Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. Similar is the stand of A4 S.S. Sanan as of A.K. Goel A3.

20. In defence A1 S.K. Bhatia examined D1W1 Sanjeet Kumar LDC, Record Room Sessions, Tis Hazari Court who produced the case file of DA case of the accused and also confirmed that Ex. D1W1/1 is the certified copy of the judgment of acquittal in the above said case dated 3.12.2011.

21. A4 S.S. Sanan has examined three witnesses in defence. His defence is that Harish Kochar with whom he is employed has entered into transaction for purchase of certain properties bearing no. 1101, 1102, 1103 and 1104, Amba Deep Building, Connaught Place with M/s Hind Nihon Protein Pvt. Ltd which was to be purchased in his name and also in the name of his wife which deal according to the witness was through property dealer Sh. Chittaranjan Saxena D4W3.

33. It is submitted by the defence counsel that PW-2 Baldev Khera has not supported the prosecution case. He has been declared hostile by prosecution itself. It is submitted that PW-2 was also a witness of another DA case arising out of recovery of Rs. 1.55 lac during search of the residential premises of A1 S.K. Bhatia after his arrest in the present case. It is submitted by the CBI Vs. S.K. Bhatia Etc. AC No.26/11/96 RC No.34(A)/95 defence counsel that in DA case against S.K. Bhatia also PW-2 Baldev Khera was examined as PW-2 and made his statement proved as Ex.PW2/DA in the present case.

34. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW-2 Baldev Khera contradicts his deposition Ex.PW2/DA as regards going to CBI office prior to raid where he had stated that he went their directly whereas in the present case he has deposed that he first came to CBI office and alongwith CBI staff went to the spot. Further it is pointed out that in the present case PW-2 had deposed that proceedings were drawn at the spot whereas in the DA case he has not so stated. It is submitted that PW-2 has stated that he has been shown written complaint in the present case whereas in the DA case he has stated no complaint was shown to him. It is submitted that PW-2 in the present case has deposed that files were in the hands of A1 S.K. Bhatia whereas he has not stated so in the DA case. It is submitted these are material contradictions and throws a great doubt if PW-2 was ever present at the spot on 8.5.95 at the time of raid as claimed by CBI and makes the whole investigation tainted and unbelievable.

37. As noted by this Court from the statement of PW-2 Baldev Khera who is a hostile witness that he is consistent CBI Vs. S.K. Bhatia Etc. AC No.26/11/96 RC No.34(A)/95 through out in his statement made by him on oath before this Court in the present case and also in his statement on oath in the DA case proved as Ex.PW2/DA on the following facts that:

1. A trap was arranged in this case on 8.5.95.