Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2), O.S Chauhan (A-3) (since expired), Yashpal Bansal (A-4) (since expired) and Bhagirath Prasad Verma (A-5) (since expired). Further, offence under Section 477A- is also made out against B.P. Verma (A-5). The charge-sheet was accordingly filed in the court of Magistrate.

CHARGE

4. The Ld. ACMM took cognizance of the offences on 01.12.1993 against accused persons and they were accordingly summoned on the same day (01.12.1993). After supplying the copies and hearing the arguments on charge, the charges were ordered to be framed by the court of Ld. A.C.M.M. vide order dated 30.08.2000. The said order was challenged in Criminal Revision ( No.169/2000) by all the accused persons wherein they raised the issue of maintainability of the present charge-sheet in view of want of the complaint u/s 195 CrPC and non compliance of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. before registering the present case. The Ld ASJ order dated 08.10.2001 rejected the objections, however ordered for committal of the case to the court of Ld Special Judge ( CBI) where the main DA case was pending trial. Accordingly the Ld. ACMM vide its order dated 18.10.2001 committed the matter to the Court of Special Judge .

30.1 It has further been argued that the even the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C is attracted in the present matter and either the Court complaint or complaint by concerned public servant should have been filed upon which the cognizance could have been taken by the Magistrate for summoning the accused persons.

30.2 It has been argued that the present case cannot be said to be in continuation of main D.A Case as the allegations are regarding the alleged creation of forged documents and evidence which allegedly has done between the period of 08.08.1991 to 14.06.1993 . This is not the continuation of main DA Case. Therefore, a separate case was registered but that could have been done only after taking mandatory prior permission from the Magistrate as required under Section 155 Cr.P.C. They had raised the said issue right since the beginning in the year 1997. He even challenged the order on charge passed by the Ld. ACMM dated 30.08.2000. The said revision bearing No. 169/2000 was decided by Shri C.K. Chaturvedi, the then Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide its order dated 08.10.2001. The Ld. ASJ after hearing the parties held that offence under Section 193 IPC is a non-cognizable and the registration of the separate case without taking permission is not without significance and cannot be ignored. However, it ordered the concerned ACMM by remanding back the case to commit the case to the Special Court where the main D.A Case under the P.C Act was pending trial. Therefore, it has been argued that the said issue is still left open and the maintainability of the present case is questionable due to want of permission under Section 155 Cr.P.C.

32.1 As far as the Stamp Registers are concerned, the reference is made to the testimony of Hari Kishan Gupta (PW-67) who clarified that D-2 was properly maintained register, but there are irregularities in the Stamp Register D-1 (Ex.P-109) as has been recorded in the Test Check.

Appreciation of Arguments and Analysis of Evidence.

33. The present case in hand is an off-shot of the Main Disproportionate Assets (DA) case registered against D.C Sankhla (A-1) on 08.08.1991. Subsequently thereto, the raid was conducted at the premises of D.C Sankhla (A-1) on 13.08.1991 and the incriminating documents concerning the assets and income etc were seized. The investigation in the said matter continued and at the fag end of the investigation, D.C Sankhla (A-1) herein sent his representation dated 14.06.1993 (D-29) Ex. P-108 addressed to the Director, CBI, New Delhi. In the said representation, D.C Sankhla (A-1) tried to explain the extra income in his hand during the check period from 01.01.1980 to 13.08.1991. One of the grounds for claiming the extra income was purported five sale agreements as detailed in Para 2 of the fact of the present case. After investigation C.B.I found the said explanation to be false and fabricated one and accordingly, a separate chargesheet under Section 193 IPC was filed against the accused persons named herein. Therefore, in the said backdrop, firstly, the legal issue raised on behalf of D.C Sankhla (A-1) and Shashi Sankhla (A-2) regarding maintainability of the present case in view of the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C and secondly under Section 155 Cr.P.C needs to be firstly addressed .

39.1 As per the case of the prosecution, the aforesaid entries were inserted in the said Stamp Register Ex. P-109 subsequently by A-5 in conspiracy with other accused in order to help A-1 in creation of Agreement to Sell. The motive behind the execution of the said Agreements to Sell was to claim additional income to the tune of approximately Rs.58 lakhs by A-1 in the main DA Case pending against him.

39.2 The prosecution in order to prove the said forgeries in Stamp Register (D-1) Ex. P-109 as on the factual aspects has placed reliance upon the testimonies of Ramesh Grover (PW-32), Gurmeet Singh ( PW-33) and Sarda Ram (PW-34).