Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Cbi Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors vs . on 11 July, 2012

   IN THE COURT OF SH.R P PANDEY: SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)­01 
                           ROHINI COURTS:DELHI


            ID NO.02404R651252007 (MAHAJANSHREE CGHS)
               RC­BD1/2007E/0001/CBI/BS&FC/N.DELHI
          U/s 120B/420/468/471 IPC & PC ACT

CBI CASE No.29/08

Central Bureau of Investigation

                 VS. 

       1.

Maha Nand Sharma s/o Late R S Sharma r/o RZ­P­6, Raj Nagar­II, Palam Colony, New Delhi­45

2. Jai Kishan Chhikara s/o Sh.Bhagwan Singh r/o RZ­11F, Puran Nagar, Main Road Palam Colony, New Delhi­45

3. Karamvir Singh son of Late Shobha Chand r/o D­36, Pocket­B, Mayur Vihar, Phase­II, Delhi ­­­­­ ACCUSED CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.1 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors. 

              Date of filing charge sheet              ­      31.12.07

             Date on which the case                   ­      01.06.12
             was reserved for order

             Date of order                            ­      11.07.12


ORDER ON CHARGE:

1. I have heard Ms.Shalini Jain, Ld.Public Prosecutor for CBI, Sh.Sahid Anwar, ld.counsel for accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1), Dr.Sushil Gupta, ld.counsel for accused/Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) and Sh.R P Shukla, ld.counsel for accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3).

2. Ld.counsels for accused persons have argued that there is no sufficient evidence to frame charge against accused persons whereas the ld.Public Prosecutor for CBI has argued that there is sufficient evidence arrayed by the prosecution in order to enable the CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.2 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

court to frame charge against all accused persons.

3. Ld.Public Prosecutor has taken the court through the entire charge sheet, statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC and relevant documents brought on record by CBI to prove the charge against each accused persons.

4. FIR in this case was registered on conversion of preliminary enquiry (PE) which was registered in pursuance to the order of Hon'ble High Court in CWP No.10066/04 dated 13.02.06 directing CBI to investigate into the matter of allotment of land to 97 group housing societies by Delhi Development Authority (in short DDA) since the year 2000.

CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.3 of 29

CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

5. Mahajan Shree CGHS Ltd (in short said society) was registered with the office of Registrar Co­operative Societies (in short RCS) vide registration no.1185(GH) on 26.12.83 with 170 promoter members with the address as D­2, Navin Shahdara, Delhi. The documents including the applications for registration, copies of the first AGBM, bye­laws etc were submitted by then Secretary Surinder Mahajan to the office of RCS for registration and the first management committee of the society was formed at the time of inception of the society with S/Sh.Surinder Mahajan as its Honorary Secretary, Harbans Lal Gupta as President, S D Gupta as Vice President, Dr.S K Mahajan as Jt. Secretary, Prem Sagar Gupta as Treasurer, R K Mahajan, D K Mahajan, V K Mahajan, Ashok Kumar Savara, P R Gupta and Smt.Reeta Mahajan as its executive members. CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.4 of 29

CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

6. The society had changed its initial address from D­2 Navin Shahdara, Delhi to 223, Humayupur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi in the year 1990 which was business premises of Sh.Ramesh Chand. Sh.Sudarsahn Kumar Savara was appointed as Honorary General Manager of the said society on 14.02.93 and this fact was intimated to the RCS vide society's letter dated 23.03.93. The elections of the society were held on 17.04.94 in which Sh.Subhash Chander Mahajan was elected as President, Sh.Ashok Kumar as Vice President, Sh.Ramesh Chand as Secretary, Sh.Kamal Kumar Gupta as Jt.Secretary, Sh.D K Gupta as Treasurer, Sh.P R Gupta, Sh.R K Mahajan, Sh.Hari Haran, Sh.P R Gupta, Smt.Pushpa Mahajan and Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta as its executive members. It was intimated by the society to the RCS office vide its letter dated 26.04.94. The correspondence available in the records of RCS show that various CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.5 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

letters were exchanged between RCS office and the society till 1992 but the list of members of the society was not approved till then. Thereafter the society remained dormant and its accounts were not audited and even the election of the society was not held by convening the General Body Meeting of the society.

7. During 1998 to 2005, Sh.Sudarshan Kumar Savara (since expired), who was working as General Manager of the society, entered into criminal conspiracy with accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1), Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) and Karamvir Singh (A­3) with common object to cheat DDA for getting allotment of land from DDA in the name of Mahajan Shree CGHS Ltd. on the basis of false and forged documents and false list of members. Due to aforesaid conspiracy, accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1) and Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) took over the control CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.6 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

of the society and its documents from Sh.Sudarshan Kumar Savara (since expired) during the year 1998 and in furtherance of their conspiracy they produced the documents of the society before auditor of the society Sh.Mohinder Pal Bajaj for audit of the society on 26.03.98 & 27.03.98. Sh.Mohinder Pal Bajaj who had prepared the audit report and submitted to the RCS office on 27.03.98, has been examined by CBI u/s 161 Cr.PC as PW­68.

8. In the meanwhile pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy, dealing assistant/UDC Sh.Karamvir Singh (A­3) in the office of RCS suo moto put up a note mentioning that election of the managing committee of the said society was not held since 16.04.94 and audit of the society not completed and requested for issuance of a direction to the society to hold election within one month of receipt of letter and CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.7 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

accordingly a letter was issued to the society under the signature of Sh.R P Kalra, the then AR(South), who has been examined by CBI as PW­69. Noting on file of RCS is available as D­1 which shows that the file was last dealt in by the RCS office on 21.10.94 and thereafter it was taken up by accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) vide his note dated 05.03.98 (date in the noting file appears to be wrongly mentioned as 05.03.97 instead of 05.03.98 as the letter issued under the signature of AR is available as 288/C (D­5) which is dated 05.03.98.

9. On 17.03.98 accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1) representing himself as Secretary of the society addressed a letter to the AR and submitted the list of members under his signatures for allotment of land. GEQD opinion is positive about the signatures of accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1) and Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) and CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.8 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

the same is available as D­20. The noting at page 17/N of D­1 of the RCS office shows the presence of accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1) as Secretary of the society before accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3), who had produced the records before him. Signatures at Q­11 of accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1) has been opined positive by GEQD. Accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) stated in the noting about genuineness of the applicants, their elections as office bearers and audit of the society in his note and he, without verifying the genuineness of the Secretary and the list of members submitted by accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1) and Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2), accepted the said letter and records. In response to this letter, accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) initiated a note in the RCS file for verification of the society records and accordingly the letter was sent to the society under the signatures of Sh.R P Kalra, the then AR(S) on CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.9 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

26.03.98 to produce the complete records for verification.

10. In response to the said letter accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1) claiming himself as Secretary of the said society visited RCS office on 22.04.98 and submitted the affidavits of members of the society, list of members in triplicate and the membership forms. He was asked to submit further documents for allotment of land like list of enrolled members, resigned members, copies of management committee resolutions in support of these lists, audit reports, election records, etc.

11. In response to this accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1) claiming himself to be the Secretary of the society, addressed a letter dated 23.04.98, wherein he had submitted these documents in the CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.10 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

RCS office. Thereafter on 13.05.98, accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) had put up a detailed note from 18/N to 53/N of D­1 which was a favourable note for approval of final list of members of the society wherein he mentioned the affairs of the society, affidavit of the Secretary of the society, position in respect of strength of the society, promoter members' strength, details of 136 enrollments, details of 126 resignations, details of 180 members for approval of the freeze strength, audit position, election etc.

12. On perusal of this proposal the then AR(S) had raised certain queries as to why the case of the society was not forwarded to DDA earlier and whether the society had submitted list of members as on cut off date 30.06.86 and whether the society intimated RCS office about periodical resignations and enrollments etc. Note of AR is CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.11 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

available at page 53/N of D­1. The queries were got noted by accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1) and Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) as per their signatures which have been found in the RCS file. GEQD opinion is positive about signatures of accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1) and Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) at Q­14 & 15 respectively at page 53/N.

13. Thereafter accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) put up another note on 21.05.98 (page 54 & 55/N of D­1) giving false and misleading details mentioning that audit of the society was complete upto 1996­97 and election of the society was held on 30.06.97 for the year 1996­97 and requested for approval of the list of members. The recommendation was approved by then AR and file was put up to JR, who had raised further queries on 01.06.98 (page 55/N of D­1) vide CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.12 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

which he had asked for indicating clear position about freeze list, whether resignations and enrollments are as per applicable provisions etc.

14. Then, accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) dishonestly initiated one more note (page 56/N of D­1) on 03.06.98 which was put up by him, wherein he had confirmed that audit of the society was complete upto 1996­97 and election of the society was held on 30.06.97 and he again recommended that in view of above the list of 180 members as submitted by the society may be approved for onward transmission to DDA for allotment of land. When the matter was again put up to RCS, then RCS Sh.Gopal Dixit raised queries about audit and election (page 57/N dated 04.06.98 of D­1).

CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.13 of 29

CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

15. Thereupon, when the file again came back to accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3), dealing assistant, he put up a note dated 05.06.98 clearly stating that election of the society held on 30.06.97 and audit of the society was completed upto 1996­97 and he also noted that inspection of the society was done in due course for the records verification and inspection report was placed along side in the file and he certified that society is functioning normally and there is nothing adverse. The inspection report was in fact made by accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) himself which is available at page 1051 of D­2 which bears signatures of accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1) as Secretary along with signature of accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) dated 21.05.98 which show that he had himself put up the inspection report made by himself dated 21.05.98, although there was no such appointment made by any authority authorizing him to make inspection CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.14 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

personally and report that fact.

16. The matter was again put up to RCS for approval through AR, DR, JR. Then RCS Sh.Gopal Dixit, vide his note dated 10.06.98 page 58/N of D­1 observed that large number of complaints were being received that individual members had not resigned and, therefore, 10% of the resignations submitted, may be checked by Area Inspector by visiting the premises of the resigned members and report be submitted to the undersigned. Thereupon, accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) had again put up the matter on 15.06.98 (Page 58/N & 59/N of D­1) mentioning that no complaint has been found from the resigned members and there are 126 resignations on record, out of which 72 members had resigned before 30.06.86 i.e prior to the cut off date and since then the verification is required, hence, approval of the RCS is CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.15 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

required only with respect to 54 (126­72=54). He further stated that as desired by RCS 10% resignations are to be checked, therefore, he himself had visited the 6 resigned members and it was confirmed from them that all of them had resigned voluntarily and he placed their confirmations dated 13.06.98 on record (D­2 Page Nos.1052 to 1057). Thereupon, this note was approved by the RCS and a fair letter was prepared by him for signatures of DR(S) which was signed and sent to AR(Policy). AR (Policy) had then forwarded the consolidated list of four societies including Mahajan Shree CGHS to DDA for allotment of land on 27.07.98.

17. Ld.Public Prosecutor has shown to the court that out of the 6 resigned members verified by accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3), two members, namely, Ashok Kumar (M.No.235) and Ramesh Chander CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.16 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

(M.No.236) figured in the final list approved in 1998 and thus whereas they were not shown as resigned members, their resignations were verified by accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3). Thus, it is clear that vide his own note accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) had shown S/Sh.Ashok Kumar and Ramesh Chander as members mentioned at sl.nos.62 & 63 and their names did not figure in the list of resigned members at page 29/N but still he gave false report about their resignations. GEQD opinion was sought in this respect. The specimen signatures of Sh.Ashok Kumar are from S­50 to S­52 and of Sh.Ramesh Chander Dhiman are from S­53 to S­55. GEQD had opined that they did not sign in their names on the resignation letters. Statement of these witnesses have also been recorded by CBI u/s 161 Cr.PC.

18. Besides this, out of 6 resigned members, who were verified CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.17 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

by accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3), also included the names of Smt.Indra Mahajan (M.No.104); Sh.Ravinder (M.No.180) and Sh.Om Parkash Dhiman (M.No.207). Sh.Ravinder is shown as resigned on 20.04.86, Smt.Indra Mahajan is shown as resigned on 01.06.86 and Sh.Om Parkash Dhiman is shown as resigned on 01.06.86. Accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) had already stated in his note at page 58/N of D­1 that he was to verify 10% resigned members who had resigned after 30.06.86 (i.e 10% of 54 members which comes to 6). Whereas in respect of aforesaid 3 members, he himself had shown in his note that they had resigned prior to 30.06.86, still he shown them as those members who have been verified by him as actually resigned. Thus, his motive in forging such a verification report is clear.

19. After approval of list of 180 members of Mahajanshree CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.18 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

CGHS, which was forwarded to DDA for allotment of land, secretary of the society again submitted a letter dated 07.11.98 to AR(S) along with the list of 18 new enrollments against the existing vacancies. The society was asked to produce the records for verification and accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) had put up a note on 05.04.99 (page 63/N of D­1) mentioning that accused/Mahanand Sharma (A­3), secretary of the society had submitted consolidated list of 60 resigned members along with copies of their resignations. During investigation some of the resignations were found forged and in place of resigned members, accused/Mahanand Sharma (A­1) and accused/Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) had enrolled their relatives and close friends. RCS had directed secretary to appear on 12.04.99 along with relevant records whereupon on 15.04.99 accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) had put up a note that secretary had produced the relevant records regarding the CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.19 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

resignations and enrollments including the affidavits of 60 new members affirming that they were residents of Delhi but affidavits in respect of 12 members out of 60 new members were not available on record. On 16.04.99, accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) again put up a note (page 66/N of D­1) that the society had not filed residential proof of the members for three years. The society again sought time to produce their records which was extended till 15.07.99 (page 68/N of D­1) and thereafter there was no correspondence upto 08.02.01 and therefore, then AR(S) wrote a letter to the society for again conducting the election and the audit of accounts of the society. On 26.04.01, AR(S) again directed the society for production and verification of records and subsequently a remainder was issued by him on 10.05.01 but there was no response from the society.

CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.20 of 29

CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

20. It is also revealed in the investigation that on 08.03.99, accused/Mahanand Sharma (A­1), so called secretary of the society informed the Joint Director (GH) DDA that the address of the society had changed from 223, Humanyu Pur, Safdarjung Enclave to RZ­11F, Puran Nagar, Main Road, Palam, Delhi, which happened to be the residence of accused/Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2).

21. Mahajanshree CGHS was allotted a plot of land ad­ measuring 9000 sq.meters in Sector­23, Dwarka in 2004 and the cost of the plot amounting to Rs.4,73,87,000/­ was paid to the DDA. Thereafter a request was made on behalf of the society to reduce the strength of the society from 180 to 162 members which was allowed by DDA.

CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.21 of 29

CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

22. In the investigation, it was found that accused/Mahanand Sharma (A­1) and accused/Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) along with other 60 members, were falsely shown inducted as members of society on 16.05.94. The genuine management committee members, who have been examined by CBI stated that accused/Mahanand Sharma (A­1) and accused/Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) and others were falsely shown inducted as members in management committee meeting dated 16.05.94 and later on shown as elected as secretary and president respectively in another meeting dated 20.05.95 in their presence. The members who have allegedly shown as having attended the meeting denied to have attended any such meeting of 16.05.94 and their signatures were forged, which has been confirmed by GEQD. Some members, who have been shown as having attended the meeting did not attend any such meeting and they stated that their signatures on CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.22 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

the management committee minutes were obtained on blank papers by late Sudershan Kumar Sawara and they were not aware of the contents of the proceedings. They have confirmed this fact. Some of the members, who were allegedly shown as present in the G B meeting dated 20.05.95, have denied to have attended any such management committee meeting/G B meeting.

23. There have been several violations of the provisions of DCS Act and Rules. There is no record of handing over the records of the society to the committee headed by accused/Mahanand Sharma (A­1) and accused/Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) pursuant to the election dated 20.05.95 and thus accused/Mahanand Sharma (A­1) and accused/Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) had unauthorizedly and illegally took over the control of the society and they falsely shown that they were enrolled as CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.23 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

members in the society in 1994 and elected as office bearers of the society in 1995 and created false documents in support of their claim.

24. It was also revealed that the records submitted by accused/Mahanand Sharma (A­1) and accused/Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) to RCS office for approving the freeze list of the society comprised of affidavits of members but the promoter members have denied having signed on the said affidavits and stated that their signatures were forged which has been confirmed by GEQD.

25. The cash receipts in token of having received the refund of share money by the purported resigned members and their resignation applications submitted after forwarding of the freeze list to DDA showing resignations of 13 members, have been found forged. Joint CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.24 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

affidavit submitted by accused/Mahanand Sharma (A­1) and Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) to the RCS office affirming about the payment to the resigned members and the list of members submitted for freeze list is also signed by accused/Mahanand Sharma (A­1) and accused/Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2). Similarly, the proceedings in management committee meeting register have been forged which has been confirmed by GEQD opinion.

26. The examination by GEQD has revealed that Q­15, 29, 32 70, 73 and Q­76 have been written/signed by accused no.2/J K Chhikara which match with his specimen signatures/writings which are from S­64­68. The handwriting opinion also reveals that Q­6, 8, 11, 14, 26, 30, 31, 33 to 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 71, 74, 77, 79, 80 to 94, 96, 97 & Q­122 have been written/signed by accused no.1/Maha Nand CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.25 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

Sharma which match with his handwriting/signatures which are from S­69 to S­74. When specimen handwriting of witness Ashok Kumar (S­50 to S­52) was matched with his signatures at Q­3, 116, 163 and 164, it was found that they did not match and, therefore, it was opined that he had not written those signatures on the questioned documents. When specimen handwriting of witness Ramesh Chander Dhiman (S­53 to S­55) were matched with the questioned writings at Q­2, 117, 165 and Q­166, it was opined by the handwriting expert that he did not make those questioned signatures. Q­14 is at page 53/N of D­1 which shows presence of accused/Mahanand Sharma (A­1) in RCS office. Q­15 which is also at page no.53/N of D­1 shows presence of accused/Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) in RCS office before RCS officials. Q­11 at page 17/N also shows presence of accused/Mahanand Sharma (A­1) in RCS office. Affidavit of PWs­Ashok Kumar and Ramesh CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.26 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

Chander Dhiman in D­3 at page nos.863 & 864 is found by GEQD as not signed by them.

27. The sanction for the prosecution of accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988 has been obtained by CBI which is available with charge sheet (D­24). Document nos.1 to 14 are the files of RCS office, DDA and Mahajan Shree CGHS containing the notings, correspondence and other documents. D­15 is the FIR. Report of GEQD Shimla is D­20. Specimen signatures are D­21. Besides, the CBI has also examined 76 witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC whose statements are available.

28. In view of above discussion, I find no force in the submissions of ld.counsels for the accused persons that there is no CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.27 of 29 CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

sufficient evidence against accused persons to frame charge against them. Rather the facts and material discussed above elicits the presence of a good prima facie case and sufficient evidence to frame charge against all accused persons.

29. Therefore, I direct that charge be framed against accused Mahanand Sharma (A­1), Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) and Karamvir Singh (A­3) under sections 120B r/w Section 420, 468 & 471 r/w Section 468 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. The charge for substantive offence be framed against accused/Karamvir Singh (A­3) u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act. The charge for substantive offences be also framed against accused/Maha Nand Sharma (A­1) and Jai Kishan Chhikara (A­2) under sections 420 and 471 r/w Section 468 IPC.

CBI No.29 of 2008 Page No.28 of 29

CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.

30. It is clarified that nothing in this order shall be taken as comments on merits of the case. 

Announced in the open                                  (R P PANDEY)
Court on 11.07.2012                                 SPL.JUDGE (CBI)­I
                                                ROHINI COURTS/DELHI




CBI No.29 of 2008                                                           Page No.29 of 29
                           CBI Vs. Maha Nand Sharma & Ors.