedure followed for verification.
It was also pointed out by counsels for accused that the bank used to send the challans pertaining to payment received from the allottees to Accounts Officer, Cash Housing and not to Housing Accounts Unit i.e. the Accounts Branch as clarified by PW84 Shri Ram Dutt Sharma. It was further submitted that the procedure adopted for verification of payment in the Accounts Section with reference to 'C' form received from the Computer Section was also elaborated by PW63 H.R. Khowal, Accountant /Assistant Accounts Officer who had joined in place of accused S.K. Kaushik in January, 1998. It was submitted that PW63 also deposed that credit verification of challan used to be recorded in the Accounts Files by Cash Section (Housing)/ Computer Cell (Housing) and further the Dealing Assistant who was the custodian of Accounts Files would examine the case with reference to amount due and amount received on the basis of credit verification from Cash Section (Housing)/ Computer Cell (Housing).
v. Counsel for accused further relied upon testimony of PW13 to CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
151contend that prior to registration of FIR, letter dated 05.01.98 Ex.PW107/DF (D304) was issued to accused Gurdas UDC by V.P. Anand, AO to ascertain the factual position in respect of payment of flats referred to aforesaid letter which was personally delivered by PW13 himself and received by Gurdas on 06.01.98. The file nos. reflected in Ex.PW107/DF i.e. 160(363)97/SFS/KL/III and 160(30)/97/SFS/KL/III relate to flat allotted to Sunder Lal and Surender Kumar. It was further submitted that in response to another noting dated 6.1.98 by Shri V.P. Anand, AO as indicated at point A on Ex.PW107/DB Gurdas was directed to hand over the housing accounts files referred to above and in response to same, explanation had been given by Gurdas as reflected at point B on Ex.PW107/DB. Vide aforesaid explanation, it was admitted by accused Gurdas that the above two Accounts Files bearing nos. 160(363)97/SFS/KL/III and 160(30)/97/SFS/KL/III containing the verification report of the amount received against the file have been taken from his seat by some representative of the allottee.
It was further pointed out that by way of another noting as reflected at point C Ex.PW107/DC, by the Shri V.P. Anand, AO Gurdas was directed to intimate when the files referred to above were sent for verification to cash (H Computer) and when the same were received back by him. Further, in response to the same, as per noting at point D accused Gurdas UDC informed to the effect " the file bearing No.160(363)97/SFS/KL/III was sent to Computer (Housing) on 16.10.97 after it was signed by AAO-4. I took the file from diarist and it was sent to AAO (C) Housing. Someone property dealer took CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
152this file from me and got it verified from C (H) and returned to me after got it verified from C (H) and file no. 160 (30)97/KL/III was sent to Computer (H) on 28.10.97 after it was signed by AAO-4, it was sent to AAO (C) Housing. Someone property dealer took this file from me and got it verified from C (H) and returned to me after got it verified from C (H). After NOC was issued the accounts files were taken by someone property dealer."
It was contended by counsels for accused that the aforesaid reply clearly reflects that steps for verification for payment had been taken by Gurdas and the Investigating Agency completely ignored the aforesaid aspect at the stage of investigation itself placing the blame on the AAO as well as AO.
vi. It was vehemently contended that even the IO PW120 Shri M.C. Joshi admitted the procedure followed for the purpose of verification of payment as form C was sent to the Accounts Section by Computer Cell (Housing) for purpose of credit verification and after verification of the same by the Dealing Assistant the case was put up before AAO /AO by the Dealing Assistant. It was further pointed out that the IO further admitted that the credit verification used to be recorded in Account File and the said verification was maintained by the Dealing Assistant of Accounts Section and remained in his custody. Further, after the due verification as per form C or otherwise was obtained form Dealing Assistant from Computer Cell (Housing) or Cash Section (Housing) the Dealing Assistant used to put up the No Dues Certificate prepared by him in management file for signatures of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
153AAO/AO and thereafter, the file was kept by the Dealing Assistant. It was urged that though the IO admitted that the files were opened in Accounts Section for verification of credit by challans corresponding to Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/L but the possession of the same was not taken and an evasive reply was given that no such file were available or produced before him without issuing any notices for production of the same.
vii. Counsel for accused further contended that there is no direct evidence as to conspiracy but the inference has been drawn only on the basis of alleged payments reflected by challans which were subsequently found to have not been deposited in DDA. It was urged that the chain of events is incomplete to infer conspiracy by accused S.K. Kaushik and V.P. Anand who were the higher officials and acted merely on the basis of noting made by accused Gurdas and verification made by him. It was submitted that no evidence has come on record to show that accused conspired in any manner in preparation of bank drafts by Raju Aggarwal or dealt with the transactions relating to concerned flats.
viii. It was also submitted by counsels for accused that sanction u/s 19 had not been accorded by the Competent Authority. Further, the sanction had been accorded without application of mind and without even bothering to conduct any preliminary enquiry.
ix. It was also submitted that no incriminating evidence was CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
154recovered during the course of trial at the instance of accused V.P. Anand or S.K. Kaushik and even their custodial remand was not obtained and were never arrested during the course of trial.
14. Contentions on behalf of accused Gurnam Chand by Shri Arun Sukhija, Advocate.
i. Counsel for accused contended that the role of accused Gurnam Chand was merely confined to forwarding and processing the files as per norms and procedure through the Senior Officer i.e. Assistant Director Shri S.N. Singhal (PW9) to the Accounts Section at the stage of issuance of allotment cum demand letter. Further, after the payment was deposited by allottee, the file was again forwarded to the Accounts Section to verify the challans which were received through Central Registry to confirm the deposit of amount as per demand cum allotment letter for issuance of No Dues Certificate.
ii. It was submitted that accused Gurnam Chand posted in the Housing Management Section was required merely to forward the payment challan as received for verification and had no role to verify the authenticity of the challan deposited on behalf of allottee towards the payment of flat, since the same was to be verified by Accounts Section from the Cash Section (Housing) or Computer Cell.
It was further submitted that the case of prosecution that files D1 to D12 (i.e. Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/L) were never sent to the Accounts Section, was not supported by the notings made in the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
155relevant files as the same were forwarded in each case by the Dealing Assistant Gurnam Chand through the concerned AD Shri S.N. Singhal (PW9) in most of the concerned files. It was submitted that this being the factual position as reflected from the notings in the files, in case the said procedure had not been followed, PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal, Assistant Director would have been made as an co-accused by the Investigating Agency. It was further contended that so far as the issuance of possession letter in respect of the concerned flat or the execution of conveyance deed is concerned, the same was made after the submission of concerned documents on behalf of allottee as well as after obtaining the No Dues Certificate from the Accounts Branch which was followed in each of the files. It was also contended that the execution of conveyance deed, if any, was only after the handing over of possession to the allottee which was given either to the allottee or to his attorney as per the documents furnished on record and the same has no relevance with the issuance of No Dues Certificate which already stood granted by the Accounts Section (HAU-IX).
It was further submitted that even the possession letters were issued by the concerned Assistant Director, Housing Management and reliance was also placed upon circular Ex.DW1/A. Reliance was also placed upon circular no. F.2(35)/90/P&C(H) dated 10.10.91 (Mark DW1/B).
It was urged that the duty of verification, if any, was with the Assistant Director and the Dealing Assistant could not be fixed the responsibility. Further, in the present case the procedure of getting the verification was got done but if the verification itself was CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
156subsequently found to be incorrectly made by the Accounts Branch the responsibility could not be attributed to the Housing Management which acted merely on the basis of the same for issuance of possession letter in respect of respective flats.
iii. It was next contended by counsel for accused that the files were required to be sent to legal section in case any legal advice was required and the same could only be forwarded at the level of Assistant Director, Deputy Director, Director or any higher officer in hierarchy. Further, the possession letter was issued only under the signatures of Assistant Director (SFS). For the aforesaid purpose reliance is placed on statement of PW95 Shri Kumar Anand.
iv. It was also contended by counsel for accused that the issue involved in the present case is with respect to the fraudulent payment made by the allottee but the investigation appears to have been misdirected on the aspect of subsequent issue of possession letter and handing over of possession to the respective allottees which was given after the issuance of No Dues Certificate by the Accounts Section.
It was also pointed out that the task of issuance of possession letters after the same was signed by Assistant Director was assigned to the Peon attached to the Assistant Director and the role of Gurnam Chand was merely to check the proper dispatch and dispatch number before keeping the file as deposed by PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal, Assistant Director. It was urged that merely on the basis of some alleged discrepancy in issuing the possession letter, the conspiracy CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
157could not be inferred since the case of prosecution is based upon issuing of No Dues Certificate which task was assigned specifically to the Accounts Branch.
15. Contentions on behalf of accused Gurdas (UDC HAU-IX Accounts Section) by Shri O.P. Chanderwal, Advocate.
i. Counsel for accused Gurdas reiterated arguments on similar lines as addressed on behalf of accused S.K. Kaushik and V.P. Anand. It was reiterated that neither the C-Form nor the Accounts Files in which the reports were obtained from the Computer Cell (Housing) were seized or collected during investigation to clarify the reports which existed in the relevant files on the basis of which No Dues Certificate was issued and in the absence of the same, it cannot be held that any such noting had been wrongly processed by accused.
ii. It was further submitted that there was no link or motive between Raju Aggarwal who allegedly deposited the fake challans pertaining to the alleged flats and accused Gurdas as no incriminating document was recovered at instance of accused Gurdas.
iii. It was next contended that accused Gurdas in no manner is alleged to have prepared any fake or bogus document for the use to cheat DDA in any manner.
iv. It was vehemently contended that the entire procedure was CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
158followed in the present case before issuance of No Dues Certificate with due diligence and the responsibility lay with the higher officials who issued the No Dues Certificate (i.e. the AAO/AO in the respective cases).
v. It was further submitted that the allottees on whose behalf the challans were deposited and were allegedly found to be fake have not been booked by the Investigating Agency.
vi. It was also pointed out that there was no incriminating evidence to connect the accused with conspiracy with Raju Aggarwal since no benefit has been shown to have passed to Gurdas at any point of time.
vii. Apart from above, it was submitted that the allotment of the flats has been cancelled by DDA and no loss had been caused consequent to the said allotments. It was also submitted that no benefit has been shown to have accrued to the Public Servants and the sole beneficiary, if any, was Raju Aggarwal. It was also contended that despite search, nothing incriminating had been recovered at instance of accused Gurdas.
viii. It was further submitted that explanation vide noting at point D on Ex.PW107/DC given by Gurdas duly reflects that the file was sent for purpose of verification at Cash (Housing) {C(H)} though it may have been handed over to property dealer/party under pressure of work in the public hearings. It was urged that the report was duly CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
159received from the concerned Section and it is only on the basis of the same, the No Dues Certificate had been issued.
16. Shri Rajiv Chhibber, Advocate for accused Raju Aggarwal assailed the case of prosecution on various grounds detailed as under:
i. Firstly, it was contended that there was no loss to DDA since the possession of some of the flats was retained with DDA and even some of the flats stood re-allotted. It was also submitted that there was no financial gain to the accused and as such no offence u/s 420 IPC is established.
ii. It was further submitted that no money relating to the alleged transactions was recovered at the instance of accused Raju Aggarwal. In the aforesaid context, it was further pointed out that accused was having minimum bank balance in his savings accounts and as such the benefit did not accrue to the accused.
iii. It was also urged that no complaint was made by any of the allottees to the CBI or any Investigating Agency regarding irregularity, if any, committed by accused Raju Aggarwal in specific.
iv. It was further submitted that there is no evidence on the point of conspiracy to link the accused with any DDA official. Further, no evidence came up on record if any of the drafts was prepared from the banks by Raju Aggarwal in person or that the challans had been CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.160
forged by him. It was also contended that no evidence has been led to show if any amount was withdrawn by Raju Aggarwal from the concerned accounts.
v. It was next urged that the witnesses PW26 Rajat Dua, PW35 Rakesh Kumar Sood, PW 36 Hari Garg, PW43 Ajay Khurana, PW46 Satish Sapru, PW51 Sukhpal Bansal, PW58 Manish Kumar, PW60 Pankaj Gauba, PW85 Durga Prasad, PW87 R.K. Gupta, PW89 Ram Avtar Gupta and PW94 Rakesh Mahajan cited by the prosecution should have been arrayed as an accused and their evidence is unreliable and untrustworthy. It was submitted that aforesaid witnesses were involved in transactions of aforesaid flats and had obtained the signatures from the respective allottees for which they were responsible and accused Raju Aggarwal could not be held liable for the same.
vi. It was further submitted that accused Raju Aggarwal has been falsely implicated by CBI in the present case and had been made a scapegoat.
17. On the other hand, ld. PP for CBI relied upon the evidence collected during the course of investigation and testimony of witnesses examined on record.
i. He firstly contended that contradictions in the testimony of witnesses were of minor nature and did not discredit the statement of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
161the witnesses in entirety.
It was further submitted that conspiracy is implicit between accused Raju Aggarwal (A5) and accused no. 1 to 4 (Public Servants) since they deliberately wrongly acted upon the challans which were forged and the No Dues Certificates were wrongly issued in the respective cases in conspiracy, resulting in handing over possession of 12 flats while in the four cases the fraud was detected at the time of verification of challans.
ii. For the aforesaid purpose, prosecution relied upon testimony of PW105 Shri Virender Singh Kadyan and PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal. It was submitted that the conveyance deed in the respective files was not forwarded for vetting along with relevant documents which were being dealt by PW105 Shri Virender Singh Kadyan who was posted as Junior Law Officer in DDA Housing Department during 1996 to 1999.
iii. Reliance was further placed upon statement of PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal who was posted as Assistant Director in Housing Department and explained the procedure for allotment of flats in the 9th Self Financing Scheme by DDA as followed in the concerned Sections. He also proved the notings in the files D1 to D16 by various officials including the accused posted in the concerned Section and also explained the procedure followed for issue of possession letter of flats and execution of conveyance deed by the DDA.
Ld. PP pointed out that as per deposition of PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal, after deposit of the amount in the bank by the allottee as per CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
162demand-cum-allotment letter, the documents along with the challan showing the deposit were deposited at the counter made for the purpose and from thereon the documents were sent to the Housing Management Wing where they were entered in the branch and handed over to the Dealing Assistant by the diarist against receipt. The Dealing Assistant thereupon used to put up the documents to the Assistant Director in the respective files and Shri Gurnam Chand was the concerned Dealing Assistant dealing with files of Kondli Gharoli. Thereafter, the Dealing Assistant used to send the files to Accounts Branch if all the papers were in order for taking a No Dues Certificate in respect of the particular flat and the No Dues Certificate was issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer or the Accounts Officer. Further, the Dealing Assistant after receipt of No Dues Certificate proposed for issue of possession letter to the allottee or SPA which after approval by PW9 was marked to dispatcher for issue of same with a copy of same to Executive Engineer for handing over the possession. Also, after the approval of Assistant Director, possession letter could be handed over to the allottee.
Ld. PP contended that the procedure was not followed and possession of the flats was handed over after processing the documents in conspiracy though the same were not presented by the allottees.
iv. Ld. PP further relied upon D304 (Ex.PW107/DE), which is a handwritten note made by V.P. Anand, AO dated 02.01.98 to accused Gurdas, UDC addressed at his residential address 10399, Manakpura, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
163Karol Bagh, New Delhi whereby Gurdas was asked to attend office on 05.01.98 positively. Shri Gurdas was thereafter issued another note (Ex.PW107/DF) by Shri V.P. Anand, AO for attending the office on 06.01.98 and produce the relevant Account files to ascertain the factual position in respect of payment of flats as contained in file no. 160(363)97/SFS/KL/III (i.e. file D1) and 160(30)97/SFS/KL/III (i.e. file D2) since Gurdas left the office merely after 15 minutes without intimation on 05.01.98 as referred in the aforesaid note.
It is pointed out that as per note Ex.PW107/DB, in response to office letter for verification of payments, Gurdas informed that above two accounts files containing the verification report of the amount received against the files have been taken from his seat by some representative of the allottee. It is submitted that the inability of the accused to produce the relevant verification report about the deposit of the amount towards the payment of the flat in question reflects that the non deposit of the amount was to the notice of the accused and they failed to account for the relevant verification report in respect of the challans which, if any, was obtained from the Computer (H) Section.
Reliance was further placed upon statement of PW107 Shri K.R. Dixit who was posted as UDC in Accounts Branch-IX in DDA during the relevant period.
v. Ld. PP further referred to the statement of PW13 Shri Rajinder Kohli posted as LDC during the relevant period in DDA and used to receive the files and letters in Housing Accounts Unit-IX. This witness used to receive files from Management Department and CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
164enter the same in the diary register which were thereafter delivered to dealing clerk i.e. accused Gurdas, UDC and further proved the entries in the diary register (Ex.PW13/B). It was submitted that as per deposition of this witness, the files Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/N (i.e. D1 to D14) were never sent to Computer Section.
vi. Ld. PP further referred to the statement of PW12 Shri S.C. Garg who was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in Computer Section (Housing) of DDA and detailed the procedure for deposit of money after allotment of flats and receipt/verification of payments deposited by the allottees.
PW12 stated that according to procedure of DDA, after allotment of flats, allottee used to deposit the money with Central Bank of India or State Bank of India and one challan along with voucher of all the depositors used to be received in Computer Section. Further, the said challans used to be fed in the computer by Data Operators and he used to verify payment made by allottees by virtue of said challans. He further deposed that he used to receive files from Accounts Branch of Housing Section to verify whether the challans for deposit of money was received or not and used to verify from the challan fed in the computer and mentioned the same in the respective files. After expiry of month, he used to generate complete data regarding challans from the computer and a copy of the said data used to be sent to the concerned Section of Housing Accounts. He further clarified that a diary register was maintained in the office regarding files sent by Housing Section and received by Computer Branch.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
165After affixing the stamp regarding receipt of payment through challan, a rubber stamp used to be affixed on the file and the file used to be sent to the concerned Section from which it was received through Peon Book.
Ld. PP further pointed out that PW12 further stated that Diary Register from 28.08.97 to 24.10.97 (Ex.PW12/A) having page no. 1 to 796 was kept and maintained in his office in the ordinary course of business and the files Ex.PW-9/A to Ex.PW-9/L (i.e D1 to D12) were never received in Computer Section during October 97 to December
99. It was also submitted that none of the files from D1 to D16 bear the rubber stamp from the Computer Section which proves that the files were not forwarded to the Computer Section for verification of payment.
Vii. Ld. PP for CBI next referred to testimony of PW14 Shri Khusheswar Rai who was posted as Peon in HAU-IX in 1997. This witness was posted as Diarist in place of Rajinder Kohli who had met with an accident. He further proved the entries in Diary Register with respect to file no. 160(411)/97/SFS (in respect of allottee Ram Dev); file no. 160(460)/462/97/KL (in respect of Devender Kumar Jain); file no. 160(498)/97 (in respect of allottee Amar Singh); file no. 160(483)/97 (in respect of allottee Laxmi Narayan Meena). He deposed that according to the diary (Ex.PW13/B) files Mark PW9/A to PW9/L were never sent to Computer Section. The said Diary Register (Ex.PW13/B) was maintained in the Accounts Section for the period 08.08.96 to 02.01.98. Ld. PP contended that deposition of this witness CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
166also reveals that the files were not forwarded to Computer Section for obtaining the verification reports.
viii. Ld. PP for CBI also relied upon statement of PW15 Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma who was posted as Diarist in the Computer/Housing Section of DDA from 1996 to 1999 and proved the entries in the Diary Register (Ex.PW15/A) for the period 28.07.97 to 14.10.97 whereby the files were received in the Computer Section from the Accounts Section. Ld. PP submits that the aforesaid register (Ex.PW15/A) along with another register Ex.PW12/A does not contain any entry related to receipt of files in question in the Computer Section.
ix. In the aforesaid context, ld. PP further relied upon statement of PW64 Shri V.P. Jain who was posted as Accountant in the Computer Section of DDA in 1997. This witness explained the procedure regarding the receipt of challan in the Computer Housing Section and further with reference to the Diary Registers Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW12/A maintained in the Section deposed that there was no entry pertaining to the 12 files in the aforesaid Diary Registers.
Ld. PP further referred to the procedure as detailed by PW 64 and the same may be briefly referred for proper appreciation of contentions.
PW64 stated that the allottee of the flat used to deposit the demanded amount through challan to SBI & Central Bank of India, both Nodal Branch, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and challans received in CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
167Computer Housing Cell were used to be entered in the computer for preparation of cash book, monthly account and other reports. Further, before issuance of possession letter to the allottee, the Housing Accounts Unit used to send the files pertaining to the allotment of flats to the allottee for the purpose of verification of challans through which the money was deposited by the allottee and the files received from the Housing Accounts Units were entered in the Diary Register of Computer Housing Cell by the Diarist and then passed on to the concerned staff of the Computer Housing Cell. He further stated that thereafter, the challans were verified by the concerned staff of the Computer Housing Cell based on computer data. After verification from the computer data, "verification report" was recorded on the concerned file and put up before PW64 for further verification and onward submission to the next office/concerned office. He further stated that after verifying, he used to sign the verification report of the concerned staff and then file was sent to the Diarist of the Computer Housing Cell who after entering in the diary register and TR (Transit register/movement register), the file was sent back to either Cash Housing (Manual Section) or concerned account unit.
He further identified signatures of Pt. Santosh Sharma, Diarist on Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-12/A and stated that all the files received in computer housing section were used to be entered in these two Diary Registers and no files were to be verified without entering into these registers. He further stated that there was no entry pertaining to 12 files, ie. 160 (363)/SFS/KL III, 160 (30)/97/SFS/KL III, 160 (411)/97/SFS/ KL III/8160, 160 (483)/17/SFS/KL III, 160 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
168(223)/97/SFS/KL III, 160 (038)/97, 160 (263)/97/SFS/KL III, 160 (31)/97/SFS/KL III, 160 (496)/97/SFS/KL III/84350, 160 (498)/97/SFS/KL III/7065, 160 (462)/SFS/KL III/70657, 160 (228)/97/SFS/KL III/70657, in the aforesaid diary registers Ex. PW-12/A and PW-15/A. Further, in absence of any entry in the aforesaid registers pertaining to the aforesaid files, there was no verification of the received challans with regard to the aforesaid files done by Computer Housing Section, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
As such, relying upon testimony of PW64, it is contended by ld. PP that verification was not made by the officials of Accounts Department in conspiracy.
x. Ld. PP further referred to statement of PW78 Shri Satish Kumar who was working as UDC, Cash Housing, Computer Cell during 1997-98 and was assigned the duty of maintaining records regarding data entry of challans, issuing advice, scrolling of challans & thereafter entering the challans to contend that the verification report in respect of the challans was not obtained by the Accounts department.
This witness explained that advice along with scroll and challan from different branches of different banks were received for data entry purposes. He further stated that thereafter, advice was issued and challans were subsequently entered in computer along with the detail of advice and scroll received from bank to tally the amount. The process was used to be completed in 15 to 20 days and after completing the process, challans were used to be sent to store of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
169computer room. The files of challans were used to be received by the then Diary Clerk Santosh Kumar Sharma and were to be kept date wise in racks and thereafter verification job was used to be done. Further, the then AAO Shri S.C. Garg used to put his signatures for verification of the details of challans.
He also proved diary register of computer section (D344) (Ex.PW15/A) and D345 (Ex.PW12/A) maintained by Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, UDC the then Diary Clerk and on scrutiny of entries stated that file no. 160/363/97/SFS/K.L.III, 160/30/97, 160/411/97, 160/483/97, 160/223/97, 160/38/97, 160/263/97, 160/31/97, 160/496/97, 160/498/97, 160/462/97 & 160/228/97 do not appear to have been received or further moved as per entries required to be made in the register.
xi. Ld. PP for CBI submits that on the basis of statement of PW63 Shri H.R. Khowal and PW102 Shri Om Prakash, the notings as well as the No Dues Certificates issued in the respective files stand proved and reflects that the No Dues Certificate issued by the Accounts Section was in respect of the entire payment alleged to have been deposited by or on behalf of the allottee which includes the initial payment by way of registration amount as well as of the genuine payment made, if any, along with the deposit against the forged challan for the payment of the flat as raised in the demand-cum- allotment letter. It was urged that the NOC itself had been wrongly issued which points to the culpability of the concerned officials.
xii. Prosecution thereafter referred to statement of PW9 Shri S.N. CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
170Singhal and contended that after issuance of No Dues Certificate by the Assistant Accounts Officer or Accounts Officer, the dealing hand proposes for issue of possession letter to the allottee or SPA of the allottee in a prescribed proforma to the Assistant Director and on seeing the aforesaid note, the possession letter is issued by the Assistant Director and marks the file to the Dispatcher to issue the same with a copy to the Executive Engineer of the area for handing over the possession along with necessary documents. He submits that as per testimony of PW9 generally dispatch letter to the allottee goes by registered post or through courier or with the permission of the Assistant Direction in writing, the possession letter can be handed over to the allottee. In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon testimony of PW95 Shri Kumar Anand, the then OSD (Housing) who also detailed the procedure regarding the condonation of delay for deposit of amount by the allottee and the general procedure followed before the possession letters were issued.
Ld. PP further contends that the duty of Gurnam Chand was to send the possession letters to the allottees or the SPA holders through the dispatcher but in all the respective files, the same was wrongly handed over to accused Raju Aggarwal. For the aforesaid purpose the prosecution seeks to rely upon the respective notings made in the file for issue of dispatch letter which were proved by PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal as well as by PW100 Shri K.C. Saxena. He further relied upon the statement of PW98 Shri Daya Chand and PW39 Shri Ram Kishan regarding the dispatch entries of the possession letters. Reliance is also placed upon testimony of PW103 Shri Bijender Singh CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
171who was looking after the work related to dispatch of dak of SFS Branch and had handed over Dispatch Register (Ex.PW103/B) and Peon Book (Ex.PW103/C) vide seizure memo (Ex.PW103/A).
Also reference was made to statement of PW98 Shri Daya Chand who was posted as Peon in SFS Section, DDA Vikas Sadan in 1998 and had also performed the duties as a Dispatcher for about a period of 3 years in SFS Section.
He stated that as per directions of higher officers, possession letter was either dispatched by post or handed over in person if the allottee was present and the entry of dispatch was recorded in peon book and dispatch register. Further, he proved the dispatch of the possession letter in the respective files as per the dispatch number reflected on the possession letter and the corresponding entry in the dispatch register which had been made by Ram Kishan, Dispatch Peon who had been working prior to him.
Further reliance was placed upon testimony of PW39 Shri Ram Kishan who remained posted in SFS section of DDA from 1996 till 1998 and his duty included distribution of dak, dispatch of letters. Further, during his tenure as peon, he had dealt with the files of SFS flats at Kondli, Gharoli as the same were given to him by Shri Gurnam Chand, UDC in DDA and further after receiving the file, he put the dispatch number on possession letters and thereafter Gurnam Chand took back the files from him.
In the aforesaid context, ld. PP pointed out deposition of PW39 and his cross-examination whereby he stated that "In the matter of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
172Kondli Gharoli, I received two copies of the Possession Letters i.e. field staff copy (JE's Copy) and the office copy and one copy i.e. allottee copy was not available in the file. Again said, Gurnam Chand brought the files with all the three copies of Possession Letters and got the dispatch number written by me and took away the file. Gurnam Chand used to go with the files to the office room of the Assistant Director Mr. Singhal. On the next day, when I came to my office I found that the aforesaid files and other files on my table and in Kondli Gharoli file, the allottee copy was not available and only JE's copy and office copy were available."
18. I have heard counsels for accused, ld. PP for CBI at length and perused the record.
Before adverting to the evidence led on record, it may be observed that Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 provides that if a Public Servant by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as Public Servant obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or while holding office as a Public Servant obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest, he will be guilty of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
In the aforesaid context, since the accused have been charged under Section 120B IPC for the offence of conspiracy along with other offences, it shall be beneficial to advert to the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
173ingredients of the offence of conspiracy. To prove the charge of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution is required to establish that two or more persons had agreed to do or caused to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such crime or is merely incidental to that object. To attract the applicability of Section 120-B it has to be proved that all the accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the crime and it is not necessary that each member to a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy.
It is thus to be established that the accused charged with criminal conspiracy had agreed to pursue a course of conduct which he knew leading to the commission of a crime by one or more persons to the agreement, of that offence. Besides the fact of agreement the necessary mens rea of the crime is also required to be established.
In the aforesaid context, observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saju v. State of Kerala, (SC) 2000(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 747 :
2001 AIR (SC) 175 : 2001 CriLJ 102 may be noticed.
"To prove the charge of criminal conspiracy the prosecution is required to establish that two or more persons had agreed to do or caused to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such crime or is merely incidental to that object. To attract the applicability of Section 120-B it has to be proved that all the accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the crime. There is no doubt that conspiracy is hatched in private and in secrecy for which direct evidence would rarely be available. It is also not necessary that each member to a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. This Court in Yash Pal CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.174
Mittal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2433 held :
"The offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is a distinct offence introduced for the first time in 1913 in Chapter V-A of the Penal Code. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-conspirators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes mis-fire or over-shooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. The significance of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is brought out pithily by this Court in EG Barsay v. The State of Bombay, 1962(2) SCR 195 at p. 229 thus :
"The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law. Under the first charge the accused are charged with having conspired to do three categories of illegal acts, and the mere fact that all of them could not be convicted separately in respect of each of the offences has no relevancy in considering the question whether the offence of conspiracy has been committed. They are all guilty of the offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts, though for individual offences all of them may be liable".
It may also be relevant to refer to scope of Section 10 of the Evidence Act at this stage as it has been contended on behalf of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
175accused that the evidence against the co-accused cannot be considered against the other accused facing trial in the present case. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 7 of Saju v. State of Kerala, (SC)(Supra) may be briefly referred.
"In a criminal case the onus lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused was directly and personally connected with the acts or omissions attributable to the crime committed by him. It is settled position of law that act or action of one of the accused cannot be used as evidence against other. However, an exception has been carved out under Section 10 of the Evidence Act in the case of conspiracy. To attract the applicability of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the Court must have reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons had conspired together for committing an offence. It is only then that the evidence of action or statement made by one of the accused could be used as evidence against the other. This Court in Kehar Singh and others v. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SC 1883 has held :
"Section 120-A provides for the definition of criminal conspiracy and it speaks of that when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an act which is an illegal act and Section 120-B provides for the punishment for a criminal conspiracy and it is interesting to note that in order to prove a conspiracy it has always been felt that it was note easy to get direct evidence. It appears that considering this experience about the proof of conspiracy that Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted. Section 10 reads :
"Things said or done by conspiration in reference to common design - when there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
In view of above, the Section mainly can be divided into two :
the first part talks of where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, and it is only when this condition precedent is satisfied that the subsequent part of the Section comes into operation CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.176
and it is material to note that this part of the Section talks of reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons have conspired together and this evidently has reference to Section 120-A where it is provided "When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done". This further has been safeguarded by providing a proviso that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to criminal conspiracy. It will be therefore necessary that a prima facie case of conspiracy has to be established for application of Section 10. The second part of Section talks of anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to the common intention after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them is relevant fact against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well for the purpose for proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. It is clear that this second part permits the use of evidence which otherwise could not be used against the accused person. It is well settled that act or action of one of the accused could not be used as evidence against the other. But an exception has been carved out in Section 10 in cases of conspiracy. The second part operates only when the first part of the Section is clearly established i.e. there must be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together in the light of the language of Section 120-A. It is only then the evidence of action or statements made by one of the accused, could be used as evidence against the other.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.177
19. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the flats were offered on free hold basis for allotment as per 9th Self Finance Scheme 1996 which opened w.e.f. 08.08.96 and closed on 20.09.96. As per the scheme, to obtain the application form, various branches of Central Bank of India were authorised as detailed in the brochure. Further, in terms of the scheme, a person applying for a flat under 9th SFS Scheme was required to make a deposit of Rs. 50,000/- as initial deposit at the time of submitting the application form. The mode of payment of cost of flats after allotment/allocation was also specified in the brochure and the initial deposit of Rs. 50,000/- was to be adjusted while raising the balance demand to the successful applicants.
Further, the case of the prosecution is not disputed that on the basis of forms, 16 allottees involved in the present case namely, Amit Aggarwal, Sarla Devi, Sunder Lal, Surender Kumar, Meera, Laxmi Narayan Meena, Kishan Lal, Ram Dev, Ritu Gupta, Amar Singh, Anita, D.K. Jain & Smt. Renu Jain, Ramji Lal Meena, Shirley Masih, N.D. Deva and Ms. Mona Jaiswal were declared successful in the draw of lots on 31.12.96 and were allotted flats at Kondli Gharoli, Delhi.
As per case of prosecution, the allotment papers from the allottees or through other property agents were obtained/purchased by Raju Aggarwal and for aforesaid purpose documents were executed between the parties for purpose of submitting in the office of DDA and taking possession letters in respect of the flats. Investigation revealed that Raju Aggarwal obtained pay orders of Rs.1,000/- each in favour CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
178of DDA issued from different banks in Delhi on the basis of which bogus challans were prepared falsely showing the deposit of cost of each of the said 16 flats in DDA.
It is further the case of prosecution that during aforesaid time, accused no. 4 Gurnam Chand was posted as Dealing Assistant, Housing Branch of DDA and had sent 12 files in respect of aforesaid 16 allottees (excluding those in respect of Ramji Lal Meena, Shirley Masih, N.D. Deva and Mona Jaiswal) to the Accounts Branch deliberately failing to ascertain the genuineness of the papers submitted. It is further alleged that accused no.3 Gurdas posted as Dealing Assistant in the Accounts Section prepared No Dues Certificate in respect of said 12 allottees falsely mentioning that the entire dues in respect of each of them had been deposited by the allottees with the DDA. Out of the 12 files, No Dues Certificates in respect of Surender Kumar, Ram Dev, Sarla Devi and D.K. Jain were signed by Shri V.P. Anand (Accused no.1) who was posted as Accounts Officer, SFS-II while the remaining 8 were signed by accused S.K. Kaushik (Accused no.2) who was posted as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Accounts Section. It is alleged that the accused Public Servants posted in DDA deliberately failed to carry out proper verification of accounts and records and assisted and aided accused Raju Aggarwal to secure allotment letters without payment of the cost of 12 flats to the DDA. Further, possession letters were issued which were handed over by accused no.4 Gurnam Chand to accused Raju Aggarwal without obtaining the receipts.
It is further the case of prosecution that accused Raju Aggarwal CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
179submitted four challans in respect of remaining four allottees, namely, Ramji Lal Meena, Shirley Masih, N.D. Deva and Mona Jaiswal but the possession letters were not issued. However, nonetheless an attempt to cheat was made in respect of aforesaid flats since forged challans were also presented in the aforesaid cases which were detected on verification.
20. Investigation was commenced on complaint dated 14.01.98 Ex.PW42/B filed by Shri A.K. Baranwal, Director (Vigilance), DDA with SP CBI whereby it was reported that it had come to the notice of DDA that possession of flat no. C-43C, B-30A Kondli Gharoli had been handed over to the allottees on forged bank challans without actually getting deposit of the amount of the flats to DDA. It was also therein submitted that forged challans in respect of 11 other flats had also been detected as specified in the complaint and also other forged challans had been deposited towards the cost of the flats.
Prosecution has relied upon the respective allotment files of 16 allottees in question wherein the challans deposited towards the cost of flats were found to be forged on verification and the same may be detailed below in tabular form for proper assessment of evidence.
Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Amount Details of Bogus Name of the Remarks
No Challan No. (Rs.) Pay Order/ Draft Bank
.
1 160(363)/SFS/KL III Sunder Lal, 1192, 97143 9,14,618/ 256169 (5.8.97) Union Bank of
43 C Pocket C New Housing 06.08.97 - India, Anand
Board Colony, Niketan, New
Sector 11 and 12 Delhi.
Panipat
2 160(30)/97/SFS/KL III Surender Kumar, 97149 8,94,225/ 256182 (8.8.97) Union Bank of
30 A Pocket B Gali Pradhan wali, 11.08.97 - India, Anand
Dagarpur, Johripur, 71311 Cash (22.10.97) Niketan,
Delhi -93. 22.10.97 5,625/- Central Bank of
India, Vikas
Sadan, New
Delhi
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
180
3 160(411)/97/SFS/KL III Ram Dev 80084 9,12,670/- 256181 (8.8.97) Union Bank of
43 D Pocket C C-223, Ground Flr. 11.8.97 India, Anand
Lajpat Nagar, New 71320 5,625/- Cash (23.10.97) Niketan,
Delhi 23.10.97 Central Bank of
India, Vikas
Sadan, New
Delhi
4 160(483)/17/SFS/KL III Laxmi Narayan 97148 8,62,350/- 237971 (14.10.97) Vijay Bank,
21 D Pocket D Meena, C/o 15.10.97 Delhi Cantt
Gautam B-21/10
Ramesh Nagar
5 160(223)/97/SFS/KL III Ms. Ritu Gupta 97141 8,62,350/- 237972 (14.10.97) Vijay Bank,
B 55 D Pocket B D/o Anand Kumar 15.10.97 Delhi Cantt
Gupta
10/12 Kalkaji Ext.
N. Delhi
6 160(038)/97/SFS/KL III Kishan Lal 97147 8,94,225/- 005661 (14.08.97) Andhra Bank,
38 A Pocket B S/o Munni Lal, 14.08.97 Cash (22.10.97) R.K. Puram, New
G248 Sarita Vihar, 71319 5,625/- Delhi
New Delhi 22.10.97 Central Bank of
India, Vikas
Sadan, New
Delhi
7 160(263)/97/SFS/KL III Mrs. Sarla Devi 97142 8,94,225/- 256168 Union Bank of
39 A Pocket C W/o Bhagwan Das 06.08.97 (05.08.97) India, Anand
C/o Narula 5,625/- Niketan, New
Traders, 123, New Delhi
Ramesh Nagar,
Karnal
8 160(31)/97/SFS/KL III Ms. Anitha 004994 82,587/- 478873 (22.11.97) Syndicate Bank,
31 A Pocket B Gaigaoli 24.11.97 033963 (18.11.97) Sarojini Nagar
W/o V.M. 95993 7,22,450/- Central Bank of
Pakhiday 21.11.97 India, Safdarjung
D/1/D-DDA Flat Enclave, ND
Munirika, Delhi
9 160(496)/97/SFS/KL III Ms. Meera, S/o 97144 9,12,670/- 477950 (11.8.97) Syndicate Bank,
47 D Pocket D Harish Chand C/o 11.08.97 Sarojini Nagar,
Anil Kumar, H. New Delhi
No. 397, Sec. 7,
Urban Estate,
Gurgaon
10 160(498)/97/SFS/KL III Amar Singh, S/o 97140 8,62,350/- 40011 (14.10.97) Bank of Baroda,
50 D Pocket D Raja Ram, H. No. 15.10.97 Saf. Enclave New
E-16/349 Tank Delhi
Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi
11 160(462)/SFS/KL III Devender Kumar 97152 9,14,618/- 477951 (11.8.97) Syndicate Bank,
34 C Pocket D Jain & Mrs. Renu 12.08.97 11.8.97 Sarojini Nagar,
Jain 71315 5,625/- Cash (23.10.97) Central Bank of
23.10.97 23.10.97 India, Safdarjung
Enclave, ND
12 160(228)/97/SFS/KL III Amit Aggarwal 80085 8,94,225/- 005663 (14.08.97) Andhra Bank,
4 A Pocket C S/o Sh. K.S. 16.8.97 R.K. Puram, New
Aggarwal, H-23, Delhi
Sec. 22, Noida
13 160(121)/97/SFS/KL III Ramji Lal Meena 82703 8,92,310/- 039631 (17.10.97) Syndicate Bank,
9C Pocket B S/o Late Ram 22.10.97 Sarojini Nagar,
Phool Meena, 25B, New Delhi
Gali No. 7/3,
Shakti Vihar
Colony, Meethapur
Extn., New Delhi
14 160(485)/97/SFS/KL III Shrley Masih W/o 000991 8,90,410/- 40010 (17.10.97) Bank of Baroda,
24 D Pocket D V.Y. Masih, 41 A, 22.10.97 Saf. Enclave New
Pocket C, Ashok Delhi
Vihar Phase-III,
New Delhi
15 160(477)/SFS/KL III N.D. Deva, R/o 001000 8,90,410/- 256136 Union Bank of
10 D Pocket D 113A, Pocket C, 22.10.97 (17.10.97) India, Anand
Mayur Vihar, Niketan, New
Phase-II, Delhi Delhi
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
181
16 160(506)/SFS/KL III Ms. Mona Jaiswal, 097150 8,72,415/- 039632 (17.10.97) Syndicate Bank,
7A Pocket A 372, Sector 28, 22.10.97 Delhi Cantt.,
Arun Vihar, Noida New Delhi
The individual allotments along with the forged challans detected during investigation may now be analysed to assess the role of accused.
21. Allottee Sunder Lal, Flat no. 43C, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli (File D1) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Challan Amount (Rs.) Details of Bogus Pay Name of the Bank No. No. Order/ Draft 1 160(363)/SFS/KL III Sunder Lal, 1192, New 97143 9,14,618/- 256169 (5.8.97) Union Bank of India, 43 C Pocket C Housing Board 06.08.97 Anand Niketan, New Colony, Sector 11 and Delhi.
12 Panipat
A. EVIDENCE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO. 43C,
POCKET-C, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF
DEMAND AS PER ALLOTMENT-CUM-DEMAND
LETTER BY DDA
D1 (file Ex.PW9/A also exhibited as Ex.PW63/A) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee Sunder Lal whereby flat no. 43C, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. Sunder Lal was examined as PW68 and he identified his signatures on the application form filled for allocation of allotment of flat at Q1, Q2 & Q3 on Ex.PW61/A. As per evidence on record, the said application form was filled by one Jagdish Chandra Jain who has been examined as PW61 and the form was filled at instance of Avinash Gambhir who has been examined as PW19. Shri Avinash Gambhir also subsequently got executed documents for sale of flat allotted to CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
182Sunder Lal (PW68) in favour of Sidharth Singh (PW59).
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Sunder Lal has further relied upon the acknowledgement contained in D1 whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft dated 29.08.96 by Sunder Lal (Ex.PW61/C) along with Ex.PW120/R4 which is an office document signed by the Accounts Officer with reference to the deposit of amount of Rs.50,000/- by Sunder Lal.
On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of Sunder Lal, allotment-cum-demand letter dated 11.04.97 (Ex.PW9/D4) was issued by DDA (Housing), Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs.8,92,310/- to be deposited within the period stipulated in aforesaid letter. As per aforesaid letter, the possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter Ex.PW9/D4 (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
183allotment was made in favour of allottee Sunder Lal and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO. 43C, POCKET C, KONDLI GHAROLI To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 06.08.97 bearing number 097143 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/A6) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.9,14,618/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/A6) demand draft no. 256169 dated 05.08.97 drawn on Union Bank of India was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft is of the value of only Rs.1,000/-.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
184(ii) The said demand draft was got issued as per application form D84 (Ex.PW55/A2) dated 05.08.97 from Union Bank of India, allegedly under the name of Rajiv Kumar, C1 Vikaspuri and the demand draft issued pursuant to aforesaid request is further reflected on the top of the form as 256169 which is the draft which was deposited along with the challan form Ex.PW9/6 wrongly mentioning the amount.
Ld. PP has pointed out that the aforesaid demand draft in original was not found during the course of investigation and the same was not even deposited in the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan along with any challan as the details of the same were not found entered in any record in the bank. Further, the third copy of challan contained incorrect details as to the amount reflected in the challan corresponding to the demand draft which was got prepared for Rs.1,000/-. The forged copy of the challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
(iii)PW55 R.K. Nayyar, Officer in Union Bank of India had handed over the application forms for preparation of pay orders Ex.PW55/A1 to A4 which includes the present form Ex.PW55/A2 and he further identified the signatures of Shri Sapra Accountant at point A on all the aforesaid application forms submitted for preparation of pay orders (draft) for Rs. 1,000/- in favour of DDA (Housing).
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
185(iv)The handwriting on the aforesaid challan ExPW9/A6 at Q9 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited. Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. Prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
186to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/A6 is a round stamp in Hindi only and does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12).
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no.097143 dated 06.08.97 in file Ex.PW9/A was not issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
(v) The prosecution has further relied upon personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, reliance is placed upon entry at Q366 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal relating to present allottee Sunder Lal wherein the challan number 97143 along with name of allottee i.e. Sunder Lal, flat no. and the draft no. deposited in CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
187the present case i.e. 256169 UB is reflected and the same has been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para 18).
The evidence on record as discussed above clearly points out that forged challan was deposited in the relevant file by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat and the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually deposited with DDA.
C. TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLAT NO.
43C, POCKET C, KONDLI GHAROLI.
PW43 Ajay Kumar Khurana (property dealer) stated that he came in contact with Raju Aggarwal through one S.P. Bansal (Broker) and further deposed regarding the payment for sale of flat no. 30A Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli allotted to Surender Kumar as well as the present flat no. 43C Pocket C Kondli Gharoli. He further stated that flat no. 43C, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli was sold to one Sidharth Singh who had given a cheque of Rs.4 lacs to Raju Aggarwal in the name of allottee Sunder Lal and further identified his signatures on Ex.PW43/A. Prosecution has further relied upon the statement of account Ex.PW50/K to show that the aforesaid amount was received in account no. 5673 opened in the name of Sunder Lal by Raj Kumar (PW101) at behest of Raju Aggarwal.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
188In the aforesaid context, PW19 Avinash Gambhir (Property Dealer) deposed that he had booked four flats in 9th SFS Scheme in different names of relations of Vinay Kumar who was working with him. One of the flat was booked in the name of Sarla Devi (mausi of Vinay Kumar) the second was booked in the name of Sunder Lal (mama of Vinay Kumar), third was booked in the name of Surender Kumar (relation of Vinay Kumar) and fourth was booked in the name of Ram Dev. Further, all the four flats were allotted to him. The flat in the name of Sunder Lal was booked at address of mother's sister of PW19, the flat of Surender Kumar was booked at address of Surender Kumar himself, the flat in the name of Ram Dev was booked at address of Gur Pyari who is his father's sister and the flat of Sarla Devi was booked at address of C/o Narula Traders which is the address of his father's sister namely Ram Pyari Narula. He further stated that papers of allotment of aforesaid four flats including the flat in question were sold to Raju Aggarwal for sum of Rs.2,70,000/- and he received payment of Rs.50,000/- in cash and Rs.2.50 lacs by cheque.
Prosecution further referred to statement of PW46 Satish Sapru who was running a catering van with his brother in front of Vikas Sadan, INA and had subsequently sold the same to Raju Aggarwal. He deposed that Avinsh Gambhir who was his friend had sold registration of 4 SFS flats to Raju Aggarwal in 1998 and the allottees from DDA had handed over the relevant documents containing blank forms to Raju Aggarwal at the time of deal. The CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
189witness further deposed with reference to sale of flat no. C43-C and identified the receipt dated 30.09.97 for Rs.6 lacs executed by him in favour of Ajay Khurana (Ex.PW46/A) along with Ex.PW46/B1 i.e. receipt cum agreement executed in favour of Ajay Khurana, a document detailing the transactions by Raju Aggarwal on a stamp paper of Rs.2 (Ex.PW46/B2) bearing signatures of Raju Aggarwal at point B, Satish Sapru at point A in respect of said flat. He also identified Ex.PW46/B3 another document detailing the transaction in respect of flat no.30A Pocket B and a receipt issued by Raju Aggarwal in respect of flat no. 31A Pocket B, 50D Pocket D, 21D Pocket D, 9C (Ex.PW46/B4) and another affidavit executed by Raju Aggarwal in respect of sale of various flats (D-21D, D-50D, D-34C, C-39A, C-43C, B-30A, C-39A, B-30A, D-47A, B-31A, B-9C, C-4A including C-43C (Ex.PW46/B5). Ld. PP has pointed out that in Ex.PW46/D2 executed by Raju Aggarwal and signed by him at Q343 he declared that flat no. 43C Pocket C had been sold by him through SP Bansal and Ajay Khurana to Sidharth Singh of Agra and the payment had been made by him to DDA.
In the aforesaid context, prosecution has further relied upon testimony of PW59 Shri Sidharth Singh who purchased the aforesaid flat in question. He stated that he resided in Agra and was inclined to purchase a house in Delhi and visited Shiv Properties where he met Raj Kumar who telephoned one Ajay Khurana. Ajay Khurana met him for the first time in October, 1997 and showed him a flat at Kondli Gharoli and was shown a file and terms were discussed with Raju Aggarwal over telephone. The file was containing an NOC given by CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
190DDA to the effect that flat was ready for delivery/possession and its possession could be taken and steps could be taken for getting water and electricity connection apart from a bank challan regarding entire payment made, allotment letter and one or two other letters.
He further stated that the deal was finalised for Rs.11,85,000/- in respect of Flat no. 43-C, Pocket-C, 2nd Floor, S.F.S. Flats CAT-III, Kondli, Delhi with Ajay Khurana and he paid some amount as advance. Thereafter, Power of Attorney was executed in his favour by allottee Sunder Lal at Kashmere Gate. Further, upon delivery of documents at DDA site office at Kondli Gharoli, he was delivered possession on 21.11.97. He further stated that payment was made by way of two bank drafts of Rs. 2 lacs each and rest in cash.
He further identified his handwriting and also signatures of his mother Reeta Rani Singh at point A on Ex.PW59/A (D137) & Ex.PW59/B and stated that the same were handed over to allottee Sunder Lal at the time of signing of the final receipts and other documents at Kashmere Gate. He further deposed that later he came to know about scam in DDA through some newspapers and on enquiry, came to know that actual payment was not made to DDA and the bank challan was fake. Thereafter, he contacted Ajay Khurana and demanded his money back, who after speaking to Raju Aggarwal promised to return the same and gave a cheque of Rs. 4 lacs which was dishonoured upon presentation.
The statement of witnesses referred to above reflects that the allotment papers of aforesaid flat in favour of Sunder Lal were purchased by Raju Aggarwal and the payment was deposited by CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
191him as per challan Ex.PW9/A6 which was found to be forged in respect of payment of Rs.9,14,618/- with DDA.
D. OTHER EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO SALE
TRANSACTIONS OF FLAT NO.43C, POCKET C,
KONDLI GHAROLI.
Prosecution also relied upon statement of PW104 Chamra Kujur @ Mohd. Zafaruddin and ld. PP has pointed out that the witness stated his name as Chamra Kujur s/o Shri Barua Kujur in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. but on the appearance in the court clarified and deposed his name as Mohd. Zafaruddin s/o Chotte Khan. The evidence of this witness is relevant since he was associated with Raju Aggarwal and had wrongly identified PW101 Raj Kumar who opened an account forging his identity in the name of Sunder Lal who is the allottee in the present instance for purpose of carrying the transactions in the name of Sunder Lal. The witness deposed that he was running a puncture shop at the petrol pump of Bharat Petroleum located near DTC Bus Depot Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and knew accused Raju Aggarwal who used to visit his shop. He also stated that he was doing job of cleaning, serving tea etc. in the shop of Raju Aggarwal. PW104 further deposed that he had opened an account in Union Bank near Moti Bagh at instance of Raju Aggarwal. Further, he visited the bank for purpose of opening the account with another person who was running a shop with name of Sai Video at Moti Bagh. He also identified a photocopy of letter dated CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
19212.02.98 addressed to Bank Manager, Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan (Ex. PW104/B1) bearing his signatures whereby he informed the change of his shop address.
It is pointed out by ld. PP that an account was further opened at Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan by one Raj Kumar (PW101) forging the identity as Sunder Lal at behest of Raju Aggarwal and the application form D29 (Ex.PW50/A) dated 07.11.97 was filled by him as Sunder Lal baring the address of shop no.52, Vasant Place Market, Sector 6, R.K. Puram and he was introduced by Chamra Kujur who had opened bank account no. 5486. As such, an account no. 5673 as reflected on aforesaid form was opened in the name of Sunder Lal. PW 101 Raj Kumar in aforesaid context stated that he opened the aforesaid account at instance of Raju Aggarwal who had asked him to bring four photographs and he was accompanied by one Manish and Pankaj to the Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan. He also stated that an amount of Rs.4,000/- deposited at the time of opening of account was deposited vide pay slip Ex.PW50/B and the amount was given by Raju Aggarwal and further a cheque book was received by Raju Aggarwal but he had signed the cheques contained in the cheque book Ex.PW69/B1 and had signed as Sunder Lal. He also identified his photograph on account opening form (Ex.PW50/A). He also stated that amount was withdrawn vide 3 cheques but he did not know who had withdrawn the said amount.
Prosecution has further relied upon statement of PW50 Shri K.K. Sapra who was working at the relevant time at Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan as Accountant and stated that SB Account no.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
1935673 in the name of Sunder Lal was opened on 07.11.97 on introduction of account holder of account no.5486 and proved the account opening form Ex.PW50/A bearing the signatures of account holder at Q286. This witness also proved the pay in slips pertaining to aforesaid SB Account dated 07.11.97 & 08.11.97 (Ex.PW50/B,C, D) the debit vouchers (cheques dated 12.11.97 & 17.12.97) Ex.PW50/E,F & G, pay order no. 228406 dated 12.11.97 for Rs.1,76,000/- favouring Rajinder Singh (Ex.PW50/H) on the basis of application Ex.PW50/J, Statement of SB account no. 5673 (Ex.PW50/K) along with statement of SB account no. 5486 (Ex.PW50/L).
Prosecution has also relied upon the fact that the aforesaid cheque book relating to account no.5673 (Ex.PW69/B1) in the name of Sunder Lal was recovered during the search of premises belonging to Raju Aggarwal as per production memo Ex.PW69/A and statement of PW69 Manish Malik is also relied who is a witness to the aforesaid production memo.
The evidence points out active role of Raju Aggarwal for purpose of effecting transactions in respect of flat in question and it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that forged challan was presented by Raju Aggarwal in conspiracy for payment of cost of flat in DDA.
This instance also points out the manner in which the application for allotment was filled at instance of property dealer PW19 Avinash Gambhir using different addresses other than that of the applicant and the fact that the allotment papers were sold for consideration without the allottee even intending to purchase CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
194the flat. It also points out how the entire process of allotment was got completed in DDA with active collusion of the concerned officials.
The instance also reflects how an account was opened by PW101 Raj Kumar in the name of allottee as Sunder Lal in connivance with Raju Aggarwal for purpose of effecting transactions and was also wrongly identified by PW104 Chamra Kujur @ Mohd. Zafaruddin. However, CBI did not prosecute the aforesaid witnesses for the illegalities/offences committed by them but preferred to use them as witnesses in the case.
22. Allottee Surender Kumar, Flat No. 30A, Pocket-B, Kondli Gharoli (File D2) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Challan Amount (Rs.) Details of Bogus Pay Name of the Bank No. No. Order/ Draft 2 160(30)/97/SFS/KL III Surender Kumar, Gali 97149 8,94,225/- 256182 (8.8.97) Union Bank of India, 30 A Pocket B Pradhan wali, 11.08.97 Anand Niketan, Dagarpur, Johripur, 71311 5,625/- Cash (22.10.97) Central Bank of Delhi -93. 22.10.97 India, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi A. EVIDENCE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.30A, POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF DEMAND AS PER DEMAND-CUM-ALLOTMENT LETTER BY DDA.
D2 (file Ex.PW9/B also exhibited as Ex.PW63/B) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee Surender Kumar whereby Flat no. 30A, Pocket-B, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
195Surender Kumar was examined as PW28 and he identified his signatures on the application form filled for allocation of allotment of flat (Ex.PW28/A) at point Q17, Q18 & Q19. He further deposed that the said form was signed at asking of his nephew Vinay Kumar. He further stated that Vinay Kumar informed that a flat has been allotted in his name and he further signed Ex.PW9/DX1 (i.e. affidavit dated 20.08.97 bearing his signatures at Q22), Special Power of attorney Ex.PW28/B in favour of Vijay Laxmi at point A and B (Q23), specimen signatures Ex.PW9/DX2 at point A, B, C (Q24), acknowledgement Ex.PW28/C at point A (Q28), undertaking Ex.PW28/D at point A and B (Q29 & Q31) and also bearing signatures of witness Satish Sapru, affidavit Ex.PW28/E at point A (Q32), request for issue of possession letter (Ex.PW25/E) at point D (Q33). He further stated that the documents after signing were handed over to Vinay Kumar and he had accompanied to Kashmere Gate. Further, he was paid Rs.5,000/- by Vinay Kumar.
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Surender Kumar has further relied upon the acknowledgement contained in Ex.PW28/C whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft dated 24.08.96 by Surender Kumar along with Ex.PW120/R5 which is an office document signed by the Accounts Officer with reference to the deposit of amount of Rs.50,000/- by Surender Kumar. On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of Surender Kumar, allotment-cum-demand letter dated 25.04.97 (Ex.PW9/B4) was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs.8,94,225/- with the period stipulated in CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
196aforesaid letter. As per the aforesaid letter, the possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter Ex.PW9/B4 (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Surender Kumar and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO. 30A, POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI.
To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
197was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) Case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 11.08.97 bearing number 097149 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/B5) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.8,94,225/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/B5) demand draft no. 256182 dated 08.08.97 drawn on Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft is of the value of only Rs.1,000/-.
(ii) The said demand draft was got issued as per application form D86 (Ex.PW55/A4) dated 08.08.97 from Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan allegedly under the name of Ram Pal, B9/811, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi and the demand draft issued pursuant to aforesaid request is further reflected on the top of the form as 256182 which is the draft which was deposited along with the challan form Ex.PW9/B5 wrongly mentioning the amount deposited with DDA.
Ld. PP has pointed out that the aforesaid demand draft in original was not found during the course of investigation and CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
198the same was not even deposited in the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan along with any challan as the details of the same were not found entered in any record in the bank. Further, the third copy of challan contained incorrect details as to the amount reflected in the challan corresponding to the demand draft which was got prepared for Rs.1,000/-. The forged copy of the challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
(iii) PW55 Shri R.K. Nayyar, Officer in Union Bank of India had handed over the application forms for preparation of pay orders Ex.PW55/A1 to A4 which includes the present form Ex.PW55/A4 and he further identified the signatures of Shri Sapra Accountant at point A on all the aforesaid application forms submitted for preparation of pay orders (draft) for Rs.1,000/- in favour of DDA (Housing).
(iv) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan ExPW9/B5 at Q25 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited. In the aforesaid context, the fourth copy of the challan D256 (Ex.PW93/D) is also relied which is retained by the person who deposits the amount and has been opined by GEQD at Q46 to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal. Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
199Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW9/B5 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
200impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/B5 is a round stamp in Hindi only and does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12).
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no.097149 dated 11.08.97 in file Ex.PW9/B was not issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
(v) Prosecution further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, reliance is placed upon entry at Q366 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal relating to present allottee Surender Kumar wherein the challan number 97149 along with name of allottee i.e. Surender Kumar, flat no. and the draft no. deposited in the present case i.e. 256182 UB is reflected and the same has been CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
201opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para 18).
(vi) It is further the case of prosecution that another third copy of challan dated 22.10.97 bearing number 071311 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/B6) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.5,625/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/B6), amount of Rs.5,625/- was deposited in cash while reliance is placed upon testimony of PW16 Shri A.K. Jain who proved the original stamp of the bank on the genuine challans Ex.PW16/A1 to A12 i.e D142 to D153. Ld. PP has pointed out that the size of the stamp of the bank endorsed on Ex.PW9/B6 appears to be of different shape and it was also stated by PW16 that rubber stamp of Central Bank of India used to be affixed on challans by him. It has been also pointed out that the writing on the aforesaid challan at Q34 also been opined to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 in para 18).
The evidence on record as discussed above clearly points out that the forged challan was deposited in the relevant file by Raju Aggarwal but the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually deposited with DDA.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
202C. TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLAT NO.
30A, POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI PW27 Shri Vinay Kumar stated that he joined M/s Gaurav Enterprises which was dealing in property business as Office Assistant and Avinash Gambhir was the proprietor of said firm. Further, while working in M/s Gaurav Enterprises, he got signatures of Sarla Devi (his mausi), Ram Dev and Surender (his maternal uncles) on the application forms for SFS Flats of DDA in 1995-96 at the directions of Avinash Gambhir. He further stated that flats were allotted to Sarla Devi, Surender Kumar and Ram Dev and after the allotment of flats, he got signatures of all the aforesaid applicants on bunch of papers given by Avinash Gambhir and handed over the signed papers to Avinash Gambhir. He further stated that he he had not deposited any amount towards the cost of the flats and confirmed that flat C-39A was allotted to Sarla Devi.
In the aforesaid context, PW19 Avinash Gambhir (Property Dealer) who deposed that he had booked four flats in 9th SFS Scheme in different names of relations of Vinay Kumar who was working with him. One of the flat was booked in the name of Sarla Devi (mausi of Vinay Kumar) the second was booked in the name of Sunder Lal (mama of Vinay Kumar), third was booked in the name of Surender Kumar (relation of Vinay Kumar) and fourth was booked in the name of Ram Devi. Further, all the four flats were allotted to him. The flat in the name of Sunder Lal was CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
203booked at address of mother's sister of PW19, the flat of Surender Kumar was booked at address of Surender Kumar himself, the flat in the name of Ram Dev was booked at address of Gur Pyari who is his father's sister and the flat of Sarla Devi was booked at address of C/o Narula Traders which is the address of his father's sister namely Ram Pyari Narula. He further stated that papers of allotment of aforesaid four flats including the flat in question were sold to Raju Aggarwal for sum of Rs.2,70,000/- and he received payment of Rs.50,000/- in cash and Rs.2.50 lacs by cheque.
Prosecution further referred to statement of PW43 Ajay Kumar Khurana (property dealer) who stated that he came in contact with Raju Aggarwal through one S.P. Bansal (Broker) and further deposed regarding the payment for sale of flats no. 30A Pocket B Kondli Gharoli allotted to Surender Kumar as well as flat no. 43C Pocket C Kondli Gharoli. He further stated that flat no. 30A Pocket B Kondli Gharoli was sold for a sum of Rs.14/15 lacs and the payment was made to Raju Aggarwal in presence of S.P. Bansal and Satish Sapru. Further, they got commission of Rs.15,000/- each.
Prosecution further relied upon statement of PW46 Satish Sapru who was running a catering van with his brother in front of Vikas Sadan, INA and had subsequently sold the same to Raju Aggarwal. He deposed that Avinash Gambhir who was his friend had sold registration of 4 SFS flats to Raju Aggarwal in 1998 and the allottees from DDA had handed over the relevant documents containing blank forms to Raju Aggarwal at the time of deal. The CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
204witness further deposed with reference to sale of flat no. C43-C and identified the receipt dated 30.09.97 for Rs.6 lacs executed by him in favour of Ajay Khurana (Ex.PW46/A) along with Ex.PW46/B1 i.e. receipt cum agreement executed in favour of Ajay Khurana, a document detailing the transactions by Raju Aggarwal on a stamp paper of Rs.2 (Ex.PW46/B2) bearing signatures of Raju Aggarwal at point B, Satish Sapru at point A in respect of said flat. He also identified Ex.PW46/B3 another document detailing the transaction in respect of flat no.30A Pocket B and a receipt issued by Raju Aggarwal in respect of flat no. 31A Pocket B, 50D Pocket D, 21D Pocket D, 9C (Ex.PW46/B4) and another affidavit executed by Raju Aggarwal in respect of sale of various flats (D-21D, D-50D, D-34C, C-39A, C-43C, B-30A, C-39A, B-30A, D-47A, B-31A, B-9C, C-4A including C-43C (Ex.PW46/B5). Ld. PP has pointed out that in Ex.PW46/B3 executed by Raju Aggarwal and signed by him at Q346 he declared that flat no. 30A Pocket B had been sold by him through SP Bansal and Ajay Khurana to Vijay Laxmi and the payment had been made by him to DDA.
Prosecution further relied upon testimony of PW93 Shri Janardan Prasad Sharma husband of Smt. Vijay Laxmi who deposed that flat no. 30A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli was offered through Ajay Khurana (property dealer) and the payment in respect of another flat disposed by him through Ajay Khurana was adjusted and balance amount was paid to Shri Ajay Khurana. Further, the physical possession of flat no. 30A, Pocket B, Kondli Gharoli was obtained on 18.12.97. He further identified signatures of his wife on CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
205SPA (Ex.PW28/B) and the possession letter dated 05.11.97 (Ex.PW9/B3). He further stated that in January, 1998 he came to know that there was some problem in allotment and a cancellation letter of the flat Ex.PW47/E was received on 21.01.98 and the said flat was handed back to DDA on 29.01.98 vide Ex.PW47/D and C. Further, Shri Ajay Khurana gave him a cheque of Rs.5 lacs but it did not bear the signatures of Ajay Khurana and he requested him that the cheque may be encashed by Ajay Khurana in his account and thereafter give him a cheque signed by Ajay Khurana. The said cheque Ex.PW93/B which was later on handed over to CBI during investigation as per Ex.PW93/C is further relied upon by prosecution as the signatures on the said cheque for Rs.5 lacs dated 15.01.98 (Ex.PW93/B) have been opined by GEQD at Q480 to be of Raju Aggarwal indicating that the flat was dealt by him.
In context of aforesaid flat, PW47 Shri D.K. Gupta, JE, DDA deposed that possession letter of the flat was issued in favour of Vijay Laxmi wife of J.P. Sharma vide letter dated 05.11.97 (Ex.PW9/B3) and that possession of the flat was handed over to Vijay Laxmi. He also deposed that the possession of the flat was taken back from Vijay Laxmi as per endorsement made on Ex.PW47/D as per directions of Deputy Director SFS vide letter dated 21.01.98 (Ex.PW47/E).
The statement of witnesses referred to above reflects that the allotment papers of aforesaid flat in favour of Surender Kumar were purchased by Raju Aggarwal and the payment was deposited by him as per challan Ex.PW9/B5 which has been found to be forged in respect of payment of Rs.8,94,225/- with DDA.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
206It stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that forged challan was presented by Raju Aggarwal in conspiracy towards the payment of cost of flat in DDA.
This instance also points out the manner in which the application for allotment was filled at instance of property dealer PW19 Avinash Gambhir using different addresses other than that of the applicant and the fact that the allotment papers were sold for consideration without the allottee even intending to purchase the flat. It also points out how the entire process of allotment was got completed in DDA with active collusion of the concerned officials.
23. Allottee Ram Dev, Flat No.43D, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli (File D3) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Challan Amount (Rs.) Details of Bogus Pay Name of the Bank No. No. Order/ Draft 3 160(411)/97/SFS/KL III Ram Dev 80084 9,12,670/- 256181 (8.8.97) Union Bank of India, 43 D Pocket C C-223, Ground Flr. 11.8.97 Anand Niketan, Lajpat Nagar, New 71320 5,625/- Cash (23.10.97) Central Bank of Delhi 23.10.97 India, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi A. EVIDENCE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.43D, POCKET-C, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF DEMAND AS PER ALLOTMENT-CUM-DEMAND LETTER BY DDA.
D3 (file Ex.PW9/C) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee Ram Dev whereby flat no. 43D, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. Ram Dev was examined as PW33 and CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
207he identified his signatures on the application form filled for allocation of allotment of flat (Ex.PW33/A) at Q37 and Q38. He further stated that he had signed the said form at asking of Vinay Kumar but was not aware of the contents of the application. Further, again in 1997, Vinay Kumar visited him with 2/3 people on which he obtained the signatures and further a photograph was handed over to him. He further identified his signatures at point A and B on Ex.PW9/CX1 (affidavit), Ex.PW9/CX2 (specimen signatures) bearing his signatures at point C, D and E, Ex.PW33/C (undertaking) bearing signatures at point A and B, affidavit Ex.PW33/D bearing his signatures at point A and B, Ex.PW25/F (request for issue of possession letter) bearing his signatures at point A. He further stated that the address given in the application form Ex.PW33/A was not his address.
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Ram Dev has further relied upon the acknowledgment contained in Ex.PW33/B whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft dated 19.09.96 by Ram Dev along with Ex.PW120/R10 which is an office document signed by the Accounts Officer with reference to the deposit of amount of Rs.50,000/- by Ram Dev. On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of Ram Dev, allotment-cum-demand letter dated 11.04.97 (Ex.PW9/C4) was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs.8,72,415/- with the period stipulated in aforesaid letter. As per the aforesaid letter, the possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
208submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter Ex.PW9/C4 (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Ram Dev and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO.43D, POCKET-C, KONDLI GHAROLI.
To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
209course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) Case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 11.08.97 bearing number 080084 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/C6) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.9,12,670/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/C6) demand draft no. 256181 dated 08.08.97 drawn on Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft is of the value of only Rs.1,000/-.
(ii) The said demand draft was got issued as per application form D85 (Ex.PW55/A3) dated 08.08.97 from Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan allegedly under the name of Ram Pal, B9/811, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi and the demand draft issued pursuant to aforesaid request is further reflected on the top of the form as 256181 which is the draft which was deposited along with the challan form Ex.PW9/C6 wrongly mentioning the amount deposited with DDA.
Ld. PP has also pointed out that the aforesaid demand draft in original was not found during the course of investigation and the same was not even deposited in the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan along with any challan as CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
210the details of the same were not found entered in any record in the bank. Further the third copy of challan contained incorrect details as to the amount reflected in the challan corresponding to the demand draft which was got prepared for Rs.1,000/-. The forged copy of the challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
(iii) PW55 Shri R.K. Nayyar, Officer in Union Bank of India had handed over the application forms for preparation of pay orders Ex.PW55/A1 to A4 which includes the present form Ex.PW55/A3 and he further identified the signatures of Shri Sapra Accountant at point A on all the aforesaid application forms submitted for preparation of pay orders (draft) for Rs.1,000/- in favour of DDA (Housing).
(iv) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan ExPW9/C6 at Q49 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited. Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW9/C6 does not belong CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
211to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/C6 is a round stamp in Hindi only and does not match in any manner with the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
212official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) which was in use at relevant time.
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no.080084 dated 11.08.97 in file Ex.PW9/C was not issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed by prosecution on statement of PW17 Rakesh Jaiswal who was posted as Clerk in Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan Branch in 1997 on the clearing seat. He stated that in case the party deposited the draft along with challan of DDA, he used to affix rubber stamp of Central Bank of India and sign on the same and hand over two copies of the challan to the depositor. Further, he used to enter said drafts in the clearing register and hand over the drafts along with challans who used to check the same. Further, challan no.097143 in file Ex.PW9/A, challan No. 071311 in file Ex.PW9/B, challan No.080084 in file Ex.PW9/C, challan No.095993 and challan No.004994 in file Ex.PW9/H, challan no. 97497140 Ex.PW9/J1 does not bear his signatures. Also the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India affixed on said challans does not appear to be the same CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
213which was being used by him. He also clarified that he had not sent the said challans for clearing while working as Clerk in Vikas Sadan Branch.
(v) Prosecution has further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, reliance is placed upon entry at Q366 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal relating to present allottee Ram Dev wherein the challan number 080084 along with name of allottee i.e. Ram Dev, flat no. and the draft no. deposited in the present case i.e. 256181 is reflected and the same has been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para 18).
(vi) It is further the case of prosecution that another third copy of challan dated 23.10.97 bearing number 071320 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/C7) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.5,625/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/C6), amount of Rs.5,625/- was deposited in cash. Reliance is placed upon testimony of PW16 Shri A.K. Jain who proved the original CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
214stamp of the bank on the genuine challans Ex.PW16/A1 to A12 i.e D142 to D153. He further stated that the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which he used to affix was in Hindi language only during the year 1997. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp affixed on aforesaid challan is in English. It is also pointed out that the writing on the aforesaid challan at Q58 has been opined to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 in para 18).
The evidence on record as discussed above clearly points out that forged challan was deposited in the relevant file by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat and the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually deposited with DDA.
C. TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLAT NO.
43D, POCKET-C, KONDLI GHAROLI PW27 Shri Vinay Kumar stated that he joined M/s Gaurav Enterprises which was dealing in property business as Office Assistant and Avinash Gambhir was the proprietor of said firm. Further, while working in M/s Gaurav Enterprises, he got signatures of Sarla Devi (his mausi), Ram Dev and Surender (his maternal uncles) on the application forms for SFS Flats of DDA in 1995-96 at the directions of Avinash Gambhir. He further stated that flats were allotted to Sarla Devi, Surender Kumar and Ram Dev and after CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
215the allotment of flats, he got signatures of all the aforesaid applicants on bunch of papers given by Avinash Gambhir and handed over the signed papers to Avinash Gambhir. He further stated that he he had not deposited any amount towards the cost of the flats and confirmed that flat C-39A was allotted to Sarla Devi.
Prosecution has further relied upon statement of PW19 Avinash Gambhir (Property Dealer) who deposed that he had booked four flats in 9th SFS Scheme in different names of relations of Vinay Kumar who was working with him. One of the flat was booked in the name of Sarla Devi (mausi of Vinay Kumar) the second was booked in the name of Sunder Lal (mama of Vinay Kumar), third was booked in the name of Surender Kumar (relation of Vinay Kumar) and fourth was booked in the name of Ram Dev. Further, all the four flats were allotted to him. The flat in the name of Sunder Lal was booked at address of mother's sister of PW19, the flat of Surender Kumar was booked at address of Surender Kumar himself, the flat in the name of Ram Dev was booked at address of Gur Pyari who is his father's sister and the flat of Sarla Devi was booked at address of C/o Narula Traders which is the address of his father's sister namely Ram Pyari Narula. He further stated that papers of allotment of aforesaid four flats including the flat in question were sold to Raju Aggarwal for sum of Rs.2,70,000/- and he received payment of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and Rs.2.50 lacs by cheque.
It is pointed out by ld. PP that so far as the present flat is concerned, the possession of the flat had not been handed over to the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
216allottee/attorney and there is no further evidence as to the further sale of this flat.
The statement of witnesses referred to above reflects that the allotment papers of aforesaid flat in favour of Ram Dev were purchased by Raju Aggarwal and the payment was deposited by him as per challan Ex.PW9/C6 which has been found to be forged in respect of payment of Rs.9,12,670/- with DDA.
The evidence points out active role of Raju Aggarwal for purpose of effecting transactions in respect of flat in question and it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that forged challan was presented by Raju Aggarwal in conspiracy for payment of cost of flat in DDA.
This instance also points out the manner in which the application for allotment was filled at instance of property dealer PW19 Avinash Gambhir using different addresses other than that of the applicant and the fact that the allotment papers were sold for consideration without the allottee even intending to purchase the flat . It also points out how the entire process of allotment was got completed in DDA with active collusion of the concerned officials.
24. Allottee Laxmi Narayan Meena, flat no.21D, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli (File D-4) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Challan Amount (Rs.) Details of Bogus Pay Name of the Bank No. No. Order/ Draft 4 160(483)/17/SFS/KL III Laxmi Narayan 97148 8,62,350/- 237971 (14.10.97) Vijay Bank, Delhi 21 D Pocket D Meena, C/o Gautam 15.10.97 Cantt B-21/10 Ramesh Nagar CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
217A. EVIDENCE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.21D, POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF DEMAND AS PER ALLOTMENT-CUM-DEMAND LETTER BY DDA D4 (file Ex.PW9/D) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee Laxmi Narayan Meena whereby flat no. 21D, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. Laxmi Narayan Meena was examined as PW92 and he identified his signatures on the application form filled for allocation of allotment of flat at Q61 & Q62 on Ex.PW72/A. Along with the caste certificate Mark PW92/A submitted along with the form, he also identified his signatures on application for extension of time (Ex.PW72/B), special power of attorney dated 12.10.97 (Ex.PW72/D), specimen signatures (Ex.PW72/E), affidavit (Ex.PW72/G), undertaking (Ex.PW72/H), request for issue of possession letter (Ex.PW25/G). He further stated that the application form was filled by Shyam Lal though the address of PW92 itself was filled in the form Ex.PW72/A and the amount to be deposited along with the form was paid by Shyam Lal.
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Laxmi Narayan Meena has relied upon the acknowledgement contained in D4 whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft dated 19.09.96 (Ex.PW72/F) (which was proved by PW72 Madan Lal Meena who is the real brother of PW92 Laxmi Narayan Meena) along with Ex.PW120/R7 which is an office document signed by the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
218Accounts Officer with reference to the deposit of amount of Rs. 50,000/- on behalf of allottee Laxmi Narayan Meena. On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of Laxmi Narayan Meena, allotment- cum-demand letter dated 11.04.97 (Ex.PW9/D4) was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs. 8,62,350/- with the period stipulated in aforesaid letter which was signed by Shri V.P. Anand. As per the aforesaid letter, the possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter Ex.PW9/D4 (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Laxmi Narayan Meena and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
219the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN
DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO.21D, POCKET-D,
KONDLI GHAROLI.
To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 15.10.97 bearing number 097148 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/D6) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.8,62,350/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/D6) demand draft no. 237971 dated 14.10.97 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Delhi Cantt. was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft was not deposited and the value of the same was also wrongly reflected on the challan and is only of the value of Rs.1,000/-.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
220(ii) As per copy of said demand draft no. 237971 for Rs. 1,000/- dated 21.08.97 (Ex.PW54/A1-D105), the same was issued from Vijaya Bank, Delhi Cantonment. On the face of record, it reflects that the amount corresponding to the draft no. 237971 has been wrongly reflected on the third copy of forged challan Ex.PW9/D6 as Rs.8,62,350/- instead of Rs.1,000/-. Even the date of issue of demand draft no. 237971 dated 21.08.97 is wrongly reflected on the challan Ex.PW9/.D6 as 14.10.97.
Ld. PP has pointed out that the aforesaid demand draft in original was not found during the course of investigation and the same was not even deposited in the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan along with any challan as the details of the same were not found entered in any record in the bank. Further the third copy of challan contained incorrect details as to the amount reflected in the challan corresponding to the demand draft which was got prepared for Rs.1,000/-. The forged copy of the challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
(iii) PW54 Shri Chander Kant who was posted in Delhi Cantt. Branch of Vijaya Bank stated that vide seizure memo Ex.PW54/A he had handed over the documents Ex.PW54/A1 to A4 to CBI and Ex.PW54/A1 is the copy of draft no. 237971 involved in this transaction.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
221(iv) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan ExPW9/D6 at Q77 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited.
Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW9/D6 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
222of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/D6 is a round stamp in Hindi only and does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) which was in use at relevant time.
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no.097148 dated 15.10.97 in file Ex.PW9/D was not issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
(v) Prosecution further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
223entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, reliance is placed upon entry at Q368 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal bearing the name of allottee Laxmi Narayan Meena with flat no. D21 is reflected and the same has been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para 18).
The evidence on record as discussed above clearly points out that forged challan was deposited in the relevant file by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat but the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually deposited with DDA.
C. TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLAT NO. 21D, POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI. i. PW36 Shri Hari Garg dealing in property business deposed as
to transactions relating to flat no. D-47 (allotted to Meera), 21 Pocket D Kondli Gharoli (Allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena) and 50D (allotted to Amar Singh).
He further stated that he had purchased allotment letter of 21, Pocket D (allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena) from Shyam Lal for Rs. 80,000/- and sold allotment letter and other documents to Dinesh Singhal who was a property dealer for Rs.90,000/-. Further, since Dinesh Singhal could not deposit the balance amount, he sold the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
224papers of the flat to Raju Aggarwal for Rs.1.5 lacs.
ii. PW29 Shri Dinesh Singhal is the purchaser of flat no. D-21D (allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena-D4), flat no.D-50D (allotted to Amar Singh -D10) and flat no. D-55B (allotted to Ritu Gupta). He stated that he had purchsed allotment papers in respect of flat no. D-21D and D-50D, Kondli Gharoli for consideration of Rs.90,000/- each from Hari Garg though papers of the same were not handed over to him. Further, he also purchased papers of flat no. D-55B allotted to Ritu Gupta from Satpal for Rs.90,000/- and had also deposited Rs.1 lac for each flat in DDA by way of pay order. Further, as the period of deposit of money with DDA was about to expire, he and Hari Garg submitted application for extension of time for deposit of balance amount on 16th September, 1997 and DDA extended the period of deposit amount to 30 to 35 days. However, since he could not arrange the money, he sold the papers of the flats to Raju Aggarwal through Hari Garg in the 1 st week of October for Rs.1.5 lacs for each flat and received the amount from Hari Garg by cash in four installments.
He further denied having deposited any amount as shown in the copies of the challan Ex.PW9/D6 pertaining to flat no. D-21D (Laxmi Narayan Meena), Ex.PW9/J6 pertaining to flat no. D-50D (Amar Singh) and Ex.PW9/E pertaining to flat no. D-55B (Ritu Gupta).
iii. Prosecution further relied upon statement of PW46 Satish Sapru who was running a catering van with his brother in front of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
225Vikas Sadan, INA and had subsequently sold the same to Raju Aggarwal. He identified his signatures on Ex.PW46/B1 to B5 which includes Ex.PW46/B4 and the aforesaid document is a receipt executed by Raju Aggarwal regarding the receipt of earnest money for flat no. 31A, Pocket B (Rs.10 lacs), 50D, Pocket D (Rs.3 lacs), 21D, Pocket D (Rs.3 lacs), 9C Pocket __(Rs.3 lacs). The aforesaid receipt Ex.PW46/B4 contains the details of the present flat 21D, Pocket D which is signed by Raju Aggarwal at Q350 and the same has also been opined by GEQD as per Ex.PW119/A101 (D354).
Ld. PP has pointed out that Ex.PW46/B5 is also an affidavit given by Raju Aggarwal mentioning the details of flats sold by him including the present flat i.e. D-21D and the fact that full and final payment was made by him to DDA. The said affidavit has also been opined by GEQD to be bearing the signatures of Raju Aggarwal at Q352 as per Ex.PW119/A101 (D354).
The statement of witnesses referred to above reflects that the allotment papers of aforesaid flat in favour of Laxmi Narayan Meena were also purchased by Raju Aggarwal and the payment was deposited by him as per challan Ex.PW9/D6 which has been found to be forged regarding deposit of payment of Rs.8,62,350/- with DDA.
Ld. PP has pointed out that possession of this flat was handed over to one Kishan Lal as per possession letter but the details of further transaction have not come up in investigation.
The evidence points out that Raju Aggarwal had produced the documents in respect of flat in question and it stands proved CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
226beyond reasonable doubt that forged challan was presented by Raju Aggarwal in conspiracy towards the payment of cost of flat in DDA.
25. Allottee Ms. Ritu Gupta, flat no.55D, pocket B, Kondli Gharoli (File D5) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Challan Amount (Rs.) Details of Bogus Pay Name of the Bank No. No. Order/ Draft 5 160(223)/97/SFS/KL III Ms. Ritu Gupta 97141 8,62,350/- 237972 (14.10.97) Vijay Bank, Delhi B 55 D Pocket B D/o Anand Kumar 15.10.97 Cantt Gupta 10/12 Kalkaji Ext. N. Delhi A. EVIDENCE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.55D, POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF DEMAND AS PER DEMAND-CUM-ALLOTMENT LETTER BY DDA D5 (file Ex.PW9/E) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee Ritu Gupta whereby flat no. 55D, Pocket-B, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. Ritu Gupta has not been cited as a witness by the prosecution. PW102 Shri Om Prakash then posted as UDC Accounts Branch HAU-IX, Vikas Sadan proved the documents in the files which were dealt in HAU-IX Section of Accounts Branch pertaining to Kondli Gharoli bearing signatures of different officers. He identified his signatures along with that of Shri Grover and accused V.P. Anand on noting on page no. 3 in the file Ex.PW9/E. The noting on page 3 bearing signatures of aforesaid officers was further exhibited as Ex.PW63/D which pertains to signing of transfer entry for signatures by the competent officers after the file CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
227was forwarded to HAU-IX for issue of NOC. He further proved the entry at point X on application form Ex.PW102/B which was submitted by Ritu Gupta and an endorsement was made to the effect "amount transferred vide TE" bearing initials of Shri V.P. Anand, then then AO at point A, Shri Grover, AAO at point B and initials of PW102 at point C. Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Ritu Gupta has relied upon the acknowledgement contained in D5 whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft dated 19.09.96 along with Mark PW120/R8 which is an office document signed by the Accounts Officer with reference to the deposit of amount of Rs. 50,000/- on behalf of allottee Ritu Gupta. On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of Ritu Gupta, allotment-cum-demand letter dated 11.04.97 (Ex.PW9/E4 - D5) was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs.8,62,350/- within the period stipulated in aforesaid letter which bears the stamped signatures of Shri V.P. Anand as deposed by PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal. As per the aforesaid letter, the possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter Ex.PW9/E4 (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
228of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Ritu Gupta and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO.55D, POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 15.10.97 bearing number 097141 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW115/C10) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.8,62,350/- with the Central Bank CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
229of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW115/C10) demand draft no. 237972 dated 14.10.97 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Delhi Cantt. was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft was not deposited and the value of the same was also wrongly reflected on the challan and the said draft is only of the value of Rs.1,000/-.
(ii) As per copy of said demand draft no. 237972 for Rs. 1,000/- dated 21.08.97 (Ex.PW54/A4-D108), the same was issued from Vijaya Bank, Delhi Cantonment. On the face of record, it reflects that the amount corresponding to the draft no. 237972 has been wrongly reflected on the third copy of forged challan Ex.PW115/C10 as Rs.8,62,350/- instead of Rs.1,000/-. Even the date of issue of demand draft no. 237972 dated 21.08.97 is wrongly reflected on the challan Ex.PW115/C10 as 14.10.97.
In the aforesaid context, for the purpose of issue of demand draft no. 237972 an application dated 21.08.97 (D107) Ex.PW54/A3 was also filled in the name of one Vinod A-18, Vikaspuri for issue of demand draft for Rs.1,000/- in favour of DDA (Housing) which has been opined at Q430 to be in the handwriting of Manish (PW58) who was an employee of Raju Aggarwal. PW58 Manish in his examination in chief also admitted his handwriting at Q430 in the form Ex.PW54/A3.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
230Ld. PP has also pointed out that the aforesaid demand draft in original was not found during the course of investigation and the same was not even deposited in the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan along with any challan as the details of the same were not found entered in any record in the bank. Further the third copy of challan contained incorrect details as to the amount reflected in the challan corresponding to the demand draft which was got prepared for Rs.1,000/-. The forged copy of the challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
(iii) PW54 Shri Chander Kant who was posted in Delhi Cantt. Branch of Vijaya Bank stated that vide seizure memo Ex.PW54/A he had handed over the documents Ex.PW54/A1 to A4 to CBI and Ex.PW54/A4 is the office copy of original draft no. 237972 involved in this transaction.
(iv) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan ExPW115/C10 at Q93 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited.
Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
231that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW115/C10 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
232which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW115/C10 is a round stamp in Hindi only and does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) which was in use at relevant time.
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no.097141 dated 15.10.97 in file Ex.PW9/E was not issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
In the aforesaid context, ld. PP also relied upon the fourth copy of challan 097141 dated 15.10.97 (Ex.PW56/10) seized in this case on production by PW56 Shri Arun Kumar Mudgil (property dealer) who had dealt in the transaction of aforesaid flat. Ld. PP has pointed out that the writing on the challan even in the fourth copy bearing similar particulars as on Ex.PWC115/C10 have also been opined by GEQD at Q485 to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
Prosecution has also relied upon third copy of genuine challan whereby an amount of Rs.1 lac was deposited in the present case dated 23.08.97 and has pointed out that the said challan bears a different stamp of the Central Bank of India than on the forged challan Ex.PW115/C10 and a fourth copy of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
233aforesaid genuine challan (D270) Ex.PW56/9 was also produced by PW56 Shri Arun Kumar Mudgil.
(v) Prosecution has further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, entry at Q368 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal bearing the name of allottee Ritu Gupta with flat no. D55-B is reflected and the same has been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para 18).
The evidence on record as discussed above clearly points out that forged challan was deposited in the relevant file by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat and the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually deposited with DDA.
C. TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLAT
NO.55D, POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI.
i. PW29 Shri Dinesh Singhal is the purchaser of flat no. D-21D
(allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena-D4), flat no.D-50D (allotted to Amar Singh -D10) and flat no. D-55B (allotted to Ritu Gupta). He stated that he had purchsed allotment papers in respect of flat no.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
234D-21D and D-50D, Kondli Gharoli for consideration of Rs.90,000/- each from Hari Garg though papers of the same were not handed over to him. Further, he also purchased papers of flat no. D-55B allotted to Ritu Gupta from Satpal for Rs.90,000/- and had also deposited Rs.1 lac for each flat in DDA by way of pay order. Further, as the period of deposit of money with DDA was about to expire, he and Hari Garg submitted application for extension of time for deposit of balance amount on 16th September, 1997 and DDA extended the period of deposit amount to 30 to 35 days. However, since he could not arrange the money, he sold the papers of the flats to Raju Aggarwal through Hari Garg in the 1 st week of October for Rs.1.5 lacs for each flat and received the amount from Hari Garg by cash in four installments.
He further denied having deposited any amount as shown in the copies of the challan Ex.PW9/D6 pertaining to flat no. D-21D (Laxmi Narayan Meena), Ex.PW9/J6 pertaining to flat no. D-50D (Amar Singh) and Ex.PW9/E pertaining to flat no. D-55B (Ritu Gupta).
ii. In the aforesaid context, PW56 Shri Arun Kumar Mudgil (Property dealer) stated that he was introduced to Raju Aggarwal by one Mahesh Chaudhary and the deal in respect of D55-B Kondli Gharoli was settled for Rs.10.60 lacs out of which Rs.1.5 lacs was paid to Raju Aggarwal in his office. Further, amount of Rs.1.5 lacs was taken towards aforesaid flat in the same evening by Shri Mahesh Chaudhary. He further stated about payment of Rs.60,000/- & Rs. 80,000/- to Raju Aggarwal who further handed over the original file of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
235aforesaid flat. Further, he stated that the file D5 (Ex.PW9/E) comprises of demand letter, allotment letter, bank challan, DDA possession letter, NOC of electricity and water along with one set of blank documents signed by Ritu Gupta. He also deposed that during the relevant period Mahesh Chaudhary had also offered him flat no. D-10D Kondli Gharoli (which pertains to allottee N.D. Deva- D15) and an amount of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.80,000/- was paid towards aforesaid flat initially. Further, an amount of Rs.4 lacs was paid to Raju Aggarwal in his office and he handed over the file relating to said flat with blank set of documents duly signed by original allottee N.D. Deva. He further stated that Raju Aggarwal had assured that physical possession of both the flats would be delivered within 10-15 days but later on put off on various pretexts. He further proved the cheques D266 and D267 for Rs.4 lacs and Rs.4.4 lacs given by Raju Aggarwal when insisted for refund of money. He further stated that Raju Aggarwal also handed papers pertaining to two khokhas (temporary structures) in Vasant Vihar and assured to return the money back in 10 days and take back the papers and blank cheques. However, later on Raju Aggarwal failed to make the payment.
Prosecution in aforesaid context also relied upon Ex.PW56/4 which is a written document executed under signatures of Raju Aggarwal regarding aforesaid deals bearing his signatures at Q499 which has been opined by GEQD in report Ex.PW119/A101 to be bearing signatures of Raju Aggarwal.
Ld. PP has pointed out that possession of this flat was not handed over by DDA.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
236The statement of witnesses referred to above proves that the allotment papers of aforesaid flat in favour of Ritu Gupta were also purchased by Raju Aggarwal and the payment was deposited by him in conspirary as per challan Ex.PW115/C10 which was found to be forged.
26. Allottee Kishan Lal, flat no.38A, pocket B, Kondli Gharoli (D6) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Amount Details of Bogus Name of the Bank No Challan No. (Rs.) Pay Order/ Draft .
6 160(038)/97/SFS/KL III Kishan Lal 97147 8,94,225/- 005661 (14.08.97) Andhra Bank, R.K. Puram, New
38 A Pocket B S/o Munni Lal, 14.08.97 Cash (22.10.97) Delhi
G248 Sarita Vihar, 71319 5,625/- Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi 22.10.97 New Delhi
A. EVIDENCE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.38A,
POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF
DEMAND AS PER DEMAND-CUM-ALLOTMENT
LETTER BY DDA
D6 (file Ex.PW9/F) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee Kishan Lal whereby flat no. 38A, Pocket-B, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. Kishan Lal was examined as PW32 and he identified his signatures on the application form filled for allocation of allotment of flat at Q110 & Q111 (Point A) on Ex.PW32/A. He further stated that while working with Mr. Chhabra, one Rajat Dua had obtained his signatures on an application for allotment of DDA flat and the application was handed over to Rajat Dua along with ration card and photograph. He further denied his CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
237signatures on acknowledgment, specimen signatures, special power of attorney, affidavit, undertaking, letters submitting documents to DDA (put during examination). He also denied having deposited any amount to apply for DDA flat and also identified the photocopy of caste certificate placed in file Ex.PW9/F. He further identified the specimen signatures on Ex.PW32/B and Ex.PW32/C. He further denied his signatures on various documents in file D315 relating to transaction of aforesaid flat which was recovered during search of premises of Raju Aggarwal as per search memo (Ex.PW70/A
- D352). He also stated that he did not have money to purchase any kind of flat at that time.
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Kishan Lal relied upon the acknowledgment contained in D6 whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft no. 19083 dated 13.09.96 on behalf of allottee. On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of Kishan Lal, allotment-cum-demand letter dated 15.01.98 (Ex.PW9/F4 - D6) was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs.8,94,225/- within the period stipulated in aforesaid letter which bears the stamped signatures of Shri V.P. Anand as deposed by PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal. As per the aforesaid letter, the possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter Ex.PW9/F4 (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
238registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Kishan Lal and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO.38A, POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
239dated 14.08.97 bearing number 097147 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/F6) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.8,94,225/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/F6) demand draft no. 005661 dated 14.08.97 drawn on Andhra Bank, R.K. Puram was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft was not deposited and the value of the same was also wrongly reflected on the challan and the said draft is only of the value of Rs. 1,000/-.
(ii) As per form for issue of demand draft (Ex.PW1/B - D75), the request was made in the name of one Atul D90 Vikaspuri for issue of demand draft for Rs.1,000/- in favour of DDA (Housing) which has been opined at Q374 to be in the handwriting of Manish (PW58) who was an employee of Raju Aggarwal. PW58 Manish in his examination in chief also admitted his handwriting at Q374 in the form Ex.PW1/B and the same has also been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of Manish. The number of demand draft issued against the aforesaid form is duly reflected as 5661 on D75 (Ex.PW1/B).
Ld. PP has also pointed out that the aforesaid demand draft in original was not found during the course of investigation and the same was not even deposited in the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
240Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan along with any challan as the details of the same were not found entered in any record in the bank. Further the third copy of challan contained incorrect details as to the amount reflected in the challan corresponding to the demand draft which was got prepared for Rs.1,000/-. The forged copy of the challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
(iii) PW1 Shri Jai Narayan Meena, posted in the R.K. Puram Branch of Andhra Bank during the relevant period proved the application form for issue of demand draft Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B.
(iv) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan ExPW9/F6 at Q123 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited.
Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW9/F6 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
241official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/F6 is a round stamp in Hindi only and does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
242which was in use at relevant time.
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no.097147 dated 14.08.97 in file Ex.PW9/F was not issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
(v) Prosecution further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, entry at Q366 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal bearing the name of allottee Kishan Lal with flat no. 38A/B along with the draft no.005661 and the amount of Rs. 894225.00, Andhra Bank has been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para
18).
The evidence on record as discussed above clearly points out that forged challan was deposited in the relevant file by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat and the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually deposited with DDA.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
243C. TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLAT NO.
38A, POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI.
As per evidence on record, PW26 Rajat Dua had got the application form filled up for allotment of DDA flat in the name of Kishan Lal and subsequently, Flat no. B38 Kondli Gharoli was allotted. He further deposed regarding the sale of the papers of aforesaid flat to Danis Paul (PW77) since he did not have sufficient funds to purchase the flat. This witness was also cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI on certain points.
PW76 Danis Paul (Document Writer) stated that he knew Raju Aggarwal, Satish Sapru and one Rajan Dua dealing in finance and property business and mediated for settlement of deal between Rajan Dua and Raju Aggarwal for consideration of Rs.30,000/-.
Prosecution further referred to statement of PW47 Shri D.K. Gupta who proved the possession letter Ex.PW9/F3 and further stated that the possession of the flat was given by DDA to Manish Kumar (PW58 employee of Raju Aggarwal) as Attorney of Kishan Lal. He further proved the possession slip Ex.PW47/G5 whereby the possession of the flat no. D38A was handed over to Manish Kumar and the signatures of Manish Kumar at Q274 have been opined by the GEQD.
Prosecution has further relied upon D315 (Ex.PW70/F) which is a file which was recovered from the premises of Raju Aggarwal and CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
244contains the documents relating to allotment and transaction of aforesaid flat.
Prosecution also referred to statement of PW82 Shri Amerjeet Juneja who deposed regarding the transaction of flat no.B38A Kondli Gharoli which was allotted in the name of Kishan Lal and was dealt by accused Raju Aggarwal.
PW82 Shri Amarjeet Juneja stated that he was apprised by Satish Sapru regarding availability of flat no.38A, Pocket B Kondli Gharoli for sale and he placed the proposal to Subhash Kohli. Further, Satish Sapru introduced him to Raju Aggarwal, who was also a property dealer. Thereafter, he along with Subhash Kohli contacted Abhinav Rastogi who agreed to purchase the flat and gave a draft of Rs.4.5 lacs and Rs.3 lacs cash to them which was handed over to Raju Aggarwal against a receipt. He stated that they remained in touch with Satish Sapru and Raju Aggarwal as they were to get it free hold from DDA.
He further stated that after about 3 months, on coming to know about the fraud, they contacted Raju Aggarwal who returned whole of the money including amount of draft and cash handed over to him and took all the documents back which were handed over back to Mr. Rastogi.
He further stated that he had given about Rs.8 lacs to Raju Aggarwal through Shri Satish Sapru against mortgage of some registration paper of one MIG flat and had given him cheques of Rs.8 lacs which were dishonoured and he got his money back through a court case.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
245It is pointed out by ld. PP that a letter dated 28.01.98 appears to have been issued by DDA (Ex.PW47/G6) cancelling the aforesaid flat but it is not clear if the possession of the same has also been handed over back by the accused.
The statement of witnesses referred to above proves that the allotment papers of aforesaid flat in favour of Kishan Lal were purchased by Raju Aggarwal and the payment was deposited by him as per challan in conspiracy which has been found to be forged in respect of payment of Rs.8,94,225/- with DDA.
This instance also points out the manner in which the application for allotment was filled at instance of Rajat Dua (PW26) without the allottee even intending to purchase the flat.
27. Allottee Mrs. Sarla Devi, Flat no.39A, pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli (File D7) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Amount Details of Bogus Name of the Bank N Challan No. (Rs.) Pay Order/ Draft o.
7 160(263)/97/SFS/KL III Mrs. Sarla Devi 97142 8,94,225/- 256168 Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan,
39 A Pocket C W/o Bhagwan Das 06.08.97 (05.08.97) New Delhi
C/o Narula 5,625/-
Traders, 123, New
Ramesh Nagar,
Karnal
A. EVIDENCE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.39A,
POCKET-C, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF
DEMAND AS PER DEMAND-CUM-ALLOTMENT
LETTER BY DDA.
D7 (file Ex.PW9/G) is the allotment file pertaining to CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
246allottee Sarla Devi whereby flat no. 39A, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. Sarla Devi was examined as PW22 and she identified her signatures on the application form filled for allocation of allotment of flat at Q139 & Q140 (Point X) on Ex.PW22/A. She further stated that she had put the signatures on the application form Ex.PW22/A at the asking of her sister's son namely Vinay Kumar and did not deposit any amount as initial payment with the application. Further, the amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited by Vinay Kumar and on coming to know that the DDA flat was allotted to her at Kondli Gharoli, she signed on various papers at asking of Vinay Kumar. She also stated that she never resided at the address given in the application form i.e C/o Narula Traders, House No.123, New Ramesh Nagar, Karnal, Haryana and did not have any account in her name in any bank. She further identified various documents bearing her signatures i.e. affidavit Ex.PW9/GX1, specimen signatures bearing photograph Ex.PW9/GX2, acknowledgement Ex.PW22/B, undertaking Ex.PW22/C, affidavit Ex.PW22/D, submission of documents seeking possession of flat Ex.PW22/E, special power of attorney in favour of Rakesh Kumar Jain Ex.PW22/F. Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Sarla Devi further relied upon the acknowledgment contained in D7 whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft no. 210100 dated 19.09.96 on behalf of allottee Sarla Devi along with Mark PW120/R3 which is certified true copy of transfer entry regarding receipt of Rs. 50,000/- on behalf of allottee signed by the Accounts Officer, SFS-II.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
247On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of Sarla Devi, allotment-cum-demand letter Ex.PW9/G4 - D7 was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs.8,94,225/- to be deposited within the period stipulated in aforesaid letter which bears the stamped signatures of Shri V.P. Anand as deposed by PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal. As per the aforesaid letter, the possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter Ex.PW9/G4 (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Sarla Devi and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
248B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO.39A, POCKET-C, KONDLI GHAROLI.
To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 06.08.97 bearing number 097142 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/G6) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.8,94,225/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/G6) demand draft no. 256168 dated 05.08.97 drawn on Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft was not deposited and the value of the same was also wrongly reflected on the challan and the said draft is only of the value of Rs.1,000/-.
(ii) As per form for issue of demand draft (Ex.PW55/A1 - D83), the request was made in the name of one Rajeev Kumar CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
249C-1, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-18 for issue of demand draft for Rs. 1,000/- in favour of DDA (Housing) which has been opined at Q390 to be in the handwriting of Manish (PW58) by GEQD who was an employee of Raju Aggarwal. PW58 Manish in his examination in chief also admitted his handwriting at Q390 in the form Ex.PW55/A1. The number of demand draft issued against the aforesaid form is duly reflected as 256168 on D83 (Ex.PW55/A1).
Ld. PP has also pointed out that the aforesaid demand draft in original was not found during the course of investigation and the same was not even deposited in the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan along with any challan as the details of the same were not found entered in any record in the bank. Further the third copy of challan contained incorrect details as to the amount reflected in the challan corresponding to the demand draft which was got prepared for Rs.1,000/-. The forged copy of the challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
(iii) PW55 Shri R.K. Nayyar, Officer in Union Bank of India had handed over the application forms for preparation of pay orders Ex.PW55/A1 to A4 which includes the present form Ex.PW55/A1 and he further identified the signatures of Shri Sapra Accountant at point A on all the aforesaid application forms submitted for preparation of pay orders (draft) for Rs.1,000/- in favour of DDA (Housing).
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
250(iv) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan Ex.PW9/G6 at Q149 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited.
Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW9/G6 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
251copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/G6 is a round stamp in Hindi only and does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) which was in use at relevant time.
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no.097142 dated 06.08.97 in file Ex.PW9/G was not issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
(v) Prosecution further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
252of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, reliance is placed upon entry at Q366 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal bearing the name of allottee Sarla Devi with flat no. 39A/C along with the draft no.256168 and the amount of Rs.8,94,225/-, UB and the same has been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para
18).
The evidence on record as discussed above clearly points out that forged challan was deposited in the relevant file by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat but the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually made with DDA.
C. TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLAT NO.
39A, POCKET-C, KONDLI GHAROLI.
PW19 Avinash Gambhir (Property Dealer) deposed that he had booked four flats in 9th SFS Scheme in different names of relations of Vinay Kumar who was working with him. One of the flat was booked in the name of Sarla Devi (mausi of Vinay Kumar) the second was booked in the name of Sunder Lal (mama of Vinay Kumar), third was booked in the name of Surender Kumar (relation of Vinay Kumar) and fourth was booked in the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
253name of Ram Devi. Further, all the four flats were allotted to him. The flat in the name of Sunder Lal was booked at address of mother's sister of PW19, the flat of Surender Kumar was booked at address of Surender Kumar himself, the flat in the name of Ram Dev was booked at address of Gur Pyari who is his father's sister and the flat of Sarla Devi was booked at address of C/o Narula Traders which is the address of his father's sister namely Ram Pyari Narula. He further stated that papers of allotment of aforesaid four flats including the flat in question were sold to Raju Aggarwal for sum of Rs.2,70,000/- and he received payment of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and Rs.2.50 lacs by cheque.
In the aforesaid context, PW27 Shri Vinay Kumar stated that he joined M/s Gaurav Enterprises which was dealing in property business as Office Assistant and Avinash Gambhir was the proprietor of said firm. Further, while working in M/s Gaurav Enterprises, he got signatures of Sarla Devi (his mausi), Ram Dev and Surender (his maternal uncles) on the application forms for SFS Flats of DDA in 1995-96 at the directions of Avinash Gambhir. He further stated that flats were allotted to Sarla Devi, Surender Kumar and Ram Dev and after the allotment of flats, he got signatures of all the aforesaid applicants on bunch of papers given by Avinash Gambhir and handed over the signed papers to Avinash Gambhir. He further stated that he had not deposited any amount towards the cost of the flats and confirmed that flat C-39A was allotted to Sarla Devi.
Prosecution further relied upon statement of PW75 Shri CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
254Rakesh Kumar Jain who is the purchaser of flat no. 39A, Pocket C, Kondli Gharoli from Sarla Devi and proved various documents as referred in his statement along with cheque Ex.PW75/B for sum of Rs. 7.75 lacs dated 17.11.97 issued in favour of Sarla Devi as consideration for purchase of flat. He further proved the challan Ex.PW12/D8 dated 27.10.97 whereby amount was deposited at the time of execution of conveyance deed.
Prosecution has further referred to statement of PW46 Satish Sapru who was running a catering van with his brother in front of Vikas Sadan, INA and had subsequently sold the same to Raju Aggarwal. He identified his signatures on Ex.PW46/B1 to B5. Ex.PW46/B5 is an affidavit given by Raju Aggarwal mentioning the details of flats sold by him, namely, D-21D, D-50D, D-34C, C-39A, C-43C, B-30A, D-47D, B-31A, B-9C, C-4A which includes the present flat C-39A and the fact that he had got the conveyance deed executed and made payments for said flats and further he had received full and final payment. He further stated in the aforesaid affidavit that if any error or complication arises from DDA regarding above flats, he shall be responsible or would refund the cash. The said affidavit has also been opined by GEQD to be bearing the signatures of Raju Aggarwal at Q352 as per Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) and is witnessed by Satish Sapru.
He also specified the name of Ram Avtar who dealt in the transaction of the aforesaid flat.
Prosecution further referred to statement of PW89 Shri Ram CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
255Avtar Gupta who is a Real Estate Agent and deposed as to the transactions in respect of various flats and documents executed in respect of the same.
He stated that sale of flat no. C-39A, SFS Flats, Kondli Gharoli, Delhi allotted in the name of Sarla Devi was finalized by him with Shri R.K. Jain for Rs.12,75,000/- after discussing with Ajay Khurana, property dealer and keys of the flat were handed over by Sarla Devi to R.K. Jain in his presence. Further, out of the advance received by him from R.K. Jain, he had paid Rs.75,000/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- to Ajay Khurana, about Rs.2,00,000/- to one Bansal and Mukesh at asking of Ajay Khurana with respect to transaction of aforesaid flat. He further stated that cheque of Rs.7,75,000/- was handed over to Bansal at the time of registration of documents before the Sub-Registrar. Further, during the course of aforesaid transaction, one Shri Gambhir had also come along with Smt. Sarla and he had made an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the said deal as commission as well as investment.
Prosecution has further relied upon statement of PW51 Shri Sukhpal Bansal (Property Dealer) who knew Satish Sapru (PW46) a well as accused Raju Aggarwal and entered into transactions of flats of which papers were possessed by Raju Aggarwal which includes some of the flats bearing no. 4A Pocket C, 39A Pocket C, 34C Pocket D, 47D Pocket D, 50D Pocket D, 9C Pocket B and Flat no. 39A Pocket C involved in the present case allotted to Sarla Devi. PW51 stated that he was told by Ram Avtar Aggarwal (PW89) that conveyance deed of flat no. 34C Pocket D (i.e. allotted to D.K. Jain D11) was CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
256forged and payment against same was not deposited on which PW51 along with Ravi Chopra, Ajay Khurana, Ram Avtar Aggarwal, Satish Sapru and one Amarjeet Singh Juneja visited Central Bank, Vikas Sadan and found that the challans were forged and the payment had not been deposited on which Raju Aggarwal was asked to return the advance of Rs.25 lacs. Further, as Raju Aggarwal only returned Rs.16 lacs in cash but the cheque of Rs.9 lacs bounced a complaint was made to Vice Chairman, DDA and other authorities regarding the fraud.
The statement of witnesses referred to above reflects that the allotment papers of aforesaid flat in favour of Sarla Devi were dealt by Raju Aggarwal and the payment was not deposited by him as per challan Ex.PW9/G6 which has been found to be forged in respect of payment of Rs.8,94,225/- with DDA.
D. OTHER EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO SALE
TRANSACTIONS OF FLAT NO.39A, POCKET-C,
KONDLI GHAROLI
Prosecution also relied upon statement of PW106 Shri Bhim Singh Sharma who deposed that he had rented out a room in 1998 on recommendation of a property dealer named Aggarwal to a lady who was introduced by accused Raju Aggarwal as his bhabhi and he subsequently, came to know that aforesaid lady was a Muslim. Reliance is further placed by prosecution on the fact that during course of investigation specimen signatures Ex.PW116/A1 were obtained of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
257one Ibrana Khan @ Sarla Devi d/o Innayat Khan (wife of late Ansar Ahmad r/o H. No. 561 Sector 6 R.K. Puram). The said specimen signatures on comparison with the signatures existing on account opening form Ex.PW49/B (D40) in the name of Sarla Devi w/o Bhagwan Dass, r/o H. No. 561 Sector 6 R.K. Puram at Andhra Bank, R.K. Puram Branch were opined by GEQD at Q311 and Q313 to be in the handwriting of Ibrana Khan @ Sarla Devi referred to above. It is submitted by ld. PP that the aforesaid account opened on introduction of Pankaj Gauba in the name of Sarla Devi w/o Bhagwan Dass appears to have been wrongly opened by Ibrana Khan by incorrectly disclosing her address as well as the name of the husband to match it with the allottee Sarla Devi w/o Bhagwan Dass. On the face of record, the photograph of Ibrana Khana @ Sarla Devi on the account opening form Ex.PW49/B and on the application form filled for DDA Ex.PW22/A are different which supports the fact that an account had been wrongly got opened in name of Sarla Devi by Raju Aggarwal. For the aforesaid purpose, reliance is further placed by prosecution on testimony of PW60 Pankaj Gauba who stated that he had introduced the account of Sarla Devi at Andhra Bank, R.K. Puram. Further the said account opening form also bears the signatures of Pankaj Gauba as opined by GEQD at Q315. Also, PW22 Sarla Devi denied having opened any account in her statement. Ld. PP for CBI submits that the aforesaid account in the name of Sarla Devi bearing no. 17250 at Andhra Bank was opened at behest of Raju Aggarwal and appears to have been used to effect various transactions as the cheques D47 Ex.PW49/P1, D48 Ex.PW49/P2, D49 Ex.PW49/P3, D50 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
258Ex.PW49/P42, D51 Ex.PW49/P5, D52 Ex.PW49/P6 appear to have been issued and signed by Sarla Devi (alias Ibrana Khan) which were also opined to be so by GEQD.
In aforesaid context, prosecution has also referred to statement of PW49 R.P. Bhatla who had handed over the account opening form of Sarla Devi Ex.PW49/B relating to account no. 17250 along with pay in slips Ex.PW49/E, F and G and cheques Ex.PW49/P1 to P6.
The above evidence also establishes role of Raju Aggarwal for purpose of effecting transactions in respect of flat in question and it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that forged challan was presented by Raju Aggarwal in conspiracy towards the payment of cost of flat in DDA.
This instance also points out the manner in which the application for allotment was filled at instance of property dealer PW19 Avinash Gambhir using different addresses other than that of the applicant and the fact that the allotment papers were sold for consideration without the allottee even intending to purchase the flat. It also points out how the entire process of allotment was got completed in DDA with active collusion of the concerned officials.
The present instance also points out how an account was opened by PW Ibrana Khan @ Sarla Devi in the name of allottee Sarla Devi in connivance with Raju Aggarwal for purpose of effecting transactions and was also wrongly introduced by PW60 Pankaj Guaba. However, CBI did not prosecute the aforesaid witnesses for the illegalities/offences committed by them but CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
259preferred to use them as witnesses in the case.
28. Allottee Ms. Anita Gaigoli, flat no.31A, pocket-B, Kondli Gharoli (File D8) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Amount Details of Bogus Name of the Bank No Challan No. (Rs.) Pay Order/ Draft .
8 160(31)/97/SFS/KL III Ms. Anitha 004994 82,587/- 478873 (22.11.97) Syndicate Bank, Sarojini Nagar
31 A Pocket B Gaigaoli 24.11.97 033963 (18.11.97) Central Bank of India, Safdarjung
W/o V.M. 95993 7,22,450/- Enclave, ND
Pakhiday 21.11.97
D/1/D-DDA Flat
Munirika, Delhi
A. EVIDENCE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.31A,
POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF
DEMAND AS PER DEMAND-CUM-ALLOTMENT
LETTER BY DDA
D8 (file Ex.PW9/H) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee Anita whereby flat no. 31A, Pocket-B, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. Shri Sudhakar Pakhidey relative of allottee Anita was examined as PW90 and he identified signatures of Anita on the application form filled for allocation of allotment of flat at Q156 & Q157 (Point A) on Ex.PW90/A. He further stated that her sister-in- law Anita who is his younger brother's wife had applied for DDA flat and B-31A Kondli Gharoli was allotted to her. Further, amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by her on account of initial registration and the flat was disposed to one R.K. Sood by Anita by signing blank papers. He further identified signatures of Anita on Ex.PW90/B (letter for extension of time for depositing the payment), Ex.PW90/C (letter requesting for time for extension of depositing the payment), CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
260specimen signatures (Ex.PW90/E), affidavit (Ex.PW90/F), undertaking (Ex.PW90/G), affidavit (Ex.PW90/H), acknowledgement (Ex.PW90/I), letter for issuance of possession letter (Ex.PW25/K), possession letter (Ex.PW90/J).
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Anita has further relied upon the acknowledgment contained in D8 whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft no. 159230 dated 19.09.96 on behalf of allottee Anita along with Mark PW120/R11 which is certified true copy of transfer entry regarding receipt of Rs. 50,000/- on behalf of allottee signed by the Accounts Officer, SFS-II. Further, "allotment-cum-demand letter Ex.PW9/H4 (D8)" was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs.7,22,450/- to be deposited within the period stipulated in aforesaid letter which bears the signatures of Shri V.P. Anand as deposed by PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal. As per the aforesaid letter, the possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter Ex.PW9/H4 (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
261forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Anita and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO.31A, POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI.
To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 21.11.97 bearing number 095993 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/H6) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.7,22,450/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
262forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/H6) demand draft no. 33963 dated 19.11.97 drawn on Central Bank of India (CBI) was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft was not deposited and the value of the same was also wrongly reflected on the challan. The forged copy of the challan is further opined to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal at Q177 by GEQD.
Prosecution also relies upon fourth copy of aforesaid challan (Ex.PW119/A94) which was recovered during the search of premises of Raju Aggarwal and GEQD opined the handwriting on the challan at Q489 to be that of Raju Aggarwal.
Ld. PP has also pointed out that the aforesaid demand draft as referred in the challan in original was not found during the course of investigation and the same was not even deposited in the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan along with any challan as the details of the same were not found entered in any record in the bank.
(ii) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan Ex.PW9/H6 at Q177 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited.
Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
263reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW9/H6 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
264D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/H6 does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) which was in use at relevant time. Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no. 95993 dated 21.11.97 in file Ex.PW9/H was not issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
(iii) Prosecution has further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, reliance is placed upon entry at Q367 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal bearing the name of allottee Anita with flat no. B-31A along with the draft no. 033963 and the amount of Rs.7,22,450-, CBI and the same has been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para
18).
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
265(iv) Prosecution has also relied upon another third copy of challan dated 24.11.97 bearing number 004994 which was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW90/M) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.82,587/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW90/M) demand draft no. 478873 dated 22.11.97 drawn on Syndicate Bank, DTC Depot was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft was not deposited and the value of the same was also wrongly reflected on the challan. The forged copy of the challan is further opined to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal at Q175 by GEQD.
Prosecution has also pointed out that so far as this challan is concerned, as per form for issue of demand draft (Ex.PW62/G - D96), the request was made in the name of one Vijay Kumar, GI 666 Sarojini Nagar New Delhi-23 for issue of two demand drafts for Rs.1,000/- each in favour of DDA (Housing) which has been opined at Q412 to be in the handwriting of Manish (PW58) by GEQD who was an employee of Raju Aggarwal. PW58 Manish in his examination in chief also admitted his handwriting at Q412 in the form Ex.PW62/G. The number of demand draft issued against the aforesaid form is duly reflected as 478873 on D96 (Ex.PW62/G).
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
266With reference to aforesaid challan Ex.PW90/M, prosecution has also relied upon statement of PW62 Shri Bijay Kumar Pandit, the then Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Sarojini Nagar who proved the pay order application form D96 (Ex.PW62/G) bearing signatures of Shri Ram Nath, Special Assistant.
Prosecution also relies upon fourth copy of aforesaid challan (Ex.PW119/A93) which was recovered during the search of premises of Raju Aggarwal and GEQD opined the handwriting on the challan at Q491 to be that of Raju Aggarwal.
Ld. PP has also pointed out that the aforesaid demand draft as referred in the challan in original was not found during the course of investigation and the same was not even deposited in the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan along with any challan as the details of the same were not found entered in any record in the bank.
The handwriting on the aforesaid challan Ex.PW90/M at Q175 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited.
The evidence on record as discussed above clearly points out that forged challan was deposited in the relevant file by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat but the payment towards CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
267cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually made with DDA.
C. TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLAT NO.
31A, POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI.
PW35 Shri Rakesh Kumar Sood, Property Dealer mediated the deal between the purchaser Pankaj Arora (PW34) and Anita Pakhidey (allottee) in respect of flat no. B-31A. PW35 stated that Pankaj Arora agreed to purchase the flat for Rs.1,70,000/- and a commission of Rs.20,000/- was agreed to be paid by Pankaj and Anita. A draft of Rs.50,000/- was also given to Anita by Pankaj apart from advance of Rs.25,000/-. Further, Pankaj had taken the original documents from Anita and obtained her signatures on relevant papers but no amount was deposited by them except the initial deposit. Ld. PP has also pointed out that apart from above a receipt Mark PW120/U2 was also executed by Anita in favour of R.K. Sood in respect of sale of aforesaid flat.
As per investigation, the aforesaid flat was further purchased by Raju Aggarwal from Pankaj Arora. However, PW 34 Pankaj Arora on examination by prosecution was declared hostile and cross- examined by ld. PP as he resiled from his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Prosecution has further relied upon statement of PW46 Satish Sapru who was running a catering van with his brother in front of Vikas Sadan, INA and had subsequently sold the same to Raju CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
268Aggarwal. He identified his signatures on Ex.PW46/B1 to B5. Ex.PW46/B5 is an affidavit given by Raju Aggarwal mentioning the details of flats sold by him to various persons i.e. D-21D, D-50D, D-34C, C-39A, C-43C, B-30A, D-47D, B-31A, B-9C, C-4A which includes the present flat B-31A and the fact that he had got the conveyance deed executed and made payments for said flats and further he had received full and final payment. He further stated in the aforesaid affidavit that if any error or complication arises from DDA regarding above flats, he shall be responsible or would refund the cash. The said affidavit has also been opined by GEQD to be bearing the signatures of Raju Aggarwal at Q352 as per Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) and is witnessed by Satish Sapru.
Prosecution also relied upon receipt bearing signatures of Raju Aggarwal (Ex.PW46/B4) which was proved by PW46 Satish Sapru as the aforesaid document was executed in his presence by Raju Aggarwal and was also witnessed by Satish Sapru. Vide aforesaid receipt dated 15.04.97, Raju Aggarwal acknowledged having received earnest money for flat 31A Pocket B (i.e the present flat), 50D Pocket D, 21D Pocket D and 9C Pocket __ for Rs.19 lacs.
Ld. PP has pointed out that as per Ex.PW120/U1, a letter dated 28.01.98 was issued by Deputy Director (SFS), DDA to the allottee Anita regarding cancellation of aforesaid flat since the payment was not made against the challans deposited with DDA.
The statement of witnesses referred to above proves that the allotment papers of aforesaid flat in favour of Anita were purchased by Raju Aggarwal and the challan Ex.PW9/H6 & CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
269Ex.PW90/M in respect of payment of Rs.7,22,450/- and Rs.82,587/- were deposited by him in conspiracy which were found to be forged.
29. Allottee Ms. Meera, flat no.47D, pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli (File D9) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Amount Details of Bogus Name of the Bank No Challan No. (Rs.) Pay Order/ Draft .
9 160(496)/97/SFS/KL III Ms. Meera, S/o 97144 9,12,670/- 477950 (11.8.97) Syndicate Bank, Sarojini Nagar, New
47 D Pocket D Harish Chand C/o 11.08.97 Delhi
Anil Kumar, H.
No. 397, Sec. 7,
Urban Estate,
Gurgaon
A. EVIDENCE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.47D,
POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF
DEMAND AS PER DEMAND-CUM-ALLOTMENT
LETTER BY DDA
D9 (file Ex.PW9/I) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee Ms. Meera whereby flat no.47D, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. Meera was examined as PW31 and she identified her signatures on the application form filled for allocation of allotment of flat at Q184 (Point A) on Ex.PW31/A. She stated that during 1996 she came to Delhi and stayed with her brother in law Asha Ram Meena and had signed the application form for allotment of flat under IX SFS (Ex.PW31/A) at the asking of her brother in law. She further identified her specimen signatures and photograph (Ex.PW31/B), signatures on Special Power of Attorney in favour of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
270Gyan Dev Gupta (Ex.PW31/C), signatures on affidavit (Ex.PW31/D), signatures on acknowledgment issued by DDA (Ex.PW31/E), signatures on undertaking (Ex.PW31/F), signatures on affidavit (Ex.PW31/G), signatures on application submitting documents for possession of flat (Ex.PW25/L), signatures on undertaking (Ex.PW31/H), Special Power of Attorney for execution of conveyance deed in favour of Gyan Dev Gupta (Ex.PW31/J). She further stated that she had not given any amount for booking of flat and Asha Ram Meena (her brother-in-law) gave her Rs.8,000/- after signing application Ex.PW31/A placed in file Ex. PW-9/I(D-9). She also identified her specimen signatures as Ex.PW25/U and Ex.PW25/V (D325). She also stated that application for conversion of lease hold system into freehold system in respect of Flat No.D-47D, Kondli Gharoli (Ex.PW31/K) (D244) was not signed by her.
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Meera has further relied upon the acknowledgment contained in D9 whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft no. 599411 dated 09.09.96 on behalf of allottee Meera along with Mark PW120/R1 which is certified true copy of transfer entry regarding receipt of Rs. 50,000/- on behalf of allottee signed by the Accounts Officer, SFS-II. On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of Meera, allotment- cum-demand letter Ex.PW9/I4 - D9 was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs.9,12,670/- to be deposited within the period stipulated in aforesaid letter which bears the signatures of Shri V.P. Anand as deposed by PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal. As per the aforesaid letter, the possession of the flat was to CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
271be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter Ex.PW9/I4 (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Meera and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO.47D, POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI.
To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
272prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 11.08.97 bearing number 097144 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/I6) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.9,12,670/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/I6) demand draft no. 477950 dated 11.08.97 drawn on Syndicate Bank, SN Depot, New Delhi -13 was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft was not deposited and the value of the same was also wrongly reflected on the challan and the said draft is only of the value of Rs.1,000/-.
(ii) As per form for issue of demand draft (Ex.PW62/E - D94), the request was made in the name of one Rajeev Kumar B-9/650, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi - 03 for issue of demand draft for Rs.1,000/- in favour of DDA (Housing) which has been opined at Q408 to be in the handwriting of Manish (PW58) by GEQD who was an employee of Raju Aggarwal. PW58 Manish in his examination in chief also admitted his handwriting at Q408 in the form Ex.PW62/E. The number of demand draft issued against the aforesaid form is duly reflected CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
273as 477950 on D94 (Ex.PW62/E).
Ld. PP has also pointed out that the aforesaid demand draft in original was not found during the course of investigation and the same was not even deposited in the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan along with any challan as the details of the same were not found entered in any record in the bank. Further the third copy of challan contained incorrect details as to the amount reflected in the challan corresponding to the demand draft which was got prepared for Rs.1,000/-. The forged copy of the challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
(iii) With reference to aforesaid challan Ex.9/I-6, prosecution has also relied upon statement of PW62 Shri Bijay Kumar Pandit, the then Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Sarojini Nagar who proved the pay order application form D94 (Ex.PW62/E) bearing signatures of Shri Ram Nath, Special Assistant since the pay order bearing no. 477950 mentioned on challan was only for Rs.1,000/- instead of the amount reflected on challan i.e. Rs.9,12,670/-.
(iv) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan Ex.PW9/I-6 at Q193 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
274Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW9/I-6 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
275by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/I-6 is a round stamp in Hindi only and does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) which was in use at relevant time.
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no.097144 dated 11.08.97 in file Ex.PW9/I was not issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
(v) Prosecution has further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, reliance is placed upon entry at Q366 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal bearing the name of allottee Meera with flat no. 47D/D along with the draft no.477950 and the amount of Rs.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
2769,12,670/- and the same has been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para 18).
The evidence on record as discussed above proves that forged challan was deposited in the relevant file by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat but the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually deposited with DDA.
C. TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLAT NO.
47D, POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI.
PW36 Shri Hari Garg dealing in property business deposed as to transactions relating to flat no. D-47 (allotted to Meera), 21 Pocket D Kondli Gharoli (Allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena), 50D (allotted to Amar Singh). He stated that he had sold allotment letter of D-47, Kondli Gharoli to Raju Aggarwal for Rs.50,000/- and had obtained signatures of Meera (allottee) on typed and blank papers and the documents were handed over to Raju Aggarwal.
In the aforesaid context, prosecution has further relied upon statement of PW46 Satish Sapru who was running a catering van with his brother in front of Vikas Sadan, INA and had subsequently sold the same to Raju Aggarwal. He identified his signatures on Ex.PW46/B1 to B5. Ex.PW46/B5 is an affidavit given by Raju Aggarwal mentioning the details of flats sold by him, namely, D-21D, D-50D, D-34C, C-39A, C-43C, B-30A, D-47D, B-31A, B-9C, C-4A CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
277which includes the present flat D-47D and the fact that he had got the conveyance deed executed and made payments for said flats and further he had received full and final payment. He further stated in the aforesaid affidavit that if any error or complication arises from DDA regarding above flats, he shall be responsible or would refund the cash. The said affidavit has also been opined by GEQD to be bearing the signatures of Raju Aggarwal at Q352 as per Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) and is witnessed by Satish Sapru.
Prosecution has further referred to statement of PW51 Shri Sukhpal Bansal (Property Dealer) who knew Satish Sapru (PW46) a well as accused Raju Aggarwal and entered into transactions of flats of which papers were possessed by Raju Aggarwal which includes some of the flats bearing no. 4A Pocket C, 39A Pocket C, 34C Pocket D, 47D Pocket D, 50D Pocket D, 9C Pocket B and includes the flat involved in the present case (i.e. 47D Pocket D allotted to Meera). PW51 also stated that he was told by Ram Avtar Aggarwal (PW89) that conveyance deed of flat no. 34C Pocket D (i.e. allotted to D.K. Jain D11) was forged and payment against same was not deposited on which PW51 along with Ravi Chopra, Ajay Khurana, Ram Avtar Aggarwal, Satish Sapru and one Amarjeet Singh Juneja visited Central Bank, Vikas Sadan and found that the challans were forged and the payment had not been deposited on which Raju Aggarwal was asked to return the advance of Rs.25 lacs. Further, as Raju Aggarwal only returned Rs.16 lacs in cash but the cheque of Rs.9 lacs bounced a complaint was made to Vice Chairman, DDA and other authorities regarding the fraud.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
278Prosecution has further relied upon statement of PW53 Shri Gyan Dev Gupta who was used by accused Raju Aggarwal in various transactions and he proved the documents signed by him for aforesaid purpose. PW53 Shri Gyan Dev Gupta stated that Raju Aggarwal and Bansal informed him regarding purchase of a flat in his name at Kondli Gharoli on which he told them that he had no concern with any flat and why the flat had been taken in his name. However, Raju Aggarwal and Bansal sent him to take possession of flat D-47-D (i.e. present flat) at Kondli and some official from DDA obtained his signatures at 5 or 6 places.
He further proved his signatures on possession slip Ex.PW44/A (D-23) in token of taking possession of the said flat, letter Ex.PW-53/A.(D-23) addressed to DDA, inventory item Ex.PW-44/B (D-23), specimen signatures sheet Ex.PW-53/B (D-23) in file Ex.PW-7/H (D-23) and notarised copy of his Election I-card Ex.PW-53/C (D-23).
He further stated that flat no.D-47-D was sold to Narender Chaturvedi by Ravi Chopra and Mr. Bansal.
Ld. PP has pointed out that purchaser Narender Chaturvedi of the flat involved in this case could not be examined though he was cited as a witness as he expired during the course of trial.
The statement of witnesses referred to above proves that the allotment papers of aforesaid flat in favour of Meera were purchased by Raju Aggarwal and the challan Ex.PW9/I-6 was deposited by him in conspiracy in respect of payment of Rs. 9,12,670/- with DDA which was found to be forged.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
27930. Allottee Amar Singh, Flat No. 50D, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli (File D10) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Amount Details of Bogus Name of the Bank No Challan No. (Rs.) Pay Order/ Draft .
10 160(498)/97/SFS/KL III Amar Singh, S/o 97140 8,62,350/- 40011 (14.10.97) Bank of Baroda, Saf. Enclave New
50 D Pocket D Raja Ram, H. No. 15.10.97 Delhi
E-16/349 Tank
Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi
A. EVIDENCE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.50D,
POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF
DEMAND AS PER DEMAND-CUM-ALLOTMENT
LETTER BY DDA
D10 (file Ex.PW9/J1) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee Amar Singh whereby flat no.50D, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. Amar Singh was examined as PW30 and he identified his signatures on the application form filled for allocation of allotment of flat at Q207 & Q208 (Point A) on Ex.PW23/A. He stated that he had applied for a DDA flat around 1995-96 and initially deposited Rs.50,000/-. The draft to DDA was prepared from his SB A/c No. 64385 at Punjab National Bank, Karol Bagh. The form for allotment was filled by Puran Singh and he signed the same at point A and allotment cum demand letter Ex.PW9/J-4 (D-10) from DDA received by him whereby he was required to deposit about Rs.8/9 lacs.
He further stated that he had given allotment letter Ex.PW9/J-4 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
280(D-10) to Shri Hari Garg, who gave him Rs.50,000/- through cheque and Rs.40,000/- in cash. Further, he signed blank papers as well as written papers and given the same to Hari Garg along with photograph & copy of ration card. He further proved documents bearing his signatures i.e. special power of attorney (Ex.PW-29/A) (D-10), specimen signature Ex. PW-29/B (D-10), acknowledgment for the application form issued by DDA Ex.PW-29/C (D-10) , undertaking Ex.PW-29/D (D-10) and request for issue of possession letter Ex.PW-25/M (D-10). He further stated that he did not deposit any amount in DDA towards the cost of the flat and his specimen signatures were taken on Ex.PW-29/S1 to Ex.PW-29/S2 (D-326) by CBI during investigation of the case.
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Amar Singh has further relied upon the acknowledgment contained in D10 whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft no. 300276 dated 04.09.96 on behalf of allottee Amar Singh along with Mark PW120/R6 which is certified true copy of transfer entry regarding receipt of Rs.50,000/- on behalf of allottee signed by the Accounts Officer, SFS-II. On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of Meera, allotment-cum-demand letter Ex.PW9/J4 - D10 was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs. 8,62,350/- to be deposited within the period stipulated in aforesaid letter which bears the signatures of Shri V.P. Anand as deposed by PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal. As per the aforesaid letter, possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
281submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter Ex.PW9/J4 (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Amar Singh and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO.50D, POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI.
To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
282course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 15.10.97 bearing number 097140 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/J6) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.8,62,350/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/J6) demand draft no. 400011 dated 14.10.97 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Safdarjung Enclave was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft was not deposited and the value of the same also appears to be wrongly reflected on the challan as no draft by aforesaid number could be traced to have been deposited with Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan. Also, no form for issue of draft could be traced during investigation. The forged copy of the challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
(ii) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan Ex.PW9/J6 at Q225 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited.
Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
283officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW9/J6 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
284impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/J6 is a round stamp in Hindi only and does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) which was in use at relevant time.
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no. 097140 dated 15.10.97 in file Ex.PW9/J was not issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
(iii) Prosecution has further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, reliance is placed upon entry at Q368 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal bearing the name of allottee Amar Singh along with flat no. D50D. Further, in the same diary at Q367 below the entry of N.D. Deva the challan number of the present case has CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
285been mentioned i.e. 097140 and the same has been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para 18).
Also, the fourth copy of the challan no. 097140 (D248) Ex.PW51/B5 was recovered during the course of investigation from the premises of Raju Aggarwal and the same has also been opined at Q476 to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
The evidence on record as discussed above proves that forged challan was deposited in the relevant file by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat but the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually deposited with DDA.
C. TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLAT NO.
50D, POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI PW36 Shri Hari Garg dealing in property business deposed as to transactions relating to flat no. D-47 (allotted to Meera), 21 Pocket D Kondli Gharoli (allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena), 50D (allotted to Amar Singh). He stated that he had purchased documents of flat no. 50D from allottee Amar Singh through Shri Puran Singh for Rs.90,000/- and further sold the same to Dinesh Singhal for Rs. 90,000/-. The same was further sold by Dinesh Singhal to Raju Aggarwal for Rs.1.5 lacs and the allotment letter and documents CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
286were handed over to Raju Aggarwal.
Prosecution has further relied upon statement of PW29 Shri Dinesh Singhal who is the purchaser of flat no. D-21D (allotted to Laxmi Narayan Meena-D4), flat no. D-50D (allotted to Amar Singh - D10) and flat no. D-55B (allotted to Ritu Gupta). He stated that he had purchased allotment papers in respect of flat no. D-21D and D-50D, Kondli Gharoli for consideration of Rs.90,000/- each from Hari Garg though papers of the same were not handed over to him. Further, he also purchased papers of flat no. D-55B allotted to Ritu Gupta from Satpal for Rs.90,000/- and had also deposited Rs.1 lac for each flat in DDA by way of pay order. Further, as the period of deposit of money with DDA was about to expire, he and Hari Garg submitted application for extension of time for deposit of balance amount on 16th September, 1997 and DDA extended the period of deposit amount to 30 to 35 days. However, since he could not arrange the money, he sold the papers of the flats to Raju Aggarwal through Hari Garg in the 1st week of October for Rs.1.5 lacs for each flat and received the amount from Hari Garg by cash in four installments.
He further denied having deposited any amount as shown in the copies of the challan Ex.PW9/D6 pertaining to flat no. D-21D (Laxmi Narayan Meena), Ex.PW9/J6 pertaining to flat no. D-50D (Amar Singh) and Ex.PW9/E pertaining to flat no. D-55B (Ritu Gupta).
In the aforesaid context, prosecution has also referred to CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
287statement of PW46 Satish Sapru who was running a catering van with his brother in front of Vikas Sadan, INA and had subsequently sold the same to Raju Aggarwal. He identified his signatures on Ex.PW46/B1 to B5. Ex.PW46/B5 is an affidavit given by Raju Aggarwal mentioning the details of flats sold by him, namely, D-21D, D-50D, D-34C, C-39A, C-43C, B-30A, D-47D, B-31A, B-9C, C-4A which includes the present flat D-50D and the fact that he had got the conveyance deed executed and made payments for said flats and further he had received full and final payment. He further stated in the aforesaid affidavit that if any error or complication arises from DDA regarding above flats, he shall be responsible or would refund the cash. The said affidavit has also been opined by GEQD to be bearing the signatures of Raju Aggarwal at Q352 as per Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) and is witnessed by Satish Sapru.
Prosecution has also relied upon receipt bearing signatures of Raju Aggarwal (Ex.PW46/B4) which was proved by PW46 Satish Sapru as the aforesaid document was executed in his presence by Raju Aggarwal and was also witnessed by Satish Sapru. Vide aforesaid receipt dated 15.04.97, Raju Aggarwal acknowledged having received earnest money for flat 31A Pocket B, 50D Pocket D (i.e the present flat), 21D Pocket D and 9C Pocket __ for Rs.19 lacs. The said receipt has also been opined by GEQD to be bearing the signatures of Raju Aggarwal at Q350 as per Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) and is witnessed by Satish Sapru.
Prosecution has further referred to statement of PW60 Shri CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
288Pankaj Gauba who worked with Raju Aggarwal and deposed in respect of various transactions entered by Raju Aggarwal.
He stated that in 1995-96, property dealer Bansal and Khurana had come to the office of Raju Aggarwal and asked him about the payment of DDA flats purchased by him upon which Raju Aggarwal had issued receipt showing that he had deposited the amount and had also given an affidavit on judicial stamp paper.
He further stated that flat no.50D, Kondli Gharoli was purchased by Raju Aggarwal in his name from allottee Amar Singh and proved various documents existing in the file Ex.PW9/J1. He also stated that he along with Satish Sapru were collecting the payment from the party to whom Raju Aggarwal used to sell the DDA flats.
Ld. PP has pointed out that possession of this flat was taken by Pankaj Gauba as attorney of Amar Singh as per possession slip (Ex.PW48/B3) and other documents contained in file D18.
Reliance is also placed by prosecution on statement of PW51 Shri Sukhpal Bansal who is a witness to production memo dated 18.08.98 (Ex.PW51/D) D362 whereby documents (D258 to D265) were seized from Sukhpal Bansal. He stated that during 1997 Sapru contacted him and told that Raju Aggarwal had informed about purchase of some SFS flats at Kondli Gharoli and number of some of them were 4A Pocket C, 39A Pocket C, 34C Pocket D, 47D Pocket D, 50 D Pocket D and 9C Pocket B. In respect of present flat, he further deposed that Amar Singh was original allottee of flat no.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
28950D Pocket D and documents pertaining to said flat was given to him by Satish Sapru against advance given to Raju Aggarwal. Further, the documents relating to said flat were handed over by him through production memo Ex.PW51/A and the same are Ex.PW51/B1 to B25 which were signed by original allottee Amar Singh.
PW51 further stated that he was told by Ram Avtar Aggarwal (PW89) that conveyance deed of flat no. 34C Pocket D (i.e. allotted to D.K. Jain D11) was forged and payment against same was not deposited on which PW51 along with Ravi Chopra, Ajay Khurana, Ram Avtar Aggarwal, Satish Sapru and one Amarjeet Singh Juneja visited Central Bank, Vikas Sadan and found that the challans were forged and the payment had not been deposited on which Raju Aggarwal was asked to return the advance of Rs.25 lacs. Further, as Raju Aggarwal only returned Rs.16 lacs in cash but the cheque of Rs.9 lacs bounced a complaint was made to Vice Chairman, DDA and other authorities regarding the fraud.
The statement of witnesses referred to above proves that the allotment papers of aforesaid flat in favour of Amar Singh were purchased by Raju Aggarwal and challan Ex.PW9/J6 was deposited by him which has been found to be forged in respect of payment of Rs.8,62,350/-.
31. Allottee Devender Kumar Jain, flat no.34C, pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli (File D11) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Amount Details of Bogus Name of the Bank No Challan No. (Rs.) Pay Order/ Draft .
11 160(462)/SFS/KL III Devender Kumar 97152 9,14,618/- 477951 (11.8.97) Syndicate Bank, Sarojini Nagar, 34 C Pocket D Jain & Mrs. Renu 12.08.97 11.8.97 Central Bank of India, Safdarjung Jain 71315 5,625/- Cash (23.10.97) Enclave, ND 23.10.97 23.10.97 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
290A. EVIDENE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.34C,
POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF
DEMAND AS PER DEMAND-CUM-ALLOTMENT
LETTER BY DDA
D11 (file Ex.PW9/K) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee Devender Kumar Jain and Renu Jain whereby flat no. 34C, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicants. Devender Kumar Jain was examined as PW20 and stated that he had applied for allotment of DDA flat under 9th SFS (Flat) Scheme by depositing Rs.50,000/- by bank draft, in the joint name with his wife Renu Jain. He further stated that acknowledgement Ex.PW20/B was issued by DDA for receiving application Ex.PW20/A. Further, demand note (Ex.PW-9/K6) (D-11) was received from DDA whereby SFS Flat no. 034 C, Category -III SFS in Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli under SFS-IX scheme was allotted and directed to deposit Rs. 8,92,310/-. Since the flat required some finishing work, he wrote letter (Ex.PW-20/C) to DDA requesting to complete the flat and to give him some time for arranging the payment, whereupon, DDA sent reply Ex. PW-20/D in response to his letter Ex.PW-20/C but he could not deposit the demanded amount. Thereafter, he along with his wife and brother Vipin Jain went to Vikas Sadan, INA, for cancellation of the allotment of the flat.
He further stated that in front of the DDA, INA Building they all three took tea at a catering van where Raju Aggarwal approached them CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
291and told that he would get nothing if allotment of the flat is cancelled and Raju Aggarwal would give him Rs.50,000/- if he signs some papers. Thereafter, Raju Aggarwal got some blank papers signed from him and his wife Renu Jain and PW20 handed over the original receipt of DDA and all the original papers pertaining to the allotment of the flat in their names to Raju Aggarwal and the documents bearing signatures of PW20 and his wife Renu Jain were obtained by Raju Aggarwal.
He further stated that when he and his wife put signatures on Ex.PW-20/E, Ex.PW-20/F, Ex.PW-20/G, Ex.PW-20/H, Ex.PW-20/J & Ex.PW-20/K, the same were blank papers and they also handed over their photographs to Raju Aggarwal. He further identified the photographs affixed on Ex.PW-20/H and Ex.PW-20/K and stated that they were the same photographs which were handed over by him and his wife. However, the documents were not got attested by him from any Notary. He also stated that he did not deposit any amount in DDA and Raju Aggarwal gave him Rs.40,000/- after obtaining his signatures on blank papers and issued him a receipt (Ex.PW20/I).
He also proved signatures of his brother Vipin Jain on receipt (Ex.PW20/I) as a witness at point X and that of Raju Aggarwal at point Y. He further stated that bank challan no.097152 (Q-235) and challan no.071315 (Q-237) were neither in his handwriting nor bear his signatures.
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Devender Kumar Jain and Renu Jain further relied upon the acknowledgment contained in D11 whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
292no. 894547 dated 18.09.96 on behalf of allottee Devender Kumar Jain and Renu Jain along with Mark PW120/R9 which is certified true copy of transfer entry regarding receipt of Rs.50,000/- on behalf of allottee signed by the Accounts Officer, SFS-II. On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of Devender Kumar Jain and Renu Jain, allotment-cum-demand letter Ex.PW9/K6 - D11 was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs. 9,14,618/- to be deposited within the period stipulated in aforesaid letter which bears the signatures of Shri V.P. Anand as deposed by PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal. As per the aforesaid letter, possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter Ex.PW9/K6 (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Devender Kumar Jain CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
293and Renu Jain and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO.34C, POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI.
To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 12.08.97 bearing number 097152 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/K7) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.9,14,618/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/K7) demand draft no. 477951 dated 11.08.97 drawn on Syndicate Bank, DTC Depot, Sarojini Nagar was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft was not deposited and the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
294value of the same also appears to be wrongly reflected on the challan as no draft by aforesaid number could be traced to have been deposited with Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan.
Prosecution has also pointed out that so far as this challan is concerned, as per form for issue of demand draft (Ex.PW62/F - D95), the request was made in the name of one Rajeev Kumar, B9/650 Lodhi Colony, ND-3 for issue of two demand draft for Rs.1,000/- in favour of DDA (Housing) which has been opined at Q410 & Q411 to be in the handwriting of Manish (PW58) by GEQD who was an employee of Raju Aggarwal. PW58 Manish in his examination in chief also admitted his handwriting at Q410 & Q411 in the form Ex.PW62/F. The number of demand draft issued against the aforesaid form is duly reflected as 477951 on D95 (Ex.PW62/F). The forged copy of the challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
(ii) With reference to aforesaid challan Ex.9/K7, prosecution also relied upon statement of PW62 Shri Bijay Kumar Pandit, the then Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Sarojini Nagar who proved the pay order application form D95 (Ex.PW62/F) bearing signatures of Shri Ram Nath, Special Assistant. As per Ex.PW62/F, pay order bearing no. 477951 mentioned on challan was only for Rs.1,000/- instead of the amount reflected on challan i.e. Rs.9,14,618/-.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
295(iii) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan Ex.PW9/K7 at Q234 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited.
Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW9/K7 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
296of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/K7 is a round stamp in Hindi only and does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) which was in use at relevant time.
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no. 097152 dated 12.08.97 in file Ex.PW9/K was not issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
(iv) Prosecution has further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
297contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, reliance is placed upon entry at Q366 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal bearing the name of allottee DK Jain Renu Jain along with flat no. 34C/D and amount of Rs.9,14,618/- is reflected along with the corresponding draft no. 477951 reflected in the challan. However, the name of the bank in the said entry is reflected as SBI in place of Syndicate Bank. The same has been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para 18).
Also, the fourth copy of the challan no. 097152 (D232) Ex.PW119/A85 was recovered during the course of investigation from the premises of Raju Aggarwal and the same has also been opined at Q446 to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
(v) The case of the prosecution is further that another third copy of challan dated 23.10.97 bearing number 071315 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW119/A46) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs. 5,625/- by cash with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per investigation the said amount was not deposited as the said challan was forged and reliance in this regard is further placed upon CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
298statement of PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj. Shri B.M. Bajaj in respect of the present challan (Ex.PW119/A46) also deposed that the same does not bear signatures of any officer of the bank or staff. Ld. PP further submits that the said challan was also deposited by Raju Aggawral since the handwriting on the same at Q236 has been opined to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal and also the fourth copy of said challan was recovered from the premises of Raju Aggarwal i.e. Ex.PW119/A86. The handwriting on the fourth copy of the challan at Q448 has also been opined to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal by GEQD.
The evidence on record as discussed above proves that forged challan was deposited in the relevant file by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat but the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually deposited with DDA.
C. TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLAT NO.
34C, POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI Prosecution has relied upon statement of PW80 Shri Sidharth Sarkar who stated that on shifting from Baroda to Delhi on transfer in July, 1997, he intended to purchase a small house in tenement in Delhi and one of his colleagues R.K. Jain introduced him to Ram Avtar Aggarwal, Property Dealer of Mayur Vihar Phase-III who offered him flat No.D34C, Kondli Gharoli, DDA, out of resale, at a consideration CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
299of Rs.10.50 lacs plus registration and brokerage which was amounting to Rs.12 lacs.
He further stated that he paid Rs.4 lacs in cash upto November, 1997 against receipts and Rs.4 lacs in installments as bayana. Thereafter, he went to his home town Ajmer to see his ailing father and when he came back in January 1998, he came to know through newspaper Times of India about the fraud regarding allotment of flats in Kondli Gharoli area. He immediately contacted Ram Avtar and requested him to pay back his money. Ram Avtar returned his money on 14.01.98 and took back the receipts of Rs.4 lacs and got one paper signed from him.
He further identified his signatures on Special Power of Attorney dated 02.12.97 (Ex.PW20/J) executed by Devender Kumar Jain and Renu Jain in his favour regarding flat no.34C IInd Floor; Conveyance Deed dated 2.12.97 executed in his favour (Ex.PW9/K5); copy of agreement dated 20.11.97 regarding flat in question (Mark PW80/A); another Conveyance Deed (D236) (Ex.PW80/X) along with his photograph and of Devender Kumar and Renu Jain. He further identified signatures of Ram Avtar Gupta and his wife Sushmita Sarkar on Ex.PW80/X. He further stated that he was not aware that when Agreement to Sell (D240) undated was prepared but it contained his particulars along with flat in question and the same was given Mark PW80/B. Ld. PP has pointed out that the said agreement Mark PW80/B executed between Raju Aggarwal and Sidharth Sarkar as per CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
300particulars filled in hand also bears particulars at the bottom of total consideration of Rs.10.50 lacs of which an advance was given of Rs.6 lacs. Further, the same also bears signatures of Satish Sapru at Q459, Pankaj Gauba at Q458 and Raju Aggarwal at Q455A, Q456 & Q457 as opined by GEQD and confirms that the flat was dealt by Raju Aggarwal.
Prosecution has further relied upon statement of PW46 Satish Sapru who was running a catering van with his brother in front of Vikas Sadan, INA and had subsequently sold the same to Raju Aggarwal. He identified his signatures on Ex.PW46/B1 to B5. Ex.PW46/B5 is an affidavit given by Raju Aggarwal mentioning the details of flats sold by him, namely, D-21D, D-50D, D-34C, C-39A, C-43C, B-30A, D-47D, B-31A, B-9C, C-4A which includes the present flat D-34C and the fact that he had got the conveyance deed executed and made payments for said flats and further he had received full and final payment. He further stated in the aforesaid affidavit that if any error or complication arises from DDA regarding above flats, he shall be responsible or would refund the cash. The said affidavit has also been opined by GEQD to be bearing the signatures of Raju Aggarwal at Q352 as per Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) and is witnessed by Satish Sapru.
In the aforesaid context, prosecution has referred to statement of PW60 Shri Pankaj Gauba who worked with Raju Aggarwal and deposed in respect of various transactions entered by Raju Aggarwal.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
301He stated that in 1995-96, property dealer Bansal and Khurana had come to the office of Raju Aggarwal and asked him about the payment of DDA flats purchased by him upon which Raju Aggarwal had issued receipt showing that he had deposited the amount and had also given an affidavit on judicial stamp paper.
Prosecution has also relied upon statement of PW51 Shri Sukhpal Bansal who is a witness to production memo dated 18.08.98 (Ex.PW51/D) D362 whereby documents (D258 to D265) were seized from Sukhpal Bansal. He stated that during 1997 Sapru contacted him and told that Raju Aggarwal had informed about purchase of some SFS flats at Kondli Gharoli and number of some of them were 4A Pocket C, 39A Pocket C, 34C Pocket D, 47D Pocket D, 50 D Pocket D and 9C Pocket B. PW51 further stated that he was told by Ram Avtar Aggarwal (PW89) that conveyance deed of flat no. 34C Pocket D (i.e. allotted to D.K. Jain D11) was forged and payment against same was not deposited on which PW51 along with Ravi Chopra, Ajay Khurana, Ram Avtar Aggarwal, Satish Sapru and one Amarjeet Singh Juneja visited Central Bank, Vikas Sadan and found that the challans were forged and the payment had not been deposited on which Raju Aggarwal was asked to return the advance of Rs.25 lacs. Further, as Raju Aggarwal only returned Rs.16 lacs in cash but the cheque of Rs.9 lacs bounced a complaint was made to Vice Chairman, DDA and other authorities regarding the fraud.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
302Prosecution has also referred to statement of PW89 Shri Ram Avtar Gupta who is a Real Estate Agent and deposed as to the transactions in respect of various flats and documents executed in respect of the same.
He stated that during December 1997, he noticed some discrepancy in respect of documents relating to flat no. D34C, Kondli Gharoli (i.e. present flat) after execution, as the challan vide which the amount was deposited for purpose of deposit of stamp duty (Ex.PW89/C) was bearing the number "1207" while on the conveyance deed (Ex.PW80/X) it was reflected as "1208". Thereafter, he contacted document writer Praveen Kumar of Seelampur who informed that file relating to challan no. 1207 is pending with the Registrar of Stamps since the stamp duty was not deposited against the same and he also personally verified the said fact from the office of Sub-Registrar, Nand Nagri. Further, on verification from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, he was informed that challan showing payment of deposit of about Rs.9 lacs favouring DDA in respect of payment of aforesaid flat was also fake and no such amount was credited to DDA. He accordingly informed Bansal about the aforesaid discrepancies and also contacted the concerned parties who had participated in the deal, namely, Bansal, Khurana, Juneja, Sapru, Rathi and Mukesh and they all collected at office of DDA, Vikas Sadan where it transpired that the documents were procured from Raju Aggarwal. At the aforesaid time Pankaj Gauba was also seated with Raju Aggarwal and they were assured by Raju Aggarwal that he would look into the matter as he had tuning in DDA. Thereafter, on being CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
303questioned by Khurana as to the authenticity of transactions with respect to other flats, Raju Aggarwal handed over blank cheques to Shri Khurana and assured that he would look into the issue and deposit the amount with DDA and thereafter take back the blank cheque. Further, he was also given one blank cheque of Rs.6 lacs in respect of flat no.D34C and assured to deposit the money with DDA and take back the cheque thereafter. He also identified signatures of Raju Aggarwal on cheque for Rs.6 lacs (Ex.PW89/D). He further stated that thereafter they contacted Raju Aggarwal on four or five occasions but he failed to respond and did not deposit the amount in respect of the flats transacted through him.
He further stated that in January 1998, Raju Aggarwal had also handed over amount of Rs.1.50 lacs to him in two installments at instance of Bansal in respect of flat no. D34C since he had invested the amount in transaction towards aforesaid flat.
Ld. PP has pointed out that D236 (i.e. the conveyance deed bearing the stamp of Collector of Stamps executed by DDA in favour of allottee Devender Kumar Jain and Renu Jain) at Q451 bears the number '1208' in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as opined by GEQD in para 21 of the report Ex.PW119/A101. The said number had been wrongly endorsed in the stamp bearing signatures of Collector of Stamps in collusion of some official of the Collector of Stamps by reflecting incorrect file number '1208' instead of 1207 pertaining to present case in which no amount had been deposited.
The statement of witnesses referred to above proves that the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
304allotment papers of aforesaid flat in favour of Devender Kumar Jain and Renu Jain were dealt by Raju Aggarwal and the challan Ex.PW9/K7 was deposited by him in conspiracy in respect of payment of Rs.9,14,618/- with DDA which has been proved to be forged.
32. Allottee Amit Aggarwal, flat no.4A, pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli (File D12) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Amount Details of Bogus Name of the Bank No Challan No. (Rs.) Pay Order/ Draft .
12 160(228)/97/SFS/KL III Amit Aggarwal 80085 8,94,225/- 005663 (14.08.97) Andhra Bank, R.K. Puram, New
4 A Pocket C S/o Sh. K.S. 16.8.97 Delhi
Aggarwal, H-23,
Sec. 22, Noida
A. EVIDENCE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.4A,
POCKET-C, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF
DEMAND AS PER DEMAND-CUM-ALLOTMENT
LETTER BY DDA
D12 (file Ex.PW9L) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee Amit Aggarwal whereby flat no.4A, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. Amit Aggarwal was examined as PW24 and he stated that he had applied for allotment of a DDA flat under 9th SFS (Flat) Scheme by depositing Rs.50,000/- by way of a bank draft and identified his signatures at point X on application Ex. PW-24/A (D-12) submitted in DDA. He further stated that CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
305acknowledgment Ex. PW-24/B (D-12) was issued by DDA having received application Ex. PW-24/A(D-12). Further, allotment cum demand note Ex.PW-9/I-4(D-9) was received from DDA to the effect that SFS Flat no. 004A on ground floor, Pocket-C, Category-III SFS, Kondli Gharoli under SFS-IX scheme had been allotted and was directed to deposit Rs.8,72,415/-. However, he was not in a position to deposit the demanded amount.
He further stated that he received letters from property dealers and Ex.PW-24/C (D-120) is the letter written by Raju Aggarwal on the letterhead of his concern whereby he was asked to contact Raju Aggarwal in case he was interested in selling the allotment of the flat in question. He, thereafter, contacted Raju Aggarwal and met him thrice and Raju Aggarwal proposed to pay him Rs.90,000/- to which he agreed to execute the documents. Further, Raju Aggarwal visited his house along with one Satish Sapru and gave him Rs.25,000/- in cash for which PW24 executed a receipt of which Raju Aggarwall kept the original with him and handed over a photocopy of receipt Ex.PW-24/D (D-123) to him. Raju Aggarwal had put his signatures on this receipt in his presence and he had handed over the receipt Ex.PW.24/D (D-123) to CBI during investigation of the case along with the original acknowledgment Ex. PW-24/B (D-.12) after putting his signature on the reverse at point P. He further stated that he had handed over his two photographs to Raju Aggarwal who had promised to pay the amount of Rs.60,000/- after 15 days and balance of Rs.5,000/- at the time when he would sell CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
306this flat to the purchaser. Further, Raju Aggarwal gave him Rs. 60,000/- after 15-20 days and asked him to visit Kondli Gharoli for signing some papers and he had put his signature on possession slip Ex. PW-24/E (D-27), inventory of fittings and fixtures Ex. PW-24/F (D-27) on the asking of Raju Aggarwal who told him that he would collect the possession slip from the site office of the DDA himself after it was signed by the officers. However, he (PW24) did not receive the possession slip of the allotted flat and neither it came in his hands.
Later on, after about a month Raju Aggarwal told him that the flat had been sold to R. S. Mathur and in order to execute the deal he (PW24) had to go to court at Kashmere Gate. Further, he (PW24) went to the shop of Raju Aggarwal at Mayur Vihar where R. S. Mathur was also present and he along with Raju Aggarwal and R. S. Mathur went to court at Kashmere Gate, where he executed various documents. He further stated that he had not deposited any amount in DDA for possession slip.
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Amit Aggarwal has further relied upon the acknowledgment contained in D12 whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft no. 980375 dated 18.09.96 on behalf of allottee Amit Aggarwal along with Mark PW120/R2 which is certified true copy of transfer entry regarding receipt of Rs.50,000/- on behalf of allottee signed by the Accounts Officer, SFS-II. On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of allottee Amit Aggarwal, allotment-cum-demand letter Ex.PW9/L4 - D11 was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
307thereby raising the demand of Rs.8,94,225/- to be deposited within the period stipulated in aforesaid letter which bears the stamped signatures of Shri V.P. Anand as deposed by PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal. As per the aforesaid letter, possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter Ex.PW9/L4 (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Amit Aggarwal and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO.4A, POCKET-C, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
308KONDLI GHAROLI.
To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 16.08.97 bearing number 080085 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/L6) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.8,94,225/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/L6) demand draft no. 005663 dated 14.08.97 drawn on Andhra Bank, R.K. Puram was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft was not deposited and the value of the same also appears to be wrongly reflected on the challan as no draft by aforesaid number could be traced to have been deposited with Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan.
Ld. PP has pointed out that so far as this challan is concerned, as per form for issue of demand draft (Ex.PW1/A - D74), the request was made in the name of one Atul, D90, Vikaspuri, ND-18 for issue of two demand draft for Rs.1,000/- in favour of DDA (Housing) which has been opined at Q373 to CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
309be in the handwriting of Manish (PW58) by GEQD who was an employee of Raju Aggarwal. PW58 Manish in his examination in chief also admitted his handwriting at Q373 in the form Ex.PW1/A. The number of demand draft issued against the aforesaid form is duly reflected as 5663 on D74 (Ex.PW1/A). The forged copy of the challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
(ii) With reference to aforesaid challan Ex.9/L6, prosecution also relied upon statement of PW1 Jai Narayan Meena who proved the aforesaid application form for obtaining the bank draft Ex.PW1/A.
(iii) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan Ex.PW9/L6 at Q238 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited.
Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW9/L6 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
310official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/L6 is a round stamp in Hindi only and does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
311which was in use at relevant time.
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no. 080085 dated 16.08.97 in file Ex.PW9/L was not issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
(iv) Prosecution has further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, entry at Q366 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal bearing the name of allottee Amit Aggarwal along with flat no. 4A/C and amount of Rs.8,94,225/- is reflected along with the corresponding draft no. 005663 reflected in the challan. The same has been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para 18).
The evidence on record as discussed above proves that forged challan Ex.PW9/L6 was deposited in conspiracy by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat but the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually deposited CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
312with DDA.
C. TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLAT NO.4A, POCKET-C, KONDLI GHAROLI PW24 Amit Aggarwal deposed on his examination regarding having received letter Ex.PW24/C from Raju Aggarwal for contacting him in case the allottee was interested in disposal of allotment and further also proved the receipt Ex.PW24/D (D123) executed with respect to sale of allotment of aforesaid flat in favour of Raju Aggarwal.
Ld. PP has pointed out that the purchaser of the flat Shri R.S. Mathur expired during course of trial and as such could not be examined though he was cited in the list of witnesses (at serial no.43).
Prosecution further relied upon statement of PW46 Satish Sapru who was running a catering van with his brother in front of Vikas Sadan, INA and had subsequently sold the same to Raju Aggarwal. He identified his signatures on Ex.PW46/B1 to B5. Ex.PW46/B5 is an affidavit given by Raju Aggarwal mentioning the details of flats sold by him, namely, D-21D, D-50D, D-34C, C-39A, C-43C, B-30A, D-47D, B-31A, B-9C, C-4A which includes the present flat C-4A and the fact that he had got the conveyance deed executed and made payments for said flats and further he had received full and final payment. He further stated in the aforesaid affidavit that CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
313if any error or complication arises from DDA regarding above flats, he shall be responsible or would refund the cash. The said affidavit has also been opined by GEQD to be bearing the signatures of Raju Aggarwal at Q352 as per Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) and is witnessed by Satish Sapru.
In the aforesaid context, prosecution has further referred to statement of PW51 Shri Sukhpal Bansal who is a witness to production memo dated 18.08.98 (Ex.PW51/D) D362 whereby documents (D258 to D265) were seized from Sukhpal Bansal. He stated that during 1997 Sapru contacted him and told that Raju Aggarwal had informed about purchase of some SFS flats at Kondli Gharoli and number of some of them were 4A Pocket C, 39A Pocket C, 34C Pocket D, 47D Pocket D, 50 D Pocket D and 9C Pocket B. Further, flat no. 4A, Pocket C Kondli Gharoli was sold through property dealer Ram Avtar Aggarwal in which PW51 was involved.
He further stated that he was told by Ram Avtar Aggarwal (PW89) that conveyance deed of flat no. 34C Pocket D (i.e. allotted to D.K. Jain D11) was forged and payment against same was not deposited on which PW51 along with Ravi Chopra, Ajay Khurana, Ram Avtar Aggarwal, Satish Sapru and one Amarjeet Singh Juneja visited Central Bank, Vikas Sadan and found that the challans were forged and the payment had not been deposited on which Raju Aggarwal was asked to return the advance of Rs.25 lacs. Further, as Raju Aggarwal only returned Rs.16 lacs in cash but the cheque of Rs.9 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
314lacs bounced a complaint was made to Vice Chairman, DDA and other authorities regarding the fraud.
Prosecution also relied upon statement of PW89 Shri Ram Avtar Gupta who is a Real Estate Agent and deposed as to the transactions in respect of various flats and documents executed in respect of the same.
He stated that he was in real estate business since 1997 in the name of Aggarwal Properties and knew Sukhpal Bansal, property dealer who met him during a deal relating to property no. Pocket C, 4A, Kondli Gharoli, Delhi (i.e. the present flat). Further, he was informed by Sukhpal Bansal that aforesaid flat was available for sale which stood in the name of Amit Aggarwal and financed by Mr. Sapru. He further stated that one Shri R.S. Mathur had agreed to purchase the said flat for an amount of Rs.12.65 lacs and some amount of bayana (advance) was paid by R.S. Mathur to Sukhpal Bansal through him for purpose of purchase of the flat in the year 1997. Further, before the deal was finalized with Shri R.S. Mathur, he had entered into the deal with Sukhpal Bansal for purchase of said flat for an amount which was less than Rs.12.65 lacs. Shri Sapru, Raju Aggarwal and Sukhpal Bansal were aware of the aforesaid deal.
He further stated that when the deal was struck with Sh. R. S. Mathur for purchase of the aforesaid flat, subsequently he was asked to pay the amount/cheque in the name of Sapru who was the financier as demanded by Sapru and Sukhpal Bansal. However, he objected to pay the amount/cheque in the name of Sapru/Sukhpal Bansal since the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
315allotment was in the name of Amit Aggarwal. Sapru and Raju Aggarwal informed that since the finance had been arranged by Sapru, some amount would have to be paid in the name of Sapru. As such, some amount of cheque was accordingly issued by R.S. Mathur in the name of Sapru and cheques for part payment were also issued by R.S. Mathur in the name of Amit Aggarwal at the time of final payment. Also, some amount was also handed over by way of cash as the consideration price. He further stated that he was a witness to the execution of documents of sale between Amit Aggarwal and Mr. Mathur in respect of aforesaid flat and was paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- by R.S. Mathur as commission for the deal. Further, he identified his signatures on receipt dated 14.10.97 (Ex.PW89/B) vide which commission of 2% was paid with respect to property no. 4A, Pocket-C, Kondli Gharoli, Delhi.
The statement of witnesses referred to above proves that the allotment papers of aforesaid flat in favour of Amit Aggarwal were purchased by Raju Aggarwal and the challan Ex.PW9/L6 in respect of payment of Rs.8,94,225/- was deposited by him in conspiracy.
33. Allottee Ramji Lal Meena, flat no.9C, pocket-B, Kondli Gharoli (File D13) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Amount Details of Bogus Name of the Bank No Challan No. (Rs.) Pay Order/ Draft .
13 160(121)/97/SFS/KL III Ramji Lal Meena 82703 8,92,310/- 039631 (17.10.97) Syndicate Bank, Sarojini Nagar, New
9C Pocket B S/o Late Ram 22.10.97 Delhi
Phool Meena, 25B,
Gali No. 7/3,
Shakti Vihar
Colony, Meethapur
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
316
Extn., New Delhi
The present case was detected before the possession letter and No Dues Certificate was issued. The instance may be further dealt with reference to the evidence led on record.
A. EVIDENCE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.9C,
POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF
DEMAND AS PER ALLOTMENT-CUM-DEMAND
LETTER
D13 (file Ex.PW9/M) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee Ramji Lal Meena whereby flat no.9C, Pocket-B, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. Ramji Lal Meena was examined as PW83 and stated that his son Radhey Shyam worked with DDA and he had applied through his son for a flat in DDA and had given around Rs.30,000/- at the time of applying for the same. He further identified his thumb impression and photograph on the application form of DDA (Ex.PW38/A) and also proved the caste certificate containing his particulars as Ex.PW83/A. He further stated that he had sold the flat for around Rs. 30,000/- and at the time of sale of flat, certain documents were executed on which he had put his thumb impression.
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Ramji Lal Meena has further relied upon the acknowledgment contained in file D13 (Ex.PW9/M) whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
317vide draft no. 599354 dated 29.08.96 on behalf of allottee Ramji Lal Meena. On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of allottee Ramji Lal Meena, allotment-cum-demand letter Ex.PW9/M2 - D13 was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs.8,92,310/- to be deposited within the period stipulated in aforesaid letter. As per the aforesaid letter, possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter Ex.PW9/M2 (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Ramji Lal Meena and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
318B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO.9C, POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI.
To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 22.10.97 bearing number 082703 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW115/C11) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.8,92,310/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW115/C11) demand draft no. 039631 dated 17.10.97 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Cantonment was deposited while as per investigation the said demand draft was not deposited and the value of the same also appears to be wrongly reflected on the challan as the copy of the application form D90 (Ex.PW2/B) reflects that a demand draft for sum of Rs.1,000/- favouring DDA (Housing) was filled and demand draft no. 39631 was issued against the same.
Ld. PP has pointed out that so far as this challan is concerned, as per form for issue of demand draft (Ex.PW2/B -
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
319D90), the request was made in the name of one Ram Kumar, C-4C/300, Janakpuri, New Delhi for issue of demand draft for Rs.1,000/- in favour of DDA (Housing) which has been opined at Q403 to be in the handwriting of Manish (PW58) by GEQD who was an employee of Raju Aggarwal. PW58 Manish in his examination in chief also admitted his handwriting at Q403 in the form Ex.PW2/B. The number of demand draft issued against the aforesaid form is duly reflected as 39631 on D90 (Ex.PW2/B). The forged copy of the challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal at Q240.
(ii) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan Ex.PW115/C11 at Q240 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited.
Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW115/C11 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
320genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW115/C11 does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) which was in use at relevant time. Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
321specifically stated that the challan no. 082703 dated 22.10.97 in file Ex.PW9/M was not issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
Ld. PP has pointed out that the fourth copy of the challan was also recovered from the premises of Raju Aggarwal and the said copy (D251) Ex.PW51/C at Q478 has been opined to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
(iii) Prosecution has further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, reliance is placed upon entry at Q367 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal bearing the name of allottee Ramji Lal Meena along with flat no. B9C and amount of Rs.8,92,310/- is reflected along with the corresponding draft no. 039631 reflected in the challan. The same have been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para 18).
The evidence on record as discussed above proves that CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
322forged challan was deposited in the relevant file by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat but the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually made with DDA.
C. TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLAT NO.9C, POCKET-B, KONDLI GHAROLI Prosecution has relied upon statement of PW46 Satish Sapru who was running a catering van with his brother in front of Vikas Sadan, INA and had subsequently sold the same to Raju Aggarwal. He identified his signatures on Ex.PW46/B1 to B5. Ex.PW46/B5 is an affidavit given by Raju Aggarwal mentioning the details of flats sold by him, namely, D-21D, D-50D, D-34C, C-39A, C-43C, B-30A, D-47D, B-31A, B-9C, C-4A which includes the present flat B-9C and the fact that he had got the conveyance deed executed and made payments for said flats and further he had received full and final payment. He further stated in the aforesaid affidavit that if any error or complication arises from DDA regarding above flats, he shall be responsible or would refund the cash. The said affidavit has also been opined by GEQD to be bearing the signatures of Raju Aggarwal at Q352 as per Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) and is witnessed by Satish Sapru.
PW46 Satish Sapru also proved Ex.PW46/B4 and the aforesaid document is a receipt executed by Raju Aggarwal regarding the receipt of earnest money for flat no. 31A, Pocket B (Rs.10 lacs), 50D, Pocket D (Rs.3 lacs), 21D, Pocket D (Rs.3 lacs), 9C Pocket __(Rs.3 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
323lacs). The aforesaid receipt Ex.PW46/B4 contains the details of the present flat 9C which is signed by Raju Aggarwal at Q350 and the same has also been opined by GEQD as per Ex.PW119/A101 (D354).
Prosecution has further relied upon statement of PW51 Shri Sukhpal Bansal who is a witness to production memo dated 18.08.98 (Ex.PW51/D) D362 whereby documents (D258 to D265) were seized from Sukhpal Bansal. He stated that during 1997 Sapru contacted him and told that Raju Aggarwal had informed about purchase of some SFS flats at Kondli Gharoli and number of some of them were 4A Pocket C, 39A Pocket C, 34C Pocket D, 47D Pocket D, 50 D Pocket D and 9C Pocket B. He also stated that documents pertaining to Flat no. 9C Pocket B were given to him by Satish Sapru against the advance given to Raju Aggarwal. Further, the documents which were handed over by him through production memo Ex.PW51/A (i.e. Ex.PW51/C1 to Ex.PW51/C23) contained thumb impression of original allottee Ramji Lal Meena.
He further stated that he was told by Ram Avtar Aggarwal (PW89) that conveyance deed of flat no. 34C Pocket D (i.e. allotted to D.K. Jain D11) was forged and payment against same was not deposited on which PW51 along with Ravi Chopra, Ajay Khurana, Ram Avtar Aggarwal, Satish Sapru and one Amarjeet Singh Juneja visited Central Bank, Vikas Sadan and found that the challans were forged and the payment had not been deposited on which Raju Aggarwal was asked to return the advance of Rs.25 lacs. Further, as Raju Aggarwal only returned Rs.16 lacs in cash but the cheque of Rs.9 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
324lacs bounced a complaint was made to Vice Chairman, DDA and other authorities regarding the fraud.
The statement of witnesses referred to above proves that the allotment papers of aforesaid flat in favour of Ramji Lal Meena were dealt by Raju Aggarwal and the challan Ex.PW115/C11 was deposited by him which has been found to be forged in respect of payment of Rs.8,92,310/- with DDA. In this case, forgery had been detected prior to handing over possession and issuance of No Dues Certificate.
34. Allottee Shirley Masih, flat no.24D, pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli (File D14) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Amount Details of Bogus Name of the Bank No Challan No. (Rs.) Pay Order/ Draft .
14 160(485)/97/SFS/KL III Shrley Masih W/o 000991 8,90,410/- 40010 (17.10.97) Bank of Baroda, Saf. Enclave New 24 D Pocket D V.Y. Masih, 41 A, 22.10.97 Delhi Pocket C, Ashok Vihar Phase-III, New Delhi The present case was detected before the possession letter and No Dues Certificate was issued. The instance may be further dealt with reference to the evidence led on record.
A. EVIDENEC AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.24D,
POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF
DEMAND AS PER DEMAND-CUM-ALLOTMENT
LETTER BY DDA
D14 (file Ex.PW9/N) is the allotment file pertaining to CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
325allottee Ms. Shirley Masih whereby flat no.24D, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. Shirley Masih was examined as PW41 and identified her signatures and photograph on the application form of DDA (Ex.PW41/7) and stated that she and her husband had applied in DDA for allotment of flat during 1996 and were allotted flats at Kondli Gharoli. Further, the papers relating to flat No. D-24- D, Kondli Gharoli were sold to Pankaj Arora for Rs.65,000/-. She further identified her signatures on various documents relating to flat no. D24-D contained in file Ex.PW-9/N (i.e. document addressed to Asstt. Director bearing her signatures Ex. PW-25/Q, Spl. Power of Attorney in two pages Ex.PW41/1, Affidavit signed by her Ex.PW41/2, Undertaking in two pages bearing her signatures Ex.PW-41/3, specimen signatures bearing her signatures/handwriting/photograph Ex.PW-41/4, Anenxure J bearing her specimen signatures Ex.PW-41/5, document addressed to Asstt. Director, DDA bearing her signatures Ex.PW-41/6, Application to Housing Department for allotment of said flat bearing her handwriting/signatures.
She further stated that flat was sold to Pankaj Arora, property dealer whose photograph and document were not available in the file.
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Shirley Masih has further relied upon the acknowledgment (Ex.PW41/4) whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft no. 089542 dated 18.09.96 on behalf of allottee Shirley Masih. On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of allottee Shirley Masih, allotment- cum-demand letter in file D14 (Ex.PW9/N) was issued by DDA CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
326Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs.8,90,410/- to be deposited within the period stipulated in aforesaid letter. As per the aforesaid letter, possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Shirley Masih and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO.24D, POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
327To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 22.10.97 bearing number 000991 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/N2) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.8,90,410/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/N2) demand draft no. 400010 dated 17.10.97 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Safdarjung Enclave was deposited for Rs.8,90,410/- but no such payment was found entered in the computer when the file was sent to AAO Computer (H) for verification. During course of investigation, no copy of pay order application or draft was traced. The forged copy of challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal at Q245
(ii) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan Ex.PW9/N2 at Q245 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
328no. as well as the amount deposited.
Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW9/N2 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
329to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/N2 does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) which was in use at relevant time.
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no. 000991 dated 22.10.97 in file Ex.PW9/N was issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
(iii) Prosecution has further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, entry at Q367 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal bearing the name of allottee Shirley Masih along with flat no. FF D24D and amount of Rs.8,90,410/- is reflected in the challan. However, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
330challan is reflected as 000992 f-22.10.97. The said entry has been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para 18).
The evidence on record as discussed above proves that forged challan Ex.PW9/N2 was deposited by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat but the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually deposited with DDA.
This instance came to the notice of DDA after the 12 cases of fraudulent payment were already under investigation by CBI and no possession letter appears to have been issued since the submission of fraudulent challan had been detected in the Accounts Branch.
35. Allottee N.D. Deva, Flat No. 10D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli (file D15) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Amount Details of Bogus Name of the Bank No. Challan No. (Rs.) Pay Order/ Draft 15 160(477)/SFS/KL III N.D. Deva, R/o 001000 8,90,410/- 256136 Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan, 10 D Pocket D 113A, Pocket C, 22.10.97 (17.10.97) New Delhi Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi The present case was detected before the possession letter and No Dues Certificate was issued. The instance may be further dealt with reference to the evidence led on record.
A. EVIDENE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.10D,
POCKET-D, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
331
DEMAND AS PER DEMAND-CUM-ALLOTMENT
LETTER BY DDA
D15 (file Ex.PW9/O) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee N.D. Deva whereby flat no.10D, Pocket-D, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. N.D. Deva was examined as PW37 and identified his signatures and photograph on the application form of DDA (Ex.PW37/A) in file Ex.PW-9/Q. He further stated that he deposited Rs.50,000/- with DDA through a draft and subsequently got the allotment letter of flat no. 10D, Pocket D, Kondli Gharoli. Further, he received a demand letter and was required to deposit a sum of Rs.8,90,410/- to DDA but since he could not arrange the money, he decided to sell the papers of the flat.
He further stated that one Vijay Kharbanda, property dealer of Sarita Vihar approached him and after seeing the papers, agreed to purchase the papers for Rs.70,000/-. Further, Vijay Kharbanda gave him Rs.5,000/- and he handed over photocopy of demand letter and FDR receipt to him. Thereafter, after 3-4 days he gave Rs.55,000/- to PW37. He had signed on some blank stamp papers brought by Kharbanda.
He further stated that he had not applied for extension of time for deposit of amount. Further, he had neither deposited any document as per letter (Ex.PW25/R) in file Ex.PW9/Q nor any amount vide fourth copy of challan Ex.PW-9/Q1.
He further identified his signatures on acknowledgment for the application (Ex.PW-37/B) which was handed over by him to Vijay CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
332Kharbanda, affidavit, undertaking in Ex.PW9/O. He denied having submitted letter seeking extension of time for depositing the money with DDA but identified his signatures on the same which were made in May or June, 1997. He further denied having obtained any draft from Union Bank of India, Anand Vihar. He further stated that he had not received any paper from DDA relating to this flat after selling the papers to Vijay Kharbanda. He also identified his signatures on receipt for Rs.55,000/- (Ex.PW-37/C).
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to N.D. Deva has further relied upon the acknowledgment (Ex.PW37/B) whereby amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft no. 259261 dated 10.09.96 on behalf of allottee N.D. Deva. On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of allottee N.D. Deva, allotment-cum-demand letter in file D15 was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs.8,90,410/- to be deposited within the period stipulated in aforesaid letter. As per the aforesaid letter, possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
333four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee N.D. Deva and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. FORGED CHALLAN OF PAYMENT DEPOSITED IN
RESPECT OF FLAT NO.10D, POCKET-D, KONDLI
GHAROLI
To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 22.10.97 bearing number 001000 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/O2) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.8,90,410/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
334forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/O2) demand draft no. 256136 dated 17.10.97 drawn on Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan was deposited but on verification in the Accounts Department, the same was found to be forged. During course of investigation, no copy of pay order application or draft was traced. The forged copy of challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal at Q249.
(ii) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan Ex.PW9/O2 at Q249 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited.
Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW9/O2 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on other challans which were seized during course of investigation CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
335as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/O2 does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) which was in use at relevant time.
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no. 001000 dated 22.10.97 in file Ex.PW9/O was issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
336genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
(iii) Prosecution has further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, entry at Q367 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal bearing the name of allottee N.D. Deva along with flat no. D-10-D and amount of Rs.8,90,410-00/- along with draft no. 256136 Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan as well as challan no. 001000-22.10.97 is reflected in the challan. The same have been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para 18).
Also, the fourth copy of the challan no. 001000 (D269) Ex.PW56/8 was recovered during the course of investigation from the premises of Raju Aggarwal and the same has also been opined at Q483 to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal.
The evidence on record as discussed above proves that forged challan was deposited by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat but the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
337challan was not actually made with DDA.
This instance came to the notice of DDA after the 12 cases of fraudulent payment were already under investigation by CBI and no possession letter appears to have been issued since the submission of fraudulent challan had been detected in the Accounts Branch.
36. Allottee Mona Jaiswal, Flat No. 7A, Pocket A, Kondli Gharoli (File D16) Sl. File No. & Flat No. Name of Allottee Bogus Amount Details of Bogus Name of the Bank No Challan No. (Rs.) Pay Order/ Draft .
16 160(506)/SFS/KL III Ms. Mona Jaiswal, 097150 8,72,415/- 039632 (17.10.97) Syndicate Bank, Delhi Cantt., New
71A Pocket A 372, Sector 28, 22.10.97 Delhi
Arun Vihar, Noida
The present case was detected before the possession letter and No Dues Certificate was issued. The instance may be further dealt with reference to the evidence led on record.
A. EVIDENCE AS TO ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.71A,
POCKET-A, KONDLI GHAROLI AND RAISING OF
DEMAND AS PER DEMAND-CUM-ALLOTMENT
LETTER BY DDA
D16 (file Ex.PW9/P) is the allotment file pertaining to allottee Mona Jaiswal whereby flat no.71A, Pocket-A, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the applicant. Mona Jaiswal has not been examined by the prosecution.
PW45 Anil Bountra stated that his cousin Mona Jaiswal was CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
338allotted a flat in Kondli area by DDA which was sold by her through property dealer Mr. Aggarwal and he was present at her residence at the time of said deal.
He further stated that Mrs. Mona had received Rs.55,000/- from the dealer and he had put his signatures as a witness on the deal regarding receipt of cash. Further, some papers were given by Mrs. Mona to the said property dealer and had put signatures on some blank papers and she had not deposited any installment with DDA.
He further stated that Mrs. Mona Jaiswal resided in USA since 1999 and identified signatures/photograph of Mrs. Mona Jaiswal on DDA application form (Ex.PW45/A); specimen signatures card (Ex.PW45/B); letter (Ex.PW45/C & D) both addressed to DDA; affidavits (Ex.PW45/E & F); undertaking (Ex.PW45/G) and specimen signatures sheet (Ex.PW45/H). He further stated that one set of documents was handed over by Mrs. Mona Jaiswal to the property dealer and it contained some blank portions.
Prosecution for purpose of allotment of flat to Mona Jaiswal has further relied upon the acknowledgment (Ex.PW45/B) whereby amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited vide draft no. 815577 dated 19.09.96 on behalf of allottee Mona Jaiswal. On the basis of allotment as per draw in favour of allottee Mona Jaiswal, allotment-cum- demand letter in file D16 was issued by DDA Housing Accounts Wing thereby raising the demand of Rs.8,72,415/- to be deposited within the period stipulated in aforesaid letter. As per the aforesaid letter, possession of the flat was to be given at site on the basis of possession letter/authorisation letter issued by Housing Department on CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
339submission of documents as specified in para 4 of aforesaid letter (i.e. an affidavit attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public as per specimen, proof in support of surrendering the FDR or counterfoil issued by the bank at time of registration, as the case may be, an undertaking as per specimen, specimen signatures along with two passport size photographs attested by Magistrate First Class/Notary Public/Gazetted Officer, third copy of challan vide which the demanded payment was made. Further, as per clause f of para 4 four unsigned copies of conveyance deed form were also forwarded to the allottee to be stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps of which the three copies were to be returned to Assistant Director SFS).
The aforesaid evidence on record establishes that the allotment was made in favour of allottee Mona Jaiswal and further demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by DDA whereby the cost was required to be deposited by the allottee along with the requisite documents which were to be deposited for the purpose of handing over of possession and execution of conveyance deed.
B. EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FORGED CHALLAN DEPOSITED IN DDA w.r.t. FLAT NO.71A, POCKET-A, KONDLI GHAROLI To prove that the payment in respect of the aforesaid flat was not deposited with DDA and the documents had been forged, prosecution has relied upon copy of challan collected during the course of investigation and other circumstances which may be CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
340discussed along with the statement of relevant witnesses.
(i) The case of the prosecution is that third copy of challan dated 22.10.97 bearing number 097150 was deposited on behalf of the allottee (Ex.PW9/P2) reflecting the deposit of amount of Rs.8,72,415/- with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan and bearing the purported stamp of the concerned branch which on verification was found to be forged. As per the aforesaid challan (Ex.PW9/P2) demand draft no. 039632 dated 17.10.97 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Cantonment, Delhi was deposited but on verification in the Accounts Department, the same was found to be forged. The forged copy of challan is further proved to be in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal at Q251.
Prosecution has also pointed out that so far as this challan is concerned, as per form for issue of demand draft (Ex.PW2/A - D89), the request was made in the name of one Ram Kumar, C-4C/300, Janakpuri, N.D. for issue of demand draft for Rs.1,000/- in favour of DDA (Housing) which has been opined at Q401 to be in the handwriting of Manish (PW58) by GEQD who was an employee of Raju Aggarwal. PW58 Manish in his examination in chief also admitted his handwriting at Q401 in the form Ex.PW2/A. The number of demand draft issued against the aforesaid form is duly reflected as 39632 on D89 (Ex.PW2/A).
With reference to aforesaid challan Ex.PW9/P2, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
341prosecution has also relied upon statement of PW-2 Shri Praveen Sachdeva who was posted in Delhi Cantt Branch of Syndicate Bank during October, 1996 to May, 2000 as Clerk. He proved pay-in-slip for issuance of Pay Order in the sum of Rs.1000/- submitted on 21.08.97 in favour of DDA Housing (Ex.PW2/A), purported to have been submitted by one Ram Kumar. He also identified signatures of Mr. Prabhat Verma, officer of the bank on this document, directing issuance of pay order as applied for.
(ii) The handwriting on the aforesaid challan Ex.PW9/P2 at Q251 has been opined by GEQD to be in the handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal as per the report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354) (Para 18) which includes the draft no. as well as the amount deposited.
Ld. PP has pointed out that PW117 Shri B.M. Bajaj an officer from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan deposed with reference to the challans whereby the amount is alleged to have been deposited in respect of allotments in question and proved that the stamp of Central Bank of India endorsed on the aforesaid challans is forged. He stated that the challan Ex.PW9/P2 does not belong to Vikas Sadan Branch of Central Bank of India since it does not bear the initials of any bank official on the seal at Point A endorsed on the said challan. For aforesaid purpose, prosecution also relies upon the genuine impression of stamp of Central Bank of India as appearing on CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
342other challans which were seized during course of investigation as D142 to D153 i.e. Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12 and it has been pointed out that the stamp of the bank appearing on the forged challans is completely different from the impression of the genuine stamp as appearing on Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A12.
In the aforesaid context, reliance is also placed upon the testimony of PW16 Shri Anand Kumar Jain, the then Cashier at Central Bank of India who deposed that out of the four copies of the challans, two were delivered to the customer and of the two copies retained by the bank one copy was forwarded to DDA. He further stated that Scroll Clerk used to mention scroll number on the challan and thereafter cash amount was to be deposited with the Cashier and after deposit of cash he used to affix rubber stamp of bank and mention the amount received by him and also initialed on the same. He further identified the impression of the original bank stamp as appearing on D142 to D153 (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12). He also specified that the date used to be written on the rubber stamp of Central Bank of India which was both in English and Hindi language. Ld. PP has pointed out that the stamp appearing on Ex.PW9/P2 does not match in any manner with the official stamp of Central Bank of India (Ex.PW16/A1 to A12) which was in use at relevant time.
Prosecution also relies upon statement of PW18 Shri Om Popli from Central Bank of India who specifically stated that the challan no. 097150 dated 22.10.97 in file Ex.PW9/P CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
343was issued by Central Bank of India. He further identified the genuine impression of rubber stamps S105 to S112 (Ex.PW18/F) which was used in the file along with round rubber stamp Ex.PW18/G and another rectangular stamp used for receiving the instrument after 12 noon (Ex.PW18/I).
(iii) Prosecution has further relied upon the personal diary of accused Raju Aggarwal (D356) recovered during the search of his house as per memo Ex.PW70/A which contains entries with respect to the transactions relating to different allottees. In the aforesaid diary, entry at Q368 in the handwriting of Raju Aggarwal bearing the name of allottee Mona Jaiswal along with flat no. A-71A and amount of Rs.8,90,410-00/- Syndicate Bank, Cantonment as well as challan no. 097150-22.10.97 is reflected in the challan. The same have been opined to be in handwriting of Raju Aggarwal as per report Ex.PW119/A101 (D354 para 18).
The evidence on record as discussed above proves that that forged challan was deposited by Raju Aggarwal towards the cost of the flat but the payment towards cost of flat as mentioned in the challan was not actually deposited with DDA.
This instance came to the notice of DDA after the 12 cases of fraudulent payment were already under investigation by CBI and no CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
344possession letter appears to have been issued since the submission of fraudulent challan had been detected in the Accounts Branch.
37. In the light of evidence on record as discussed in preceding paragraphs, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that fraudulent challans are in handwriting of accused Raju Aggarwal and the same were deposited by him in conspiracy with officials from DDA. The evidence of concerned witnesses could not be dented to aforesaid extent during cross-examination and nothing has come on record to suggest that accused Raju Aggarwal could have been falsely implicated. On the face of record, the No Dues Certificate in the respective 12 allotment files could not have been obtained but for the conspiracy with the officials of DDA and their role shall be further dealt in the subsequent paragraphs. The conspiracy is also clearly discernible from the facts and circumstances proved on record on the basis of which No Dues Certificates were issued in respect of 12 flats on the basis of forged and fabricated bank challans and related false documents without actually the cost of flats being deposited. In the remaining 4 cases, it has been pointed out by ld. PP for CBI that possession letters were not issued since the forged challans were detected on verification prior to delivery of possession of flats. Merely because the allotment of flats had been cancelled in some of the cases does not lead to an inference that DDA was not cheated and wrongful loss was not caused to DDA, as contended by counsel for accused.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
345For the foregoing reasons, accused Raju Aggarwal is convicted of all the offences for which he has been charged (i.e. 120B r/w Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC AND for substantive offences u/s 420,467,468, 471 & 420 r/w 511 IPC).
38. Role of the Public Servants Shri V.P. Anand, AO and Shri S.K. Kaushik, AAO Evidence on record clearly points out that Shri S.K. Kaushik (AAO) and Shri V.P. Anand (AO) beingthe officers in HAU-IX used to sign on the basis of noting made by the Dealing Assistant Shri Gurdas and primarily it was the duty of the Dealing Assistant to check the receipt of payments against the challan from the concerned Computer Section which generated Form-C (i.e. the consolidated monthly statement as to the challans in respect of which the payments had been received) and on the basis of the same the No Dues Certificate was issued. The file of allotment was received from the Management Section of DDA and a separate file was opened in the Accounts Section for the purpose of confirmation of payments from the Computer Section in which the requisite noting was made by the Computer Section as to the payment received in respect of the allotted flat. On the face of record, Investigating Agency failed to collect the C-Forms which were generated by the Computer Section (H) for the respective months which is the only document which could have shown if the payment received in the bank was confirmed by the Computer Section (H) or not in the relevant Accounts File. The Investigating Agency also failed to trace and collect the corresponding CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
346files opened in the Accounts Section which were forwarded to the Computer Section for purpose of confirming the payment received from the respective allottee on the basis of which the noting was proposed by Gurdas (Dealing Assistant). In the absence of the same it cannot be conclusively inferred that the 'No Dues Certificate' had been wrongly signed by AAO/AO as they acted on the proposal/report put up by the Dealing Assistant (accused Gurdas) who was responsible to obtain the report from the Computer (H) Section.
In aforesaid context, reference may be made to statement of PW12 Shri S.C. Garg who was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Computer Section (Housing) DDA and deposed with respect to the procedure followed in the DDA on receipt of challans deposited on behalf of the allottee. The witness duly corroborated the procedure noticed above with respect to opening of separate Accounts File in the Accounts Section for the purpose of verification of payments by challans, as contended by counsel for accused.
Reference may be further made to statement of PW13 Rajender Kohli who was working as LDC in DDA and his duty was to diary the files and letters received in HAU-IX. He used to receive the files from Management Department and handover the same to Gurdas, UDC after making entry in the Diary Register and proved the diary entries contained in the Diary Register (Ex.PW13/B) and further stated that the files Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/N were never sent to Computer Section. In cross-examination, he admitted that a computerized statement of amount received from allottees is sent to Accounts Section every month by the Computer Cell (Housing) known as Form-
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
347C for purpose of credit verification by the Dealing Assistant of Accounts Section and issuance of No Dues Certificate. He further deposed that in any case the credit was not available in Form-C, the same used to be got verified by the concerned Dealing Assistant personally from Computer Cell (Housing) or Cash Section (Housing) as per procedure. This witness also stated that Assistant Director (SFS) examines all the documents including the third copy of challan and forwards the same in Management file to Accounts Section for requisition of No Dues Certificate. The witness further admitted that in all cases the Dealing Assistant of Accounts Section process the case in the Accounts File which is already opened at the time of issue of demand letter and the credit verification was to be recorded in the Account File which was maintained by the Dealing Assistant and remain in his custody. Further, after due verification as per Form-C or otherwise as per personal verification made by Dealing Assistant from Computer Cell (Housing) or Cash Section (Housing), the Dealing Assistant put up the No Dues Certificate prepared by him in the Management File for signatures of AAO/AO and also attached the Accounts File with the Management File. PW13 also admitted that after signatures of AAO/AO on the No Dues Certificate, the Management Files along with No Dues Certificate was sent to Management Branch and Account File used to be kept by the Dealing Assistant in his custody. The witness denied any personal knowledge as to the opening of Accounts Files in respect of the Management Files (Ex.PW9/A to E.xPW9/L) but admitted that as per Account File Opening Register maintained in the Accounts Department for the year CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
3481997 which was summoned form the office of DDA and maintained by accused Gurdas in the Accounts Department, the entry pertaining to Management File Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/E, Ex.PW9/F, Ex.PW9/G, Ex.PW9/H, Ex.PW9/I, Ex.PW9/J1, Ex.PW9/K, Ex.PW9/L was reflected in the aforesaid register against the concerned entries. The concerned entries against which the said files were entered were further proved as Ex.PW13/DA1 to Ex.PW13/DA12.
It may also be pointed out that the aforesaid account opening register Ex.PW13/DA was never seized by the Investigating Officer and has been proved from the office record during cross-examination and there is nothing on record to suggest that the account files for purpose of verification had not been opened in the Accounts Section.
Counsels for accused have further relied upon the testimony of PW13 as circular no. PS/FA(H)NPRS/96/34 dated 07.06.96 (Ex.PW13/DB) was proved by the aforesaid witness which was produced during cross-examination by the concerned Officer from DDA which reflected that the verification of credits ie.. the amount deposited by the allottee was done in separate Accounts Files opened in the Accounts Department and not in the Management Files.
For purpose of proving the procedure followed in Accounts Section, reference may also be made to statement of PW107 Shri K.R. Dixit who was posted as UDC in Housing Accounts Management Branch in 1997 and in the cross-examination conducted on behalf of of accused S.K. Kaushik, witness admitted the verification of credits on the basis of 'C' form by the Computer Section (Housing) in the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
349separate accounts files opened in the Accounts Section.
Similarly, the aforesaid procedure followed in Accounts Section also stands corroborated by PW84 Shri Ram Dutt Sharma, who was also working in HAU-IX Branch during 1997, in the cross- examination made on behalf of accused S.K. Kaushik.
The procedure adopted for verification of payment in the accounts section with reference to 'C' form received from the Computer Section was also clarified by PW63 H.R. Khowal, Accountant /Assistant Accounts Officer who had joined in place of accused S.K. Kaushik in January, 1998. PW63 also deposed that the credit verification of challan used to be recorded in the account file by Cash Section (Housing)/ Computer Cell (Housing) and further Dealing Assistant was the custodian of accounts file who would examine the case with reference to amount due and amount received on the basis of credit verification from Cash Section (Housing)/ Computer Cell (Housing). This witness also further clarified that demand cum allotment letter generated by computer Cell were sent to the allottees and issued by the Accounts Officer, SFS from the account file maintained in the Accounts Branch and the copy of the demand letter was sent in the management file.
The testimony of aforesaid witness PW63 clearly points out that the issuance of 'No Dues Certificate' was based upon the verification made in the separate files opened in the Accounts Section. The management files in which the 'No Dues Certificate' was finally issued was on the basis of verification of payments made in the Accounts File. As such, Management File was not required to be forwarded to CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
350the Computer (H) Section for verification. In view of above, merely because the management files were not forwarded to the Computer (H) Section for verification of challans, it cannot be said that the procedure had not been followed by the officials posted in the Accounts Branch. In fact, the clear stand of accused V.P. Kaushik (AO) and S.K. Kaushik (AAO) is that the verification was obtained from Computer (H) Section by dealing Assistant (accused Gurdas) and on the basis of the report placed by him regarding verification of challans in the concerned Accounts File, the approval for issuing the Non Dues Certificate was given in the Management Files. The same duly stands corroborated by the statement of witnesses referred to above and root of prosecution case against accused S.K. Kaushik and V.P. Anand stands dented.
It may also be noticed that even the IO PW120 Shri M.C. Joshi admitted the procedure followed for the purpose of verification of payment as form C was sent to the Accounts Section by Computer Cell (Housing) for purpose of credit verification and after verification of the same by the Dealing Assistant the case was put up before AAO /AO by the Dealing Assistant. He further admitted that the credit verification used to be recorded in Account File and the said verification file was maintained by the Dealing Assistant of Accounts Section and remained in his custody. Further, after the due verification as per form C or otherwise was obtained by Dealing Assistant from Computer Cell (Housing) or Cash Section (Housing) the Dealing Assistant used to put up the No Dues Certificate prepared by him in management file for signatures of AAO/AO and thereafter, CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
351the file was kept by the Dealing Assistant. Surprisingly, though the IO admitted that the files were opened in accounts section for verification of credit by challans corresponding to Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/L but the possession of the same was not taken and an evasive reply was given that no such file were available or produced before him without issuing any notices for production of the same. It may be reiterated that complicity of AAO and AO in wrongly issuing the No Dues Certificate could only be confirmed only through the accounts file which was separately opened in the Accounts Branch for verification of payment challans but the Investigating Agency has failed to seize the same or make due efforts to trace the same.
It may further be noticed that consequent upon registration of FIR, a letter dated 05.01.98 Ex.PW107/DF (D304) was issued to accused Gurdas UDC by V.P. Anand, AO to ascertain the factual position in respect of payment of flats referred to in aforesaid letter which was personally delivered by PW13 himself and received by Gurdas on 06.01.98. The file nos. reflected in Ex.PW107/DF i.e. 160(363)97/SFS/KL/III and 160(30)/97/SFS/KL/III relate to flat allotted to Sunder Lal and Surender Kumar. Further, in response to another noting dated 6.1.98 by Shri V.P. Anand, AO as indicated at point A on Ex.PW107/DB Gurdas was directed to hand over the housing accounts files referred to above.
In response to the same, explanation had been given by accused Gurdas as reflected at B on Ex.PW107/DB that the above two account files bearing nos. 160(363)97/SFS/KL/III and 160(30)/97/SFS/KL/III containing the verification report of the CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
352amount received against the file have been taken from his seat by some representative of the allottee.
It may further be pointed out that by way of another noting as reflected at point C Ex.PW107/DC, by the Shri V.P. Anand, AO Gurdas was directed to intimate when the files referred to above were sent for verification to cash (H Computer) and when the same were received back by him. In response to the same as per noting at point D accused Gurdas, UDC further informed to the effect "the file bearing No.160(363)97/SFS/KL/III was sent to Computer (Housing) on 16.10.97 after it was signed by AAO-4. I took the file from diarist and it was sent to AAO (C) Housing. Someone property dealer took this file from me and got it verified from C (H) and returned to me after got it verified from C (H) and file no. 160 (30)97/KL/III was sent to Computer (H) on 28.10.97 after it was signed by AAO-4, it was sent to AAO (C) Housing. Someone property dealer took this file from me and got it verified from C (H) and returned to me after got it verified from C (H). After NOC was issued the accounts files were taken by someone property dealer."
It may also be pointed out that the noting to this effect was also recorded as per Ex.PW107/DD and the same was marked by AO till the level of Financial Advisor (Housing) through Deputy FA(H) and was also initialed by him.
The stand of accused that Gurdas was the custodian of the Accounts file in which the verification was obtained by him stands substantiated by the notings referred to above and was completely CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
353ignored by Investigating Agency.
It may further be observed that the chain of events is incomplete to conclusively infer conspiracy against S.K. Kaushik and V.P. Anand who were the higher officials and acted merely on the basis of notings and reports furnished by Gurdas (Dealing Assistant) who obtained the same from Computer (H) and was in custody of the Accounts file opened for aforesaid purpose. No conclusive evidence has come on record to infer that accused S.K Kaushik and V.P. Anand conspired in any manner for preparation of forged challans or intentionally issued false verification reports in the Accounts file since the same were issued on the basis of reports obtained by accused Gurdas who has not been able to account for the aforesaid files as also revealed in testimony of PW107, referred to above.
It may also be pointed out that no incriminating documents were recovered during the course of trial at the instance of accused V.P. Anand or S.K. Kaushik and even their custodial remand was not obtained and were never arrested during the course of trial. The case is based upon processing of files in which the verification of challans was wrongly made by the Dealing Assistant Gurdas. I am of the considered view that in the absence of concrete evidence as to conspiracy by accused V.P. Anand and S.K. Kaushik and in the absence of conclusive evidence to draw inference that the verification report was intentionally wrongly signed by them, it may be difficult to hold them guilty of the offences charged. Both the accused are CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
354accordingly acquitted of the offences charged as the prosecution has failed to bring home the case against both the accused V.P. Anand (AO) and S.K. Kaushik (AAO) beyond reasonable doubt and they are accordingly acquitted of the offences charged.
39. Role of accused Gurdas (UDC HAU-IX Accounts Section) So far as accused Gurdas, Dealing Assistant, Accounts Section is concerned, his role is distinguishable from co-accused V.P. Anand, AO and S.K. Kaushik, AAO since he was the custodian of the files opened in the Accounts Section for purpose of verification which he failed to account for and the evidence on record clearly points out that he is the concerned official who used to obtain the credit verification report in respect of the challans from the Cash Section (Housing)/Computer Cell (Housing). Testimony of PW107 clearly points out the admission of accused Gurdas as to handing over files to a property dealer after NOC was issued. Accused Gurdas admitted in the relevant notings pointed out above having handed over the files to a property dealer for purpose of verification from Computer (H) after the verification was made. It may be difficult to presume that obtaining of any such verification of report could be entrusted by the accused Gurdas who was the dealing hand to a property dealer or a tout operating in the office. Admittedly, the report placed by him in the concerned Accounts file opened for verification was acted upon by the AAO and AO for the issue of No Dues Certificate. If the verification was wrongly made in the file as no record of any such CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
355payment was subsequently detected, the responsibility of the same entirely was on the shoulders of accused Gurdas. It may be too far fetched to accept that the Accounts Section file was handed over by accused to a property dealer or representative of allottee in good faith for obtaining the verification report in respect of the amount which was subsequently detected to have never been deposited in DDA. The non availability of the aforesaid accounts files which were supposed to be in custody of accused Gurdas further points out his complicity in the crime. He could have produced the concerned accounts files which were opened for verification of report and were supposed to be in his custody if the verification report had been correctly obtained and mentioned by him in the concerned files. Merely because the aforesaid files could not be traced during investigation, does not absolve accused Gurdas since he was the custodian of the said files and could have produced the same at the earliest occasion even before the senior officials to substantiate his stand that the verification report had been correctly made by him on the basis of information delivered by the Computer (H) Section. His failure to account for the files opened in the Accounts Section for verification clearly points out his complicity in the commission of offence which could not have been possible but for the incorrect reports which were furnished and on the basis of which the No Dues Certificates were separately issued in the management files. The AAO and AO appear to have processed and signed the files for No Dues Certificate on the basis of said verification reports given by accused Gurdas and their case is distinguishable on the basis of which the benefit of doubt has been CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
356extended to them as discussed in preceding paragraphs.
In the light of evidence on record, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Gurdas. The issuance of No Dues Certificate would not have been possible but for the verification report given by him which obviously were made only for purpose of benefiting accused Raju Aggarwal in conspiracy which is discernible from the facts and circumstances proved on record.
It may also be mentioned that I do not find any infirmity in grant of sanction u/s 19 of the PC Act which has been accorded by the Competent Authority in accordance with law.
The fact that possession letters were issued by DDA in respect of 12 flats on the basis of forged and fabricated bank challans and related false documents without actually payment of cost of said flats clearly leads to the inference that DDA was put to wrongful loss and resulted in corresponding gain to the accused. Merely because the allotment of flats may have been cancelled in some of the cases cannot lead to an inference that DDA was not cheated or no wrongful loss was caused to DDA. The contention raised by the counsel for accused that since the allotments had been subsequently cancelled and as such there was no loss to DDA appears to be without any merit. Accused Gurdas is also liable to be convicted for the substantive offences under section 467 and 468 IPC since the No Dues Certificate which is in the nature of valuable security was forged intending that the same be used for purpose of cheating apart from Section 120B and 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(10(d) of PC Act, 1980.
For the foregoing reasons, accused Gurdas is held guilty of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
357the offences charged i.e. 120B r/w section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and for substantive offence u/s 420, 467, 468 IPC and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
40. Role of accused Gurnam Chand As per evidence led on record duty of accused Gurnam Chand was to process and forward the files as per norms and procedure followed in the management section through the Senior Officer {i.e. Assistant Director Shri S.N. Singhal (PW9)} to the Accounts Section at the stage of issuance of allotment cum demand letter. Further, subsequently, the files were again processed by the management section after the payment was deposited by allottee for purpose of verification of payments and for aforesaid purpose the file was again forwarded to the Accounts Section to verify the challans which were received through Central Registry deposited on behalf of the allottee and for issuance of No Dues Certificate. The allottee was also required to deposit the requisite documents which was processed in the concerned management section for issuance of possession letter.
So far as the verification of the payment by way of challan is concerned, accused Gurnam Chand in the Housing Management Section neither had any mode, nor any role to verify the authenticity of the challan deposited on behalf of allottee towards the payment of cost of flat, as the same was to be verified by Accounts Section after ascertaining from the Cash (Housing) or Computer (H) Section. The case of prosecution that the management files relating to allottees D1 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
358to D12 (i.e. Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/L) were never sent to the Accounts Section and as such the accused Gurnam was in conspiracy with co accused is not supported by the notings made in the relevant files as the same had been duly forwarded to Accounts Section for verification of payments. On the face of record, the files D1 to D12 were duly forwarded in each case by the Dealing Assistants Gurnam Chand through the concerned Assistant Director for verification. If the files D1 to D12 had not been forwarded to the Accounts Section for verification as per norms, then even the Assistant Director concerned Shri S.N. Singhal was equally responsible. It has already come on record that the process of verification was initiated by the Accounts Section in separate files opened in the Accounts Section and as such the verification report would not be available in the management files but only the issuance of No Dues Certificate was reflected.
The evidence on record reflects that so far as issuance of possession letter or the execution of conveyance deed is concerned, the same was made after the submission of concerned documents on behalf of allottee as well as after obtaining of the No Dues Certificate from the Accounts Branch. The execution of conveyance deed, if any, is only after the handing over of possession to the allottee which is given either to the allottee or to his attorney as per the documents furnished on record and the same has no relevance with the issuance of No Dues Certificate which was granted by the Accounts Section (HAU-IX). Even the possession letters are issued by the concerned Assistant Director, Housing Management as per circular Ex.DW1/A and further, as per circular no. F.2(35)/90/P&C(H) dated 10.10.91 CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
359(Mark DW1/B), practice of verification of challans by Assistant Director, before issuance of possession letter was initiated to be made by him personally from the finance department to rule out the possibility of submitting bogus challans by the allottees for which the Dealing Assistant Gurnam Chand could not be held liable. In the present case, the procedure of getting the verification of challans was got done from the Accounts Section but if the verification itself was subsequently found to be incorrectly made by the Accounts Branch, the responsibility could not be attributed to the Housing Management which acted merely on the basis of the No Dues Certificate given by the Accounts Branch.
It may also be noticed that the files were required to be sent to legal section for vetting of conveyance deed only in case any legal advice was required and the same could only be forwarded at the level of Assistant Director, Deputy Director, Director or any higher officer in hierarchy. Further, the possession letter was issued only under the signatures of Assistant Director (SFS). In the aforesaid context, PW95 Shri Kumar Anand who joined as Joint Director and was posted as OSD (Housing) SFS around July, 1997 clarified that the files for the purpose of issuance of conveyance deed which is a routine exercise was not required in the present set of cases since it did not involve any legal issue for examination. Also, PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal also clarified on similar lines.
It may also be pointed out that the task of issuance of possession letters after the same was signed by Assistant Director was assigned to the Peon attached to the Assistant Director and the role of CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
360Gurnam Chand was merely to check the proper dispatch and dispatch number before keeping the file as deposed by PW9 Shri S.N. Singhal, Assistant Director. Merely on the basis of some alleged discrepancy in issuing of possession letters, the conspiracy cannot be conclusively inferred, since the case of prosecution is based upon issuing of 'No Dues Certificate' which task was assigned specifically to the Accounts Branch.
In the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against Gurnam Chand beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is accordingly acquitted.
41. It is unfortunate that entire system of allotment of flats has been exploited and misused by some of the allottees and property dealers and entire allotment process requires a deeper scrutiny to ensure that benefit of allotment reaches the genuine applicants.
The manner in which some of the allottees had applied for registration and allotment of flats in DDA (SFS Scheme 1996) brings out serious irregularities adopted by applicants to seek allotment and earn profits out of the allotments since the applications had been financed through property dealers/financiers and the applicants neither had the capacity to pay for the allotted flats nor intended to use the same for personal use. Those eligible to seek allotment in the reserved categories stood a better chance of allotment and the said fact was also exploited by the financiers/property dealers. The inability of some CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
361of the applicants to pay the cost of flats after allotment was known to them but the greed to earn the profit was further exploited by the unscrupulous property dealers to their benefit and the allotment papers were illegally purchased at the inception of the allotment intimation itself.
The case also brings to the fore the way the touts/property dealers have an access in the office of DDA at their whims and fancies to get the documents processed at various levels contrary to the established guidelines and procedure and obviously the same could not have been possible without the active connivance of DDA officials. The manner in which the applications were moved on behalf of some of the allottees and processed in the department without the knowledge of the allottees points that the files were being moved at behest of touts and the DDA officials did not bother to ascertain the authenticity of the applicants for oblique reasons.
The fraud running in crores whereby the payment of the cost of flats was not deposited by allottees, would have remained unnoticed but for the fact that some of the purchasers of the flats on verification found at their personal level that the cost towards the flat had not been deposited by the allottees which resulted in pressurizing the concerned property dealers to return the amount paid towards consideration of deals and consequent filing of complaints with concerned authorities.
The scam reflects active collusion of DDA officials at all the levels in the concerned Housing Management & Accounts Sections CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
362of DDA wherein the documents were received and processed though the chargesheet has been confined only to the role of some officials posted at the relevant time. The role of several other officials posted at aforesaid time also appears to be shady and the system requires a complete overhaul to eradicate the deep rooted corruption in some of the Sections of DDA. It is also unfortunate that some of the purchasers of the flats from the allottees stand duped of their life savings since the amount paid by them as consideration could not be recovered after they wanted to get out of the deals on coming to know of the fraud.
The case investigated by CBI may only be the tip of the iceberg and a special audit by an independent agency may only be able to ascertain in case there are any further cases in which the deposit of the cost of flats may not have been made in accordance with rules. I accordingly direct that a special audit be got conducted by Vice Chairman, DDA in respect of the deposits made by the allottees towards the payments of cost of flats in respect of the SFS Scheme, 1996 by an independent agency to rule out any further cases wherein the payments may not have been deposited in accordance with law. It may also be noticed that even the AAO (S.K. Kaushik) and AO (V.P. Anand) were expected to take due steps for proper verification of such huge payments which should not have been left entirely in the hands of a Dealing Assistant which resulted in a scam of such a nature and reflects gross negligence of duty on their part even though the conspiracy has CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
363not been proved against them beyond reasonable doubt. The processing of documents in the Management Section by Dealing Assistant including applications for condonation of delay in some of the cases and consequent issuance of possession letters after approval from the concerned Assistant Director without bothering to check the authenticity of applicants in most of the cases also reflects gross negligence on the part of Gurnam Chand (Dealing Assistant). In view of above, departmental action be initiated against concerned officials Shri S.K. Kaushik AAO, Shri V.P. Anand AO and Gurnam Chand Dealing Assistant for the gross negligence of duty on their part. Also, necessary administrative guidelines be issued by Vice Chairman, DDA to ensure proper cross-checking and verification of challans submitted for payment of cost of the flats at level of AAO/AO to avoid repetition of similar scam.
Vice Chairman, DDA is accordingly directed to take necessary action in the matter and action taken report be placed before this court within three months of the receipt of the judgement.
42. For the foregoing reasons as discussed above, prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Gurdas and Raju Aggarwal. Accused Gurdas is accordingly convicted of offences u/s 120B r/w Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC AND Section 420, 467 & 468 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. Further, accused Raju Aggarwal is CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.
364convicted of offences u/s 120B r/w Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC AND for substantive offences u/s 420,467,468, 471 & 420 r/w 511 IPC.
However, prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against accused V.P. Anand, S.K. Kaushik and Gurnam Chand beyond reasonable doubt and they are accordingly acquitted of the charges framed against them.
I also place my appreciation on record for the able assistance given by ld. PP for CBI (Shri Prabhat Kumar) in meticulously taking through the voluminous record.
Announced in open Court on 07th November, 2014 (Anoop Kumar Mendiratta) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-08 (Central), THC, Delhi.
CC No.97/11-CBI vs. V.P. Anand & Ors.