Delhi District Court
Cbi vs S.S. Ahluwalia Etc(2) Da Case on 12 July, 2024
CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL ANTIL, SPECIAL JUDGE,
PC ACT, CBI-15, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :-
CBI Case No. : 213/2019
CNR No(s). : DLND01-004607-2017 (old)
DLND01-0114112017 (old)
DLCT 11-001228-2019 (present
RC No. : 1/87/ACU-1/SIC-1/CBI NEW Delhi
U/Sec.: 120B IPC r/w Section 419/420/467/468/471
IPC and r/w Section 5(1)(e) & 5(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act,1947.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VERSUS
1. Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia,
s/o Late Sh.Man Singh Ahluwalia,
the then Chief Secretary,
Government of Nagaland Kohima,
P/A Mohalla Pandian, Tehsil Zira, Distt.
Ferozpur, Punjab ..............................................(A-1).
( Judicial Proceedings against A-1 was postponed as
he was declared unfit to stand trial after passing
detailed order on 16.01.2024).
2. Sh.V Bhaskaran.
S/o Sh.Y. Vardharajan,
the then Manager
Bank of Baroda, Coimbtore,
R/o West Street, Ayikudi Tankasi,
P.S. Ayikudi, Distt. Thirundveli,
Tamil Naddu. .....................................................(A-2)
(Turned approver and was granted pardon vide
detailed order dated 27.09.1996).
CBI Case No. 213/19 1 of 97
CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
3. Sh. Inderjeet Singh
s/o Late Sh. Man Singh Ahluwalia,
R/o Mohalla Pandian,
Tehsil Zira, District Firozpur,
Punjab...................................................................(A-3)
4. Nyamo Lotha
S/o Late Sh. Nahemo Lotha,
r/o H.No.1 Church Road,
Dimapur.
PerManent R/o Village Lungsa,
District Wokha, Nagaland.................................(A-4)
( accused expired on 26.05.1992 and Judicial
proceedings were dropped against him ).
Date of initial Institution : 10.04.1992
Arguments Concluded : 08.07.2024
Clarifications Sought : 08.07.2024
Announced on : 12.07.2024
Final Outcome : Accused Inderjeet Singh
acquitted.
JUDGEMENT
1. The prosecuting agency (CBI), charge-sheeted the above mentioned accused persons to face trial for having committing the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 419/420/467/468/471/201 IPC and r/w Section 5(1)(e) & 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1947, as well as substantive offences thereof against accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-
1).
CBI Case No. 213/19 2 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Brief facts enumerated in the Charge-sheet :-
2. The present Case was registered by the CBI vide R.C no. 1/87-ACU-I dated 24.03.1987 SIC-I/CBI/New Delhi against accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), the then IAS and posted as Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland at Kohima, alleging that while functioning in different capacities at Nagaland and New Delhi, he acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
3. That during investigations the searches were conducted at various places including the residential and official premises of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) in Nagaland, Delhi and other places, and a large number of incriminating documents/ articles were found in possession of accused (A-1) ; that inventories of the valuable movable goods were drawn, out of which some were in the name of accused (A-1), and remaining were in the name of his family members, friends and relatives.
4. Investigations revealed that father of accused (A-1) was a School teacher ; had four children namely Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), Sh. Mohan Singh Ahluwalia, Sh. Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia and Sh. Inderjit Singh Ahluwalia (co-accused A-3) and daughter namely Smt. Amrit Kaur w/o Sh. Jaswant Singh, and after partition they all settled in Village Padian Tehsil-Zira District, Ferozpur, Punjab.
5. Investigations revealed that accused (A-1) passed B.A in 1959 ; obtained B.Ed degree in 1961 ; joined Indian Army as Emergency Commission Officer in 1963, and completed Army training in Pune, India ; consequently commissioned as Second CBI Case No. 213/19 3 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Lieutenant on 03.05.1964 and continued to be in Indian Army till June, 1969, and a sum of Rs.5000/- as gratuity was released in his favour by Indian Army for the services rendered by him in the department.
6. That thereafter in July, 1969, Sh. S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1) joined Indian Administrative Services and was allotted Nagaland Cadre.
7. That during his tenure S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1) was posted at various departments and has held different posts i.e. :-
- from 20.01.1970 to 22.07.1971 (A-1) was posted in the office of Dy. Commissioner, Moaokchang, Nagaland and also in various other departments in Kohima Secretariat at Nagaland.
- from 23.07.1971 to 13.12.1971, (A-1) was posted as Under Secretary in the Department of Supply in Kohima ;
- from 17.12.1971 to 02.01.1973 as Additional Commissioner, Jinahbato, Nagaland ;
- from 22.02.1973 to 01.11.1974 Director, Supply, Dimapur, Nagaland ;
- from 06.11.1974 to 13.05.1975 Joint Secretary in Planning Department at Kohima ;
- from 15.05.1975 to 09.12.1976 as Deputy Commissioner Kohima ;
- from 09.12.1976 to 24.06.1978 as Secretary Forest and Controller of Weighs and Measures and
- from 05.07.1978 to 26.03.1986 posted in various CBI Case No. 213/19 4 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc capacities in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.
8. That on repatriation to his cadre in Nagaland from 19.04.1984 to 12.11.1986 (A-1) was posted as Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi and he proceeded on leave w.e.f. 13.11.1986 ; and during this period he was placed under suspension but later-on re- instated by the Government of Nagaland and was posted as Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland.
9. That accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) younger brother of accused (A-1) is under graduate and is permanently residing at native village at Ferozpur, Punjab with his family.
10. That accused V.Bhaskaran (A-3) joined Bank of Baroda as Manager, and during the period September, 1984 to 09.01.1987, was posted at Kohima Branch and thereafter posted as Senior Manager, at main branch Coimbtore.
11. That accused Nyamo Lotha (A-4) was the son of Late Sh. Nchemo Lotha and resident of Village Longsa Distt Wokha, Nagaland and also at 1-Church Road, Dimapur, Nagaland.
12. Investigations revealed that accused (A-1) while working at different posts at Nagaland and Delhi entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused V.Bhaskaran (A-2), Inderjit Singh (A-3) and Sh. Nyamo Lotha (A-4) and during the check period w.e.f. 01.07.1969 to 28.03.1987, Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) amassed huge wealth through corrupt and illegal means and acquired movable and immovable assets/properties either in his name or in the name of his family members, relatives, friends as CBI Case No. 213/19 5 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc well as fictitious persons at Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Nagaland.
13. That on 03.08.1985 accused A-1 in connivance with co-accused persons initially opened a Saving Bank Account bearing no. 4078 with Bank of Baroda, Kohima branch in the name of Nyamo Lotha (A-4) with a a sum of Rs.500/- ; that subsequently a sum of Rs. 39,66,936/- in total was deposited by accused (A-1) in the said account in the name of Sh. Nyamo Lotha (A-4) between 03.08.1985 to 26.03.1986 including a sum of Rs. 32 lakhs on 19.08.1985 and again a sum of Rs.15 lakhs on 15.11.1985.
14. That during the period from 24.08.1985 to 15.11.1985 six cheques of Rs.5 lakhs each were drawn by accused S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1) from the said account in favour of Sh. Mohinder Singh (brother of A-1), Inderjit Singh co-accused (brother of A-
1), Smt. Jitender Walia and Miss Daljit Walia d/o Sardar Jaswant Singh, Sh. Gurudip Singh s/o Sardar Jaswant Singh and Smt. Rajinder Walia (niece of A-1).
15. That the said six cheques valued for a total amount of Rs. 30 lacs were deposited by the accused (A-1) after opening six S.B. Accounts at New Bank of India, Chawri Bazar Branch, Delhi in the names of aforesaid six beneficiaries.
16. That thereafter the proceeds of cheques so deposited were withdrawn by accused (A-1) and invested in the purchase of properties in the name of aforesaid six persons. The remaining amount of Rs.9,66,936/- was also withdrawn by accused (A-1) through withdrawal slip/debit vouchers in a most irregular CBI Case No. 213/19 6 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc fashion in connivance with accused V. Bhaskaran (A-2), Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda Kohima, Nagaland.
17. Investigation revealed that during the period 17.09.1986 to 25.09.1986 accused Sh. S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1) also deposited a sum of Rs.15,40,000/- in cash with the bank of accused (A-2) for issuance of Demand Draft payable at Delhi, and at his (A-1) instance accused Sh. V. Bhaskaran, the then Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Kohima, Nagaland, (A-2) himself prepared the applications for issuance of demand drafts in the name of fictitious persons and subsequently 19 demand drafts for the said total amount prepared by (A-2) were procured by accused Sh. S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1).
18. That thereafter seven S.B. accounts were opened in the name of some fictitious persons in New Bank of India, National Sports Club of India Branch, Mathura Road, New Delhi on the introduction of accused Inderjit Singh (A-3) on 19.09.1986, and the address of all the account holders was shown as D-II/49, Pandara Road, New Delhi, a government accommodation allotted/ belonging to accused (A-1).
19. That the amount of the said 19 drafts were credited in the account of accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwaia (A-1) and thereafter the said cash proceeds were used and invested by accused (A-1) for acquisition of properties at different places in India in different names of his family members, friends and relatives etc.
20. Investigation further revealed that in connivance with accused Sh. V.Bhaskaran (A-2) between 02.07.1985 to 10.07.1986, accused Sh. Surendera Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) CBI Case No. 213/19 7 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc obtained 22 fixed deposit receipts for a sum of Rs.17 lacs from Bank of Baroda, Kohima in fictitious names by forging signatures in the opening accounts/cards of FDs, and thereafter the said FDRs were prematurely encashed by making forged discharge endorsement on the reverse of the said FDRs, and pre- matured amount of Rs.17,96,807/- was deposited in various SB accounts opened in the same branch in the name of fictitious persons by Sh.V. Bhaskaran (A-2) at the behest of accused Sh. S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1).
21. That thereafter accused V.Bhaskaran (A-2), at the instance of accused Sh. S.S Ahluwalia (A-1), issued 29 drafts for a total sum of Rs.17,71,580/- payable at Delhi in the name of fictitious persons after withdrawing it from the above mentioned accounts and handed over it to accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1).
22. Investigation further revealed that thereafter accused A-1 got opened a Joint S.B. Account bearing no.1603 in the name of 26 non existing/ fictitious persons at New Bank of India, National Sports Club of India Branch, Mathura Road New Delhi on the introduction of accused Inderjit Singh (A-3). Sh.Ram Singh Yadav, fictitious person, was authorized to operate the said joint account. Subsequently, the said amount was also used by accused S.S.Ahluwlia (A-1) to purchase movable or immovable properties with the connivance of Bank Officials/co-accused persons.
23. Investigation revealed that on 01.07.1969 accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) was found in possession of assets worth Rs. 29,750/- including Rs.7,500/- being the value of gold ornaments CBI Case No. 213/19 8 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc declared by him to the Government of Nagaland.
24. That the statement of assets of accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) was to the tune of Rs. 22,250/-, after deducting the value of the gold ornaments, at the time of commencement of check period i.e. 01.07.1969 enclosed as Annexure-I to the charge sheet filed by the agency.
25. That the total income of accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-
1) through known sources i.e. net pay (salary), allowance,GPF advance/withdrawal, income, House Building advance, Scooter advance, Honorarium, interest accrued on the bank accounts/ FDRs, RBI Bonds, profit on sale of car, gratuity received from Army Service, agricultural income, salary of Ms.Guljit Walia (wife of A-1) as school Teacher, Transport business (Truck-
operation), loan taken by her from co-accused Inderjeet Singh (A-3), income declared to IT under disclosure scheme, sale of jewellery and receiving of advance payment of rent of Flat no. 236-237, Devika Towers, was found to be to the tune of Rs.13,75,578/-.
26. That Smt. Guljit Walia wife of accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) was having her own income resources and stated to be filing income tax return in her own name an independent assesse, therefore, she was treated as separate entity in respect of compilation of income or assets acquired by her.
27. That a sum of Rs.6,42,169/- as total income of Smt. Guljit Walia was deducted from the total income of accused S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) i.e. Rs.13,75,578/- (minus -) Rs.6,42,169 = Rs, 7,32,409/-. The details of monetary transaction of accused CBI Case No. 213/19 9 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) and his family members are reflected in Annexure II of the Charge-sheet.
28. That the Head wise expenditure incurred by accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) during the check period on education of children - Rs.1,28,110.75 paisa ; payment of rent for retention of Govt. Quarter - Rs.25,214/- ; premium on LIC policies, Purchase & plantation of Eucalyptus trees - Rs.89,000/- ; household expenditure, Air freight for London trip, construction of a Pucca Pump House at Agra, the miscellaneous expenditures including Stamp duty, Registration Charges, MCD Tax, Bank Locker Charges, Income Tax, Telephone Bills, Road Tax etc in his name, relatives and friends comes to - Rs.13,90,880/-, and the same have been mentioned in Annexure III of the charge-sheet.
29. That Smt.Guljit Walia, wife of A-1, incurred a total sum of Rs.2,43,669/-. i.e. a sum of Rs.48,419/- on Stamp duty and house tax in respect of Flat no. F-5, NDSE, Part-II, New Delhi ; a sum of Rs.31,250/- being the arrears of income tax qua voluntary disclosure scheme ; Rs.1,38,000/- the cost of construction of pucca structure on her agricultural land at Agra, and a sum of Rs.26,000/-cost of Eucalyptus tree planted in Agra land .
30. The details of assets acquired by accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) in his name and in the names of his family members, friends, relations and others i.e. FDRs Bank balance, NSC, Other deposits, Cash etc (in his name and his wife), Immovable assets (Land, House & Flats), Foreign articles, Arms and Ammunitions, Deposits with DDA (in the name of his CBI Case No. 213/19 10 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc brother), Gold coins & Gold ornaments, Articles found during searches as per inventories, and immovable assets acquired by Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) in the name of relatives included 14 flats in Delhi and number of properties/lands in Delhi, UP, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh.
31. That one Maruti Gypsy Registration no. DID 9749 in the name of Sh. Karam Singh Bod, seized from the house of Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) and Credit balances in the bank accounts opened by Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) either in his name or in the name of his family members, friends, relations during the check period are mentioned in detail in Annexure IV enclosed with the Charge-sheet.
32. That accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) has acquired assets in his name and his dependent children to the extent of Rs.16,28,893/- ; the assets in the name of his wife Smt. Guljit Walia to the tune of Rs. 9,89,778/-, and also assets in the name of his relatives & friends etc to the extent of Rs. 45,75,785/-.
33. That out of total assets held by accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) and his family members the movable/ immovable assets attributable to Smt. Guljit Ahluwalia are - House No. F-5, NDSE, Part II, New Delhi, Land purchased in Agra UP, FDR's, Bonds & Gold ornaments totaling to Rs. 9,89,778.00 ( mentioned at page no. 11 of the charge sheet).
34. Thus, the income expenditure and the assets in the name of wife Smt. Guljit Walia are deducted from the total income, expenditure and assets of accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-
1) as below : -
CBI Case No. 213/19 11 of 97
CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
Total income of Smt. Guljit Walia Rs.6,42,169.00
Total expenditure of Smt. Guljit Walia Rs.2,43,669.00 Likely Savings Rs.3,98,500.00 Total assets held by Smt. Guljit Walia Rs.9,89,778.00
35. That from the above said computations, Smt.Guljit Walia was having excess assets to the extent of Rs.5,91,278/-. Since she had no other ostensible means attributed to her, thus the amount of Rs.5,91,278/- was diverted/supplemented by accused S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1) to his wife.
36. Investigations revealed that the extent of disproportionate assets held by accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) either in his own name or in the name of his dependent children alone are computed as under : -
Assets prior to the period of check Rs. 22,250/- Income during the period of check Rs.7,32,409/-
TOTAL: Rs. 7,54,659/-
Expenditure during the period of check Rs.11,47,229/- Total income and previous assets: Rs.7,54,659/-
Likely Savings = (-) Rs.3,92,570/- Immovable and movable assets Rs.16,28,953/-
37. That the extent of disproportionate assets held by accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) is as under :-
(i) Extent of the excess assets held in Rs.5,91,278.00 the name of his wife supplemented by the accused.
(ii) Disproportionate assets held by Rs.16,28,953.00
Accused (A-1) in his name as well as
CBI Case No. 213/19 12 of 97
CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
in the name of his dependents.
(iii) Disproportionate assets held by Rs.43,39,234.00
the accused in the names of his
relatives.
(iv) Movable assets held by accused Rs,2,36,551.00
in the Benamies names
Grand Total of disproportionate assets : Rs.67,96,016.00
as on 28.03.1987 :
38. Investigations thus revealed that accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) was found in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.67,96,016/- (SIXTY SEVEN LACS NINTY SIX THOUSAND SIXTEEN RUPEES) which were disproportionate to his known sources of income as on 28.03.1987, and which has been acquired by him by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his official position as such public servant in conspiracy with co-
accused V. Bhaskaran (A-2), Inderjit Singh (A-3) and Nyamo Lotha (A-4).
39. Investigation revealed that accused Nyamo Lotha (A-4 since expired) as such agreed for opening of SB account no. 4078 at Bank of Baroda in Kohima in his name at the instance of accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) to facilitate him to carry out the bogus transactions thereto.
40. That accused V.Bhaskaran (A-2), Manager of Bank of Baroda, Kohima, Nagaland initially opened the bank account in the name of Nyamo Lotha and handed over his blank signed cheque book, passbook and pay-in-slip books etc to Sh.
CBI Case No. 213/19 13 of 97
CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1), and which were utilized by A-1 for the
clandestine transactions from the said account.
41. That accused V.Bhaskaran (A-2) in the similar manner willfully allowed the operation of above noted account by accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) knowingly that this account was belonging to co-accused Nyamo Lotha (A-4).
42. That accused Inderjit Singh (A-3) brother of accused Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) was having his own S.B. Account no. 983 in New Bank of India, Mathura Road Branch, New Delhi, and he introduced various fictitious accounts at this Branch pursuant to which number of false accounts were opened, wherein the demand drafts which were brought by accused S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) in fictitious names from other banks were deposited and encashed by (A-1).
43. That accused Inderjit Singh (A-3) was having sufficient knowledge about the acts and commission of accused S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1) at the time of opening these fictitious accounts on his introduction.
44. That all the accused persons thereby hatched a conspiracy and acted in connivance with each other to facilitate accused S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1) in his illegal transactions.
45. That the Sanction Orders Nos. 105/12/87-AVD-I, Government of India dt. 02.04.1992 for prosecution of accused S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1), the then IAS, and order dated 27.03.1992 of Bank of Baroda issued by Dy. General Manager (Personnel) for prosecution of accused Sh. V.Bhaskaran (A-2), the then Bank Manager, Bank of Baroda, accorded by the President of India and CBI Case No. 213/19 14 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Dy. General Manager, the competent authorities respectively as required under Section 6(1)(a) & (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ( Act-II of 1947) was filed accordingly.
46. That after the completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons ; the cognizance of the offences was taken ; and all the four accused persons were summoned for their appearance to face trial for the offences alleged against them.
47. The summons sent to the accused Nyamo Lotha (A-4) were received with the report that he had expired on 03.02.1991, and on filing the copy of the death certificate and verification of this fact by the then learned Public Prosecutor, the report was accepted and the proceedings against the accused Nyamo Lotha (A-4) were abated by the then learned predecessor of this court vide order dated 26.05.1992.
48. That accused V.Bhaskaran (A-2), in terms of his application dated 10.05.1996, was granted pardon by learned predecessor of this court vide a detailed order dated 27.09.1996 in accordance with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Unfortunately, accused/approver V.Bhaskaran (A-2) also expired before his statement and his examination could be recorded in the court during trial.
49. That vide detailed order dated 23.02.2008, passed by the then learned Presiding Officer, the court was of the view that prima facie case is made out against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 419/420/467/468 & 471 IPC read with Section 5(1)(e) CBI Case No. 213/19 15 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 and substantive offences thereof against accused S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1).
50. That since the accused Nyamo Lotha (A-4) has died, the judicial proceedings against him were dropped vide order dated 26.05.1992 and accused V.Bhaskaran (A-2) has turned approver and was granted pardon vide order dated 27.09.1996,
- a charge for the offences punishable u/s 120-B IPC read with Section 419/420/467/468 & 471 IPC read with Section 5(1)(e) and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was framed against both the remaining accused persons Sh. S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1) and Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-3), and
- Substantive charges for the offences punishable u/s 419/420/467/468 & 471 IPC as well as for offences punishable under Section 5(1)(e) and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were framed against the accused namely Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1). To which they both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
51. That for the sake of convenience and since Sh. Nyamo Lotha had expired and Sh. V. Bhaskaran had turned approver ( also expired lateron ) and his status thereto changed to witness, the remaining accused persons were referred as accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia as (A-1) and accused Inderjit Singh as (A-2) instead of (A-3), during trial of the case and examination of the witnesses.
52. That after framing of the charge in respect of Admission and Denial qua the documents filed alongwith the CBI Case No. 213/19 16 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc charge-sheet by the prosecution, the statement of both the accused persons Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) and accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) were recorded separately without Oath on record.
53. Accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) in his statement recorded on 11.04.2008 stated that he admitted contents of the documents at portion A-1 to A-2 on Ex.P-1 (D-19) and portion B-1 to B-2 on Ex P-2 (D-57) and Ex P-3 (D-124). Rest of the documents were denied by him (A-1).
54. Accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) in his statement recorded on 11.04.2008 denied all the documents.
Suspension of trial qua main accused S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1)/Unfit to stand trial :-
55. During trial on 03.11.2023, one application u/s 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 r/w section 329 alongwith the other provisions of Chapter XXV Cr.P.C, 1973 was moved on behalf of accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) through his perokars with the prayer that he is not in a fit state of mind to stand the trial, and thereby, further trial of the present case be postponed till the health of accused improves or pass any other order which the courts deems fit.
56. Accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) was directed to be examined by a Medical Board at IHBAS to evaluate his mental status.
57. Accordingly, the report from Medical Board IHBAS consisting of five members was received after the assessment of CBI Case No. 213/19 17 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) by the Multidisciplinary team of Doctors from Department of Psychiatric & Neurology.
58. Dr. Mridula Singh, Assistant Professor of Neurology, & Dr. Mahadev Singh Sen, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Members of the Medical Board were examined by the Court as CW-1 and CW-2 respectively.
59. CW-1 and CW-2 during their examination reiterated the fact that - as per the opinion expressed by the Board of which they were members, after collective assessment of the patient, the patient S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) was found to be suffering from Moderate Dementia with Atypical Parkinson's Disease which is progressive in nature and not likely to improve and he is unfit to stand trial.
60. Further, the Court also personally interacted with the accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) during court proceedings and found him to be disoriented at times, he was having difficulty in communicating the answers to the questions put to him, which reflects that the mental condition of the accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) was not perfect.
61. And, accordingly under Section 329 Cr.P.C r/w Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the trial qua accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) was postponed till further orders, with further directions to his pairokars to get him examined after every two months in IHBAS.
62. Pairokar's of accused Sh. Surender Singh CBI Case No. 213/19 18 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Ahluwalia (A-1) were also directed to ensure that accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) be provided proper & regular medical treatment regarding his ailments, and they shall file the relevant medical treatment reports of the accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) after interval of every four weeks regularly.
63. Thereafter the case against the accused Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-2) was proceeded and remaining two witnesses, as per the amended list filed by the CBI, were examined qua him accordingly.
Statement of accused :-
64. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2) was recorded. In his statement he denied the case of prosecution and submitted that he has no knowledge about the acts of the main accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) and he did not execute any GPA in favour of Mr. Anil Wahi, Chartered Accountant at any point of time authorizing him to represent him before the different authorities on his behalf, nor did he ever authorize him to purchase any property in his name or on his behalf from the proceeds of his co-accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1).
65. He stated that he did not purchase any Flat from M/s Pragati Constructions, Devika Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi, and he came to know about the said fact after registration of the present case, and did not execute any Agreement thereto.
66. Accused Inderjeet Singh stated that he was never CBI Case No. 213/19 19 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc introduced to Mr. Wahi, CA (PW-65) by co-accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), he never met Mr. Anil Wahi at any occasion, and he was residing at Punjab, Zira, during the relevant period.
67. He submitted that he has no knowledge about the seizure of his passbooks and other documents by CBI ; that this is a false case against him ; he think this case was registered against him only on the ground that he is brother of Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1).
68. And, he stated that by that logic the other relatives of Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1) should also have been made an accused in whose names properties have been purchased.
69. He stated that his name and his details have been misused and if the present case was not registered he would not have come to know about the bank accounts, flats, the properties etc purchased in his name on the basis of false and fabricated documents. And he don't know to what extent they would have misused his name, had it not been the present case.
70. Accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2) did not prefer to lead evidence in his defence.
Final Arguments :-
71. A lengthy arguments have been addressed by learned PP for CBI as well as by the learned defence counsel ( Legal Aid Counsel ), the number of judgments, primarily governing law related to the conspiracy, have also been cited at bar in support of the claim and the same has been dealt with at the time of appreciation of evidence underneath in the CBI Case No. 213/19 20 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc judgement.
72. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have meticulously gone through the evidence recorded in the matter as well as the documents proved on record.
The case of accused Inderjit Singh A-2.
73. As per the case of the CBI, accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons namely Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), V. Bhaskaran (turned approver & expired) Bank Manager of Bank of Baroda, Kohima Branch, Nagaland and Sh. Nyamo Lotha (since expired) local resident of Nagaland with an object to adjust illegally acquired disproportionate assets of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) worth Rs.62,85,405/- at Kohima, Delhi and other parts of India during the check period 01.07.1969 to 28.03.1987.
ANALYSIS / APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
74. In terms of the allegations against accused Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2), he facilitated accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) in transferring a sum of Rs.5 lacs, generated from Kohima Branch, Nagaland, through cheque via his New Bank of India SB account maintained at Chawri Bazar, New Delhi, which was utilized by Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-
1) alongwith other five similar cheques to purchase immovable properties.
- That a Saving account bearing no.3626 at Kohima CBI Case No. 213/19 21 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Branch, Bank of Baroda was also opened in the name of accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2) in the year 1984 (30.11.1984) and 20 cheques leaves were issued, which were used by Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) in dubious ways for remittances of the amounts thereto for purchase of properties.
- Secondly, that A-2 introduced seven SB accounts in the name of fictitious and non-existing persons for opening their accounts at New Bank of India, NSCI, New Delhi, and through these accounts 19 demand drafts were deposited and encashed by Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) to purchase immovable properties in the name of his family members & relatives.
- Thirdly, that A-2 had also introduced a joint SB account bearing no.1603 in the name of 26 fictitious persons at New Bank of India, NSCI, New Delhi, through which 29 demand drafts in the name of fictitious persons were routed and encashed by Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) similarly to purchase the properties.
- Fourthly, that accused Injderjeet Singh (A-2) had assisted Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) in purchase of flat bearing no. 228 in his name, and three other flats bearing no. 232, 236 & 237 (purchased in the names of minors of Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) at Devika Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi, which were lateron transferred to his (A-2) name by the wife of accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1).
75. Prosecution has examined total 87 witnesses to prove its case, and the testimony of about 18 witnesses relevant CBI Case No. 213/19 22 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc to the case of accused Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-2) in terms of the allegations and the charges so framed are discussed herein to see whether accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) had played any active role, or was having any knowledge about the transactions undertaken in his name, or was he part of the conspiracy with Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) to purchase the properties and the bank transactions so undertaken thereto.
76. In support of its case against accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2) prosecution has relied upon the testimony of following witnesses :-.
(i) PW-5 Sh. Naresh Kumar Garg- Accountant with M/s Pragati Construction Devika Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi ;
ii) PW-7 Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta - Director M/s Devika Estate Management Pvt Ltd., Nehru Place, New Delhi.
iii) PW-22 Sh.N.N. Jain - Income Tax Officer - witness to Search Proceedings conducted at the government accommodation of accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1).
iv) PW-23 Sh H.N. Kumraha - Real Estate Agent / Broker who assisted in purchasing the properties/Flats.
v) PW-24 Sh. Gagan Bishan Gupta - Real Estate Agent / Farmer witness to the Sale deed of the properties purchased in the name of Smt. Guljdit Walia (wife) and minor children of Sh.
Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1).
vi) PW-26 Sh. Ashok Kumar - M/s Ram Lal Ashok Kumar Jewellers, Karol Bagh, Delhi ; witness qua sale of CBI Case No. 213/19 23 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc jewellery.
vii) PW-28 Sh. M.K. Mithran - Clerk, Bank of Baroda, Kohima Branch, Nagaland ;
viii) PW-35 Sh. Rattan Kumar Banerjee - Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Kohima Branch, Nagaland ;
ix) PW-42 Sh. Rajat Kanti Deb - Clerk, Bank of Baroda, Kohima Branch, Nagaland ;
x) PW-43 Sh. Anil Kumar Banka - Manager, Allahabad Bank, Gwalior MP ;
xi) PW49 Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma - Manager, New Bank of India (PNB) NSCI Branch, Delhi ;
xii) PW-52 Sh. Sunil Kumar - Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank Deemapur Branch, Nagaland ;
xiii) PW-62 Sh. Ramji Das Bandil - Owner of Land, Gwalior, MP.
xiv) PW-65 Sh. Anil Wahi - Chartered Accountant.
xv) PW-66 Sh. Subhash Chander Vij - Manager, New Bank of India, Chawari Bazar, Delhi ;
xvi) PW-74 Sh. T.Veera Raghvan - Senior Manager, Canara Bank., Parliament Street, Delhi ;
xvii) PW-86 Sh. D.P. Nagraj - Substituted witness / Rashtriya Shiksha Samiti Trust, Bangalore.
xviii) PW-87 Sh. Naveen Chander Jha - IO of the case.
77. Only the charge under Conspiracy read with CBI Case No. 213/19 24 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc substantive offences was framed against accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2).
78. So, before I proceed further, it would be useful to discuss the relevant provisions of the Conspiracy and the governing Principles thereto. Same are reproduced as under :-
(i) Section 120-A IPC
79. Section 120-A IPC defines Criminal Conspiracy which reads as under: - 120-A. Definition of Criminal Conspiracy- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done-
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy :
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation:- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
(ii) Section 120B IPC CBI Case No. 213/19 25 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Punishment for criminal conspiracy:
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years or upward, shall where no express provision is made in this code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same Maner, as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months or fine or both.
80. It is clear from the above noted definition of "criminal conspiracy" that the three essential elements of offence of conspiracy are :-
a) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished ;
b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object;
c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby they become definitely committed to co-operate for the accomplishment of the CBI Case No. 213/19 26 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means.
81. Thus, the gist of offence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to break the law. The agreement may be express or implied, or in-part express and in-part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by accomplishment of its object or by abandonment or frustration.
82. It must be noted that the Conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and as such direct evidence is seldom available. Similarly, agreement of conspiracy can also be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both.
83. It is not necessary that the prosecution has to bring on record express proof of the agreement so entered, the acts and the conduct of the parties appreciated in correct prospective go a long way to infer and establish the existence of conspiracy.
84. Since the Proof of a criminal conspiracy by direct evidence is not easy to get and probably for this reason Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted. It reads as under:-
"10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design :-
Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, CBI Case No. 213/19 27 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc 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 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."
85. The law expounded by the Superior Courts on the subject and its governing principle may now be referred to have better understanding of the facts of the case and the evidence so produced on record.
86. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Narayan Poply Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003, SC 2748 observed that :- "the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120-B read with the proviso to sub section (2) of Section 120-A, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction CBI Case No. 213/19 28 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc under Section 120-B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. The provisions, in such a situation, do not require that each and every person who is a party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfillment of the object of conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established, the act would fall within the trapping of the provisions contained in Section 120-B.".
(Emphasis supplied)
87. In another landmark judgment on the aspect of conspiracy, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has succinctly summarized the applicable principles on the said subject, after re-visiting the entire case law, in a case titled as Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Versus State, 2009 (163) DLT 658, observed as under: -
.......134. After survey of the case law on the point, following legal principles pertaining to the law of conspiracy can be conveniently culled-out:-
A. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement. There has thus to be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy.
CBI Case No. 213/19 29 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc (See the decision of Supreme Court reported as State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253).
B. 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- participators in the main object of the conspiracy.
It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left. 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 misfire or overshooting 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. But then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of Many others who may have diverse role to play. It CBI Case No. 213/19 30 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role. (See the decisions of Supreme Court reported as Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2433 and State v. Nalini, (Supra)] C. It is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement, which is the graham of the crime of conspiracy.
D. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts, and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy. Since a conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, it would quite often happen that there is no evidence of any express agreement between the conspirators to do or cause to be done the illegal act. For an offence under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. The offence can be only proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to prove actual meeting of conspirators. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design is sufficient. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct of accused CBI Case No. 213/19 31 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc persons constitute relevant material to prove charge of conspiracy. (See the decisions of Supreme Court reported as Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 439; Mohammad UsMan Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1062; and Kehar Singh v. State AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1883) E. A conspiracy is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. So long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is complete as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing of the moment. It does not end with the making of the agreement. It will continue so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry into effect the design. Its continuance is a threat to the Society against which it was aimed at and would be dealt with as soon as that jurisdiction can properly claim the power to do so. The conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same effect as in India, when part of the acts, pursuant to the agreement are agreed to be finalized or done, attempted or even frustrated and vice versa.
F. Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the acts done by one are admissible against the co conspirators. In short, the section can be analyzed as follows:-
(1)There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against CBI Case No. 213/19 32 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc the other; (3) anything said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) it would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 81 of 183 entered the conspiracy or after he left it; and (5) it can only be used against a co-conspirator and not in his favour. (See the decision of Supreme Court reported as Sardar Sardul Singh v.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1957 Supreme Court
747.) Here it is pertinent to refer to a classic judgment of three Hon'ble Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Swarup v.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 682 (known as 2nd Caveeshar case) in which his lordship Honble Sh. Justice Subba Rao, had already spoken for the bench analysed the ingredients of Section 10 as culled out above in the judgment of our Honble High Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra), which amounts to repetition, if quoted again.
It would be profitable to draw reliance from yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the same strength (Three Hon'ble Judges) in Nalini case (supra) relied upon by the defence, which reads It is not that immediately the object of conspiracy is achieved, Section 10 becomes inapplicable. For example principle like that of res gestae as contained in Section 6 of the Evidence Act will continue to apply. (Para 582). Therefore, the res gestae i.e. the acts, circumstances and the statements that are incidental to the principal fact of a litigated matter and are admissible in evidence in view of their relevant association with that fact, cannot be ignored since the same become relevant in view of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
88. It may further be noted that mere agreement to CBI Case No. 213/19 33 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc commit a crime is a punishable offence.
89. So, essentially, in case of criminal conspiracy the court has to infer certain facts and circumstances to arrive at its conclusion of existence of conspiracy and the involvement of the persons so conspiring from their acts and attending circumstances.
90. Thus, keeping these fundamental and governing principles of law relating to conspiracy in mind, I proceed to examine the case of accused qua his involvement, if any, in the conspiracy in terms of the charges so framed against him.
91. As per the case of the prosecution, the seeds of the crime were sown at Kohima, Nagaland (Bank of Baroda, Nagaland branch ) when accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) posted there, the funds were routed through said branch to different Bank branches i.e. New Bank of India, Chawari Bazar and New Bank of India, NSCI, Extension branch at Delhi, and thereafter were utilized by accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) to purchase movable/immovable properties with the assistance of Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2) and other co-accused persons (since deceased).
92. First - the testimony of witnesses from Bank of Baroda, Kohima Branch,Nagaland Region is discussed here :-
93. PW-28 Sh. M.K. Mithran was Bank Official posted from 1978 to 1989 at Bank of Baroda, Kohima Branch, Nagaland and Sh. V.Bhaskaran (A-2 turned approver/since deceased) was the then Branch Manager.
CBI Case No. 213/19 34 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
94. He stated that on the instructions of Sh. V. Bhaskaran he had filled and signed number of Demand Draft issue Vouchers, and against the same, number of demand drafts were issued from his branch in the name of different persons.
95. Relevant to this accused (A-2) - he stated that a DD issue voucher dated 06.01.1987 (D-314) Ex PW28/4 for a sum of Rs. 74,000/- in the name of Sh.P.Angami was filled and signed by him on the front as well as on the back at X & Y at the place of the applicant and the demand draft bearing no. 704300 was prepared accordingly.
96. That number of other demand drafts were also similarly issued from his branch in the name(s) of K.Angami for a sum of Rs. 85,000/- ( DD No. 704299 Ex PW28/19 ) ; Imti AO for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- (DD no. 376345 Ex. PW28/20 ) ; P. Kumar for a sum of Rs. 78,000/- DD No. 376380 Ex PW28/21) ; A. Angami for a sum of Rs. 98,000/- DD no. 376381 Ex PW28/23 ) ; T. Angami for a sum of Rs.94,000/- DD no. 376382 Ex. PW28/24), amongst others namely Mrs. Atula, Mr. Kredivatzu,Mr. Wati Jamir,Mr. Rajiv Chopra, Sh.R.K. Trivedi, Sh. Bimal Kumar, Smt. Ranjeet Kaur. Sh. R.N. Bhatia, Sh. Lim AO, T. Kire, Silash, K.V. Zeliang, Sh. Bhajan Kumar, Sh. Joy Dev Sharma, Sh. Ram Singh Yadav, Sh. Bablu Ram, Sh. Shyam Lal.
97. Many of these persons are fictitious or their identity is un-known, and these demand drafts were used and encashed by accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) through fictitious CBI Case No. 213/19 35 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc accounts opened at Delhi Chawri Bazar and NSCI Branch of New Bank of India, in terms of deposition of PW-49 (Bank witness) and PW-65 ( Chartered Accountant) discussed lateron.
98. PW-28 further stated that Mr. Rattan Banerjee, the then Branch Manager, had handed over Statement of Account bearing no. SB 3626 in the name of Sh. Inderjit Singh alongwith other required records to the CBI officials.
99. He also stated that FD Account-Opening-Cards and the FD applicant/deposit Forms in the name of all the aforesaid persons was filled-up by Sh. V.Bhaskaran himself, which were having his initials at point X and signatures at point Y.
100. Witness stated that the Specimen Signatures Card of the Account holders have not been authenticated by any person, except for account no. 4817 in the name of Sh. K.Angami ( part of D-84 ) Ex PW28/94 and account no. 4812 in the name of Mrs. Narula (part of D-84) Ex PW28/100, nor the said accounts were introduced by any person in terms of the bank records.
101. He stated that the deposit slips, transfer vouchers, withdrawal slips and other related transaction in the aforesaid accounts were filled by him in his own handwriting. The amount which was deposited in the said account was handed over to him by Sh. V. Bhaskaran (accused turned approver since deceased) .
102. That the amounts of the FDRs, wherever made through transfer vouchers, were directly credited into the aforesaid accounts.
CBI Case No. 213/19 36 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
103. PW-28 admitted that he did not know any of the applicants of the aforesaid vouchers, nor any person so named in the aforesaid applicants ever came to the concerned branch in his presence, nor did he meet any of them at any point of time, and that all these demand drafts were kept by Mr.Bhaskaran, the Branch Manager in his possession thereafter.
104. The testimony of PW-28 clearly reflects that the aforesaid transactions were carried out either by him on the instructions of Mr. V. Bhaskaran ( approver/since deceased ) or by Mr. Bhaskaran himself including Opening of the false accounts in the name of fictitious persons, wherein no role of accused Inderjit Singh has been attributed or reflected or proved thereto.
105. Further, PW-35 Sh Rattan Kumar Banarjee, the then Sr. Manager, Bankk of Baroda, Kohimia Branch, Nagaland had handed over some Account opening forms, deposit Slips, Cheque leafs, Draft application forms amongst other documents to the CBI during investigation of the case. The Production-cum- Handing over memo proved by the witness and exhibited as Ex PW35/A.
106. He also proved number of draft applications or bank drafts which were consequently prepared in the name of various persons as mentioned in the application thereto.
107. PW-35 also furnished information about the frozen accounts in his branch which included the saving account(s) of
i) SB A/C no. 4585 of Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1) ;
CBI Case No. 213/19 37 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
ii) SB A/C no. 3626 of Mr. Inderjeet Singh (A-3) ;
iii) SB A/C no. 4586 of Mr. M.P.S. Ahluwalia ;
iv) SB A/C no. 4078 of Mr. N.Lotha ( A-4, since deceased );
108. PW-35 also proved on record following documents related to this accused amongst various others qua other accused :-
i) Statement of account of SB A/c 3626 favouring Inderjeet Singh (A-2) handed over by him to the CBI under his signatures at point Y and exhibited as Ex PW35/19 (part of D-
32).
ii) An account opening form of SB A/C no. 3626 in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh which was handed over by him to CBI officer under his signatures at point 'X' Ex PW35/41 ( part of D-32).
iii) Cash deposit Slip dated 30.11.1984 for an amount of Rs. 500/- in A/c no. 3626 favouring Sh. Inderjeet Singh Ex PW35/42 ( Part of D-32)
(iv) A cheque dated 01.08.1985 for a sum of Rs.
5,00,000/- issued by account holder of SB A/c no. 4078 of N.Lotha in favour of Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2).
Witness identified the handwriting and signatures of Sh. V.Bhaskaran, the then Branch Manager and his predecessor at Kohima Branch, on the said cheque Ex. PW35/22 ( part of D-
247).
CBI Case No. 213/19 38 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
109. This witness was not cross-examined by accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) despite being given opportunity. On behalf of accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia witness was cross- examined only to put one question about his knowledge of Banker's Book Evidence Act to which he answered in affirmative.
110. But the testimony of PW-35, Sh Rattan Kumar Banarjee, does not prove anything to state that accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) was instrumental in opening the aforesaid bank accounts which is reflected in his name, or that he had deposited the cash amount in the said accounts, or whether he got issued cheque in question of Rs. 5 lacs favouring him, or got it encashed subsequently.
111. PW-35 also does not state anything about being witness-nth Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2) opening the bank account in question or signing or executing the documents concerning bank transactions etc at any point of time. His testimony is confined only to the records of the banks and he had no personal knowledge about it.
112. Surprisingly, no identification of the handwriting and signatures of said Sh. Inderjit Singh were carried out by the IO, nor were they sent for analysis and comparison with the specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-2).
113. So, the testimony of this witness also does not take the case of prosecution to any forward direction.
CBI Case No. 213/19 39 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
114. Nextly- PW-42 Sh. Rajat Kanti Dev, the then clerk in Kohima Branch Bank of Baroda, from 1983-1989 stated that the account Opening-cum-Specimen Signatures Card, in respect of account no. 3626 at Bank of Baroda, Kohima Branch, is standing in the name of Sh. Inderjit Singh, C/o Below Minister Hill, Kohima ( Ex PW35/41 part of D-42).
115. He stated that this account was opened on 30.11.1984 with initial deposit of Rs. 500/- in cash and the deposit voucher already exhibited as Ex PW35/42 bears his initial at point A, he being the depositing cashier. He identified his own handwriting at point A on the said vouchers.
116. Significantly, PW-42 stated that this amount was given to him by branch Manager Sh. V.Bhaskaran ( approver/since deceased), and he had never met Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-2), nor had Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-2) visited their branch to deposit the said amount in his presence. He stated that he did not know Sh. Inderjit Singh, the said customer of their branch with account bearing no. SB 3626.
117. PW-42 further stated that number of demand draft issue Vouchers exhibited as Ex PW28/166 to Ex PW28/173, Ex PW28/5 Ex PW28/8 all dated 07.01.1987 ( D-315 to D-326) ; Ex. PW28/1, Ex PW32/2 to Ex PW32/5, Ex PW28/2, Ex PW35/6 to Ex PW35/11, Ex PW28/3, Ex PW35/12 to Ex PW35/14 & Ex PW28/4 all dated 06.01.1987 (D-298 to D-314) bears his initial, and that he had also written the amounts in figures in all the said vouchers at point B. CBI Case No. 213/19 40 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
118. Here also, PW-42 stated that he did not know any of the applicants of these vouchers and they never came to the bank concerned for depositing the amount or the charges for issuance of the demand drafts. The amounts were deducted from different SB accounts maintained in the branch itself.
119. Importantly PW-42 admitted that the vouchers in the name of Smt. Bimla Devi exhibited as Ex PW35/3, Sh. Ram Bilas Ex PW35/7 and in the name of Sh. R.N. Bhatia exhibited as Ex PW35/9 were filled by him in his writing ; he had also signed at the place of applicant and also on the reverse side of the voucher of the applicant, at the instance of his senior, the then branch Manager Sh.V.Bhaskaran (turned approver/since expired).
120. He stated that after withdrawing the amounts from the concerned SB account on 06.01.1987 and 07.01.1987, when the 17+12 demand drafts were issued, the remaining balance amount was handed over by him to branch Manager Sh. V. Bhaskaran.
121. He also stated that the ten demand drafts exhibited as Ex. PW42/C-1 to 42/C-10 ( part of D-328) in reference to T.Anjami, A.Anjami, K.Rakesh, K.Kumar, Rajinder Singh etc., were issued from Bank of Baroda, Kohima Branch, and he identified his initials at point A and writing at point B on the corresponding demand DD issue vouchers exhibited as Ex PW42/D-1 to Ex PW42/D-10.
122. But at the same time, PW-42 admitted that he did CBI Case No. 213/19 41 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc not know any of the aforesaid applicants nor had ever met them, and the money to prepare these demand drafts were given to him by branch Manager Sh.V. Bhaskaran.
123. Similarly with respect to other demand drafts, withdrawal slips and other documents related to the aforesaid accounts, he stated that he was not knowing any of the persons and transactions were carried out at the instructions of Sh. V. Bhaskaran, the then Branch Manager of the Bank.
- It can also be noted that the address of the account holders so mentioned in the records was mainly either the official accommodation allotted to accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) i.e.D-II/49 Pandara Road, New Delhi or the office address of Sh. Anil Wahi, Chartered Accountant (PW-65) i.e. C/o Sh. Wahi & Co., Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
124. So, appreciating the ocular testimonies of the bank officials of Kohima Branch, Bank of Baroda, i.e. (PW-28, PW-35 and PW-42) and the documentary evidence so produced, it is evident that all the above discussed banking transactions, undertaken at their Kohima Branch were sham transactions, wherein forgery was committed at the instructions of Mr V.Bhaskaran (turned approver/since deceased) in pursuance to a conspiracy seemingly to give wings to the illegal design of Mr. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), and no role at all has been attributed to Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2) thereto in the entire process.
125. Next - the money from the Kohima branch was CBI Case No. 213/19 42 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc routed through New Bank of India, Chawri Bazar Branch and NSCI Branch of Delhi to purchase the properties in question, and the witnesses qua the said transactions are discussed underneath :-
126. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimony of PW-49 Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma, the then Manager with New Bank of India (now Punjab National Bank), NSCI, Extension Counter, Mathura Road, Delhi, in support of their case against accused A-2, with respect to the signatures affixed on the documents in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh.
127. This witness had also handed over number of documents in the form of Account-Opening-Forms, Specimen Signatures Card, Vouchers and other related bank documents concerning to the accused persons including that in the name of accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2) to the CBI during investigation of the case.
128. The deposition of this witness is running into about 366 pages. The relevant part of his testimony having reference to accused Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2) is discussed herein, in terms of the charges pressed against him. The documents having reference to or concerning accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2) are also discussed and appreciated accordingly.
129. PW-49 deposed that Account-Opening-Form of account no.1345 dated 19.07.1985 in the name of Sh. Inder Walia, r/o village Pahariya, District Firozpur was opened and verified by Sh. R.K.Mittal. The Account-Opening-Form was CBI Case No. 213/19 43 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc exhibited as Ex PW49/A-19 (part of D-15 page 5).
- That the account was introduced by Sh. Mohinder Singh, and witness stated that he identified the signatures of Sh. Mohinder Singh by comparing the signatures with his Account- Opening-Form of his another account no.1283 maintained in the same branch.
130. PW-49 after going through the Account-Opening- Form deposed that the Current Account bearing no. 187 dated 14.04.1986 in the name of M/s Cosmos Enterprises with Sole Proprietor Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2) C/o Sh. Wahi & Co., Karol Bagh, New Delhi was opened and verified by him in his capacity as the Branch Manager, which was exhibited as Ex PW49/A-112 ( part of D-15 page no. 39/2).
131. He stated that this account was also introduced by Sh. Mohinder Singh, holder of account no.1283, and he identified the signatures of accused Sh.Inderjeet Singh as account holder at point 'B' and Sh. Mohinder Singh at point 'C'.
132. He also identified the signatures of Sh Inderjeet Singh (A-2) at point A & A-1 and his own signatures at point B on the Specimen Signatures Card of this account, which was exhibited as Ex PW49/A-113 ( part of D-15 page no. 39/1).
133. He further identified the signatures of Sh. Mohinder Singh at point 'A' and Sh. Inderjeet Singh at point 'B' on another account opening form with respect to the same account which was exhibited as Ex PW49/A-114 (part of D-15 page no. 39/4)., and also on Specimen Signature Card, pertaining to this account CBI Case No. 213/19 44 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc at points A, A-1 & A-2 of accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2).
134. He stated that, as per Bank Ledger, the Certified copy of Statement of Account of Current Account no.187 for the period 14.04.1986 to 29.06.1987 is duly endorsed by him with the Certification qua the correctness of the particulars of the account holder and the Statement of Account, having his signatures at point A and initials in red ink for the Debit-Credit and Balance entries to authenticate it.
135. PW-49 further stated that the seven under mentioned SB Accounts no(s) .:-
- No.1563 is in the name of Sh. K.Rakesh c/o Sh.Inderjeet Singh, opened on 19.09.1986 with credit Voucher of Rs. 15/-;
- No.1564 is in the name of Sh. P.Kumar c/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh, opened on 19.09.1986 with credit Voucher of Rs. 15/-;
- No.1565 is in the name of Sh.T.Angami c/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh, opened on 29.09.1986 with credit Voucher of Rs. 15/-;
- No.1566 is in the name of Sh.A.Angami c/o Sh.Inderjeet Singh, opened on 29.09.1986 with credit Voucher of Rs. 15/-
- No.1567 is in the name of Sh.Vinay c/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh, r/o D-II/49 Pandara Road, opened on 29.09.1986 with credit Voucher of Rs.15/-
CBI Case No. 213/19 45 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
- No.1568 is in the name of Mr. Imti Ao c/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh, opened on 29.09.1986 with Credit voucher of Rs. 10/-
- No.1569 is in the name of Mr. Rajinder Singh c/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh, r/o D-II/49 Pandara Road, New Delhi opened on 29.09.1986 with Credit Voucher of Rs. 15/- , were authorized by him for opening on the basis of a "introduction letter" issued by Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2), who was an account holder in New Bank of India NSCI., and the Account-Opening-cum-Specimen Signatures Cards bears the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh at point B. He identified his own signatures at point A on the Account-Opening-Forms accordingly.
136. He further stated that said "introduction letter", addressed to Manager New Bank of India NSCI, New Delhi written by Sh. Inderjeet Singh c/o D-II-49, Pandara Road, New Delhi, was received on 29.09.1986 vide which he introduced aforementioned seven accounts exhibited as ExPW49/U-K-36 (D-329, page 7).
137. He stated that this letter was dealt by him and further action followed up accordingly, and it bears his signatures at point A and that of Sh. Inderjeet Singh at point B, which he had compared with the signatures of Sh. Inderjeet Singh from his account no. 983, available in his Account-Opening-Form and Specimen Signatures Card, as per bank records.
CBI Case No. 213/19 46 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
138. PW-49 stated that vide this letter Inderjeet Singh had informed that Mr. Rajinder Singh will bring bank drafts amounting to Rs.15,40,000/-.
139. These are the same accounts of fictitious persons which the prosecution is claiming to have been introduced by accused Inderjeet Singh in connivance with main accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) to assist him in acquiring illegal wealth.
140. Importantly, in his own examination in chief, in reference to above said 'Introductory letter' Ex PW49/U-K-36, PW-49 stated that one Sh. Rajinder Singh and Sh. D.R. Anand (Senior Manager New Bank of India, Chawri Bazar Branch) came to the bank with the said "introductory letter" alongwith 19 demand drafts, and accordingly seven aforesaid accounts were opened in terms thereof, and the demand drafts in question were thereby deposited in the said accounts through them.
141. He conceded that this set of Account-Opening Forms and Specimen Signature Card were not verified by any bank official. Witness stated that the said account holders never personally came to deposit or withdraw money in their accounts.
142. He stated that these accounts were opened on the oral recommendation of Sh. D.R.Anand, the then Senior Manager, New Bank of India, at Head Office, who used to submit the signed Account-Opening-Forms & Specimen Signatures Cards alongwith cash.
143. PW-49 further stated that a joint account SB account CBI Case No. 213/19 47 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc no. 1603 was opened in the name of Sh. Ram Singh Yadav and 25 others under his authorization.
144. PW-49 stated that this account was also opened on a "introductory letter" of accused Inderjit Singh, the account holder of New Bank of India, Extension Counter, NSCI. He identified his signatures at point A and that of Sh. Inderjit Singh at point B on the said letter which was exhibited as Ex PW49/U-K-59 ( Part of D-327 page no. 3).
145. He stated that in terms of the said letter accused Inderjit Singh had proposed that the account shall be operated by account holder Sh. Ram Singh Yadav only, whose signatures he had identified at point C on the said letter.
146. But at the same time, PW-49 stated that above said Account-Opening-Form, Specimen Signatures Card and the "Introduction Letter" of accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2) alongwith 29 demand drafts in the name of said persons were also brought by Sh. D.R. Anand, the then Senior Manager, who was then accompanied by one Sikh Gentleman.
147. PW-49 deposed that all the 29 demand drafts were deposited in the said SB account no.1603 on 09.08.1987 itself i.e. the day of its opening, through Vouchers which were passed by him at the instructions of Sh.D.R.Anand, the then Senior Manager.
148. The witness also proved on record Certified Copy of Statement of SB account no.1603 Ex PW49/U-K-68 ( part of D-220) certified by Sh. S.K. Singh, the then Incharge of CBI Case No. 213/19 48 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Extension Counter of the Bank at NSCI by identifying his signatures as the witness had seen him writing and signing during the official course of banking business.
149. PW-49 stated that other 25 Joint Account Holders had also given authority to Sh. Ram Singh Yadav to operate this account independently. The authority letter was exhibited as Ex PW49/U-K-69 (part of D-327 page no. 4 to 10).
150. Here again, PW-49 stated that the authorization letters were brought to the bank by Sh. D.R.Anand who was accompanied by Sh. Anil Wahi, Chartered Accountant (PW-65) and a Sikh gentleman.
151. He has nowhere testified that accused Inderjeet Singh was the person who had visited the bank for operation of the said accounts, or had accompanied Mr. Anil Wahi and Sh. D.R. Anand, or had personally visited the bank with the said "introductory letters", or to open the bank accounts reflected in his name.
152. In the cross-examination PW-49 admitted that he does not remember whether he had met accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) or not. He stated that he has opined about the signatures of accused Inderjit Singh on the 'Introductory letters' by matching and glancing through his signatures appended on the Specimen Signature Card and Account-Opening-Form of account bearing no. 983 ; and his address of Pandara Road was informed to him by Sh. D.R. Anand and he did not verify it himself.
153. And, the prosecution has also failed to bring CBI Case No. 213/19 49 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc anything on record to show that the said account bearing no. 983 in the name of Sh. Inderjit Singh, from where the signatures were apparently matched by PW-49, was a genuine account opened by accused Sh. Inderjit Singh himself.
154. There is absolutely no evidence on the said aspect. The said account also appears to be a false account wherein his (A-2) details have been used to further the object by creating more false and fictitious accounts.
- This fact can also be appreciated in back-drop of the fact that the address of Pandra Road is the Official Residence of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), which was allotted to him by the Government, and reflected as the corresponding address in the bank records.
- And, if it was a genuine account, no evidence of whatsoever nature has been produced on record in that regard. Two wrongs would not make it a right one.
155. PW-49 also conceded that he had not physically verified the handwriting and the signatures of accused Inderjit Singh appearing on the Letter Ex PW49/U-K-36 & Ex PW49/U- K-59.
156. He further admitted that identity and address of Sh. Ram Singh Yadav, in whose favour the Joint bank Account with 25 others bearing No.1603 was opened at New Bank of India, NSCI, New Delhi, was not mentioned in the request letter, nor any documents regarding the same were attached along-with it.
CBI Case No. 213/19 50 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
157. Further, in terms of his examination-in-chief, the amount from the aforesaid Joint account no.1603 was withdrawn through number of self cheques issued by said Sh. Ram Singh Yadav with signatures only, rest were blank and filled by the concerned Special Assistant of the bank.
158. These cheques were also produced by Sh.D.R. Anand (Senior Manager ) and some times by both Sh.D.R.Anand & Sh. Anil Wahi Chartered Accountant (PW-65), and the withdrawal amount was thereafter collected by Sh. D.R.Anand and Sh.Anil Wahi, which was then taken by Sh.D.R. Anand to the house of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), at Pandara Road in a car, wherein PW-49 Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma also used to accompany him.
159. This account was also closed on 12.09.1987, when the last remaining amount of Rs.1670/- was withdrawn and cash was again collected by Sh. D.R. Anand.
160. He further stated that one Mr. Anil Wahi (PW-65) also used to come to give instructions with respect to the transactions in the afore mentioned accounts, either for withdrawal or deposit of the amounts, by introducing himself as the Chartered Accountant/Attorney of the said account holders.
161. PW-49 stated that accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) had also personally come once or twice alongwith Sh. D.R.Anand in respect to these accounts, and had asked him to allow Mr. D.R. Anand to do the transactions thereto in the said accounts, and told him not to worry about anything.
CBI Case No. 213/19 51 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
162. He again specifically stated that Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) had stated so because the account holders never themselves came to operate those accounts and Mr. D.R.Anand used to do all the transactions thereto ; the account holders were family members of (A-1) and this fact was also told to him by Mr. D.R. Anand.
163. On a court question also, PW-49 answered specifically that "all my predecessor and my then colleagues in the bank used to tell me that those accounts were relating to one senior IAS Officer Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia and since he was posted away, all transactions with respect to those accounts were being carried out by Sh. D.R.Anand. "
164. It may also be noted that the cash deposit Vouchers through which money was deposited in the said accounts were unsigned, and not having the signatures of account holders or any other persons for that matter.
165. PW-49 further stated that ten Pay orders were prepared from these different accounts in favour of M/s Pragati Construction Company.
166. He stated that the consolidated debit vouchers bearing signature of Sh.R.K. Mittal at point A, exhibited as Ex PW49/C-1 (part of D-15), the corresponding Credit Entry of Rs.66,367/- through different Credit Vouchers dated 16.10.1985 by way of transfer from the branch office of the same bank at Chawri Bazar, Delhi, were produced by Sh. D.R. Anand amongst various other cash deposit at Chawri Bazar Branch exhibited as CBI Case No. 213/19 52 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Ex PW49/C-8, Ex PW49/C-9 & Ex PW49/C-10 (all part of D- 15, page 46) and transferred to Extension Counter NSCI, New Delhi, all done at behest of Sh. D.R. Anand, the then Sr. Bank Manager.
167. He stated that as per Transfer Credit Voucher already exhibited as Ex PW49/C-8, a sum of Rs.72,400/- in SB account No.983 in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2) was deposited in the account on the strength of same Credit Advice already exhibited as Ex PW49/C-9.
168. In terms of his testimony, Sh. D.R. Anand had also brought these blank cheques, having only the signatures of account holder(s), in which details were filled by the bank staff and pay orders in favour of M/s Pragati Construction Co. were issued accordingly.
169. Worth to mention here that these are the same pay orders vide which the payments to purchase the Flats at Devika Towers, were made, including the consideration amount of Flat bearing no. 228, Devika Towers in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh ( in terms of receipts exhibited as Ex PW5/20 part of D- 107, which further reflects that the banking transactions relating to false and fictitious accounts were undertaken by the bank officials themselves including Sh. D.R.Anand and Sh. Anil Wahi (CA) presumably at the behest of Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), in terms of the testimony of PW-49.
170. Further, PW-49 stated that he had handed over Debit and Credit Vouchers pertaining to various accounts maintained at CBI Case No. 213/19 53 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc New Bank of India, Extension Counter NSCI through a receipt memo dated 06.04.1985, same is Ex. PW49/G-11 (D-18 page no. 128).
171. After seeing the certified copy of the Statement of Account no.1345 in the name of Sh. Inder Walia maintained at his bank for the period 19.07.1985 to 10.06.1987, he deposed to the correctness of the particulars of the account holder and the Statement of Account which was having his signatures at point A and the entries bearing his initial in the Column of Debit/Credit & Balance as per Bank Ledger, exhibited as Ex. PW49/H (part D-118 ).
172. PW-49 stated that as per the records the cash in the said account were deposited thorough Cash Deposit Vouchers :-
- dated 19.07.1985 for a sum of Rs. 2,155/-,
-dated 22.07.1985 for a sum of Rs. 2103/-
-dated 24.07.1985 for a sum of Rs. 2493/-,
-dated 26.07.1985 for a sum of Rs. 8249/-, wherein he identified the signatures of Special Assistant Sh. Brij Mohan on the front side of the Vouchers. And the corresponding entries made thereto in the statement of accounts were also identified by PW-49.
173. PW-49 further deposed that a request letter dated 30.07.1985 Ex PW49/U-K-83 ( part of D-15 page no. 67) of Sh. Inderjit Singh, account holder of SB account no.1345, was received for issuing a pay order of Rs.14,900/- in favour of M/s CBI Case No. 213/19 54 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Pragati Construction Company, and a pay order was accordingly prepared in favour of the company through a consolidated debit vouchers from ten different accounts.
174. He stated that a Debit entry is reflected whereby there was a consolidated Debit transfer of Rs.14,900/- through Voucher dated 31.07.1985 already exhibited as Ex PW49/C-7, and ten pay orders in favour of M/s Pragati Constructions Company were issued from different accounts, and there is a corresponding entry at point A-5 and description of pay orders at point A-6 in the statement of account, exhibited as Ex PW49/H (Part of D-118).
175. PW-49 after seeing the court records further stated that the certified copy of the Statement of Account no.1431 in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Village Zira, Ferozpur District, Punjab, maintained at his New Bank of India NSCI branch, for the period 09.01.1986 to 18.09.1987 bears his endorsement of certification with respect to the correctness of the particulars of the account holder and the Statement of account, which was having his signatures at point A and the entries bearing his initial in the Column of Debit/Credit & Balance as per Bank Ledger, which was exhibited as Ex. PW49/L (part D-118 ).
176. He stated that it contains Credit entries of Rs.895.75/- (at point A-1) by way of Credit Advice issued by New Bank of India, Salwan Public School and the corresponding voucher bears his signatures at point A which were exhibited as Ex PW49/L-1 ( Part of D-17, page 3).
CBI Case No. 213/19 55 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
177. That there is another Credit entry of Rs.7920.95/- (at point A-2) by way of Clearing issued by New Bank of India, Chawri Bazar, Delhi and a corresponding voucher thereto on the Court record exhibited as Ex PW49/L-2 (Part of D-17,page 3).
178. PW-49 further stated that a request letter of accused Inderjeet, account holder of SB account no.983, New Bank of India NSCI Extension Counter, New Delhi alongwith debit Voucher dated 16.10.1985 of Rs.72,400/- for issuance of a pay order in favour of M/s Pragati Constructions was received by him, and a Credit Vouchers was prepared for issuance of Draft accordingly.
179. He identified his signatures on the Credit Vouchers so prepared by him which was exhibited as Ex PW49/U-K-38 ( part of D-38, page 70).
180. He stated that this SB account no. 983 was closed by a request letter of account holder which was received alongwith a cheque dated 16.06.1986 vide which 77,832.70 rupees were withdrawn after their cheque was cleared by him and the account was closed accordingly. Cheque alongwith the Request letter Ex PW49/U-K-39 (part of D-38, page no. 21-22).
181. PW-49 further deposed that 12 cheques bearing no. 610875, 610876, 610860, 610864, 354153, 610874,610861, 051628, 051578,610869,610862 & 051926 all dated 10.01.1987 were cleared by him from the accounts of different account holders.
182. Relevant to note is the fact that this entire cash CBI Case No. 213/19 56 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc payment against all these twelve cheques was also collected by Sh.D.R.Anand (Sr. Bank Manager) in the bank, and thereafter Sh. D.R. Anand took the entire collected cash to the house of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), at D-II/49, Pandara Road, New Delhi, wherein PW-49 had also accompanied him (Sh. D.R. Anand) when he went to the house of accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) to deliver the cash.
183. It may further be noted that PW-49 admitted that he had opened all the above mentioned accounts including that standing in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2), and allowed the transactions thereto only on the instructions of Sh. D.R.Anand (the then Senior Manager) without the presence of the accounts holders.
184. Implying thereby, accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) had never visited the bank concerned neither for opening the accounts which are reflected in his name nor for carrying out any transactions in the said accounts.
185. He admitted that the presence of the account holder was necessary for opening the accounts, and if the person himself is not present, his identity documents were required to be presented by his representative. He supplemented it by stating that identity documents were not required if the "introducer" was a well known customer.
186. But PW-49 himself admitted that he had not personally verified the documents collected by him on behalf of the account holders. He admitted that none of the account holders CBI Case No. 213/19 57 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc came to the bank and / or signed in his presence on the Account Opening-Forms or the Specimen Signatures Card, nor was there anything on record to show that "introducer" (Sh. Inderjit Singh A-2) had anywhere stated that the signatures were affixed by the account holders in his presence.
187. Interestingly, in his statement PW-49 further stated that Mr. Anil Wahi, Chartered Accountant (PW-65) was looking after the accounts of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) and his relatives/family members and often used to come to New Bank of India, Extension Counter, NSCI, some times alone and some times with Sh. D.R. Anand to carrying out various transactions in the above mentioned accounts of the relative/family members of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1).
- This fact is also substantiated by the testimony of Mr. Anil Wahi, examined as PW-65, and discussed in later part of this judgment.
188. He stated that many a times Mr. Anil Wahi (PW-65) used to bring huge cash for deposit in small amounts in different above mentioned accounts including that standing in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2) or Inderjeet Walia stating that he has instructions to do so as the "Attorney Holder".
189. Significantly, PW-49 at the end submitted that all the transactions qua the afore mentioned accounts, be it in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh or Inder Walia or any other relative or person, were permitted by him, and some times carried out CBI Case No. 213/19 58 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc himself, at the behest of Sh. D.R.Anand, the then Senior Manager at their bank, in whom he had total faith, as Sh Anand was his senior and an influential person in the bank.
190. PW-49 categorically submitted that he had not personally verified any signatures, writings, identity documents, or any other related queries regarding the afore-said accounts.
191. As noted above, all these banking transactions including opening of the false accounts was carried out at the instructions of Sh. D.R. Anand wherein at times Sh. Anil Wahi and Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) used to accompany him.
192. So, simply because the personal details of accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2) are mentioned/used, that also is confusing as some accounts were opened in the name of Inderjeet Singh while other is in the name of Inder Walia, both resident of different addresses, would not make him part of any conspiracy to say that he assisted Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) or any other bank official in opening the accounts standing in the name of fictitious persons or in his name Sh. Inderjeet Singh/Inder Walia, or to say that he was instrumental in the transactions undertaken thereto.
- His signatures and the writings on the documents in question also remained not proved.
193. So, the testimony of PW-49 is of no assistance and does not further the cause of the prosecution to prove their allegations against Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-2).
194. PW-66 Sh. Subhash Chander Vij, was the then CBI Case No. 213/19 59 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Manager New Bank of India, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-06, and he deposed that account bearing no SB-7145 in the name of Sh. Inderjit Singh alongwith other accounts in different names i.e. Mohinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh Walia and Daljeet Singh Walia etc., all relatives of Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), were opened in the branch as per records available.
195. He had submitted the "true copy" of the said documents to CBI after verifying the same from the Account Opening Form Ex PW66/2 (colly), under his signatures at point A.
196. He also produced on record Statements of Accounts related to the accounts including that in the name of Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-2) Ex PW66/3(colly).
197. He had also given some documents and Statement of Accounts related to SB 6972 in the name of Sh. Jitender Walia and SB-3174 in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2) to the investigating officer.
198. PW-66 stated that a cheque already exhibited as Ex PW35/22 (part of D-247) for a sum of Rs.5 lacs favouring Inderjit Singh (A-2) drawn on Bank of Baroda, Nagaland Branch was deposited in SB a/c no. 6973 of Inderjeet and credited on 16.08.1985. He stated that out of this cheque amount, a pay order in the sum of Rs. 4,97,666.24 was issued in the name of M/s Paragati Construction Company.
199. In cross-examination PW-66 stated that - as per normal practice, the cheques are deposited by virtue of a deposit slip which was signed by the persons depositing the cheque and CBI Case No. 213/19 60 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc at the time of withdrawal of money through a bearer cheque or a self cheque, the signature of the person receiving the money is taken on the reverse of the cheque.
200. The testimony of PW-66 is simply narrating the facts so mentioned in the documents, as per the bank records, and nothing more than that. He has nowhere testified that the signatures on the documents are that of accused Inderjeet Singh herein. Nor has he stated any fact to reflect that Inderjeet Singh (A-2) had ever visited the bank concerned to carry out the alleged bank transactions.
201. There is also no scientific or any other positive evidence regarding the signatures/hand-writings of accused (A-2) on the questioned documents including the account opening form and the concerned cheques with respect to account no.7145 so reflected in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh.
Next - Witnesses from Allahabad Bank Deemapur Branch & Gwalior Branch, MP, where some transactions were also carried out in the name of accused Injderjeet Singh (A-2).
202. PW-52 Sh. Sunil Kumar was posted as Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Dimapur branch, Nagaland, and he after seeing the records in the court stated that a cheque bearing no. J-034032 dated 19.12.1975 of Rs 1,50,060/- was issued from the Current account of Sh. N. Lotha (accused/since deceased), in favour of Allahabad bank, for purchasing the drafts from their bank and the corresponding three drafts in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, exhibited as Ex.PW-43/B-2 to Ex PW43/B-4, last being in the name of Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-2) were prepared accordingly CBI Case No. 213/19 61 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc in terms of three Demand Draft Vouchers, payable at Allahabd Bank, Gwalior Branch.
203. He identified the said vouchers and the demand drafts issued by their branch and stated that payments of the three DDs was made at Allahabad Bank, Gwalior Branch, MP.
204. PW-52 also conceded that he has no personal knowledge with respect to the alleged transactions and the account holders thereto.
205. Further, PW-43 Sh. Anil Kumar Banka, the Manager Allahabad Bank, Gwalior, MP from 14.07.1986 till December, 1990 stated that he had given the records of four original demand drafts, which were seized by the CBI from his branch, and one of them bearing DD no. 051213/5 dated 19.12.1975 for Rs. 50,000/- was issued in favour of Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-2) Ex PW42/B-4 ( Part of D-82).
206. He stated that these four demand drafts were issued by Allahabad Bank, Dimapur branch and paid at their branch at Gwalior, Allahabad Bank, and the Demand Drafts Ex PW43/B- 2 to Ex PW43/B-4 were presented for the clearance on 29.12.1975 by Punjab & Sindh Bank, Gwalior Branch, MP.
207. That the clearance in that regard was given by Punjab & Sindh Bank, Gwalior branch and payment made accordingly by their branch.
208. During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not inquire whether Sh. Inderjit Singh A-2 had any account in Punjab & Sindh Bank, Gwalior branch. He stated that since on CBI Case No. 213/19 62 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc the Certificate of Punjab & Sindh Bank on the back side of DD exhibited as Ex PW43/B-4 at point A, it was clearly mentioned that "payees A/c credited" implied that the said person was having an account in the receiving bank.
209. At the same time PW-43 stated that he has no personal knowledge about the correctness of the remarks so mentioned under concerned DD exhibited as Ex PW43/B-4.
210. There is nothing on record to indicate that accused Inderjit Singh was having account in the Punjab & Sindh Bank, if at all, or that the said DD exhibited as Ex PW42/B-4 was encashed by him in his account or that he had any thing to do with it.
211. Besides that PW-52 & PW-43 being the bank officials have simply testified in terms of the records available at their banks and they have not stated anything about the presence, visits, and/or personal interaction of the account holders in question at any time during their official duties.
Nextly, witnesses relevant to purchase of Flats at Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi and other immovable properties :-
212. PW-5 Sh. Naresh Kumar Garg was working as Accountant with M/s Pragati Construction Company (Devika Towers), New Delhi from 1974 to 1990, a partnership firm engaged in construction of multi storeyed building.
213. He stated that his duties were to maintain the accounts and receive the payments on behalf of the company ;
CBI Case No. 213/19 63 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc that in the year 1980 one plot of land at no. 6, Nehru Place District Centre was purchased by the company from DDA ; its possession was taken in the year 1981, and the construction of multi-storeyed building was completed by the mid of 1985.
214. PW-5 has testified with respect to Flats bearing no. 230, 232, 236, 237, 225, 226-A, 227, 228, 235 & 238, which are stated to have been purchased in the name of the relatives of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia ( A-1), the consideration amount received and the maintenance charges paid thereto, and has identified his signatures on the carbon copy of the receipts issued qua the said payments.
215. PW-5 deposed that Flat bearing no 228 was purchased in the name of Sh. Inder Walia (A-2) c/o Mr. Wahi & Company, K-1, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. The total payment of Rs.2,41,300/- was received via pay orders no(s) :-
i) 360557 dated 18.07.1985 for Rs. 40,000/- drawn on New Bank of India, Mathura Road, New Delhi.
ii) 360571 dated 31/07.1985 for a sum of Rs.
15,500/- drawn on New Bank of India , Mathura Road, New Delhi,
iii) 014240 dated 16.08.1985 for Rs.3,02,333.76 paisa drawn on New Bank of India, Chawri Bazar, Delhi (Rs.1,14000/- were adjusted in the payment against this flat). Totaling to Rs.1,68,900/-
216. PW-5 identified his signatures at point A on the CBI Case No. 213/19 64 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc carbon copy of two receipts both dated 17.10.1985 bearing no. 6805 for Rs.1,68,900/- and bearing no.6817 for Rs.72,400/- issued against the consideration amount of the said flat. Both the receipts were exhibited as Ex PW5/19 and Ex PW5/20 ( part of D-107) respectively.
217. PW-5 also proved the file containing the Purchase Agreement, Allotment related papers, Possession Letter and miscellaneous papers with respect to Flat no.228, Devika Towers all reflected in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2). The file was exhibited as Ex PW5/34 colly. (Part of D-2 D-1).
218. On the Possession letters issued by the Devika Towers, the number of the Flat and the Floor are separately mentioned as "Flat no. 28 & Floor no 2nd" commonly referred as "228".
219. Qua possession of Flat nos. 232 & 236, PW-5 testified that according to the Possession Letters, the possession of the said Flats was taken by Ms. Guljeet Walia w/o Sh. S.S. Walia (A-1), guardian and mother of allottee Miss Chanpreet Walia & Miss Harpreet Walia respectively, which bears her signatures.
220. PW-5 stated that, as per page no.2 of File Ex PW5/36 (colly) & page no 3 of the file Ex. PW5/38 (colly), there are transfer letters signed by Ms. Guljit Walia vide which both these Flats were transferred to Inderjeet Singh (A-2) s/o Late Sardar Man Singh c/o Wahi & Company, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, and bears the endorsement of Sh. D.R. Gupta, partner of CBI Case No. 213/19 65 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc M/s Pragati Construction Company.
221. With respect to Flat no. 237, PW-5 stated that as per Possession Letter it was allotted in the name of Master Gurpreet Walia and possession of the same was also taken by Ms. Guljit Walia, wife of accused S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1).
222. He stated that as per page no. 2 of the Allotment file Ex PW5/39 (colly.) this Flat was transferred by Ms. Guljit Walia 1/3rd share to Sh. Mohinder Singh and 2/3rd share of the Flat to Sh. Inderjeet Singh, both sons of Late Sardar Singh Man, which bears the endorsement of Sh. D.R. Gupta, partner of M/s Pragati Construction Company.
223. Relevant to note is the fact that PW-5 stated the parties in whose name(s) the Flats were allotted never visited the office of the company, instead, their CA Sh. Anil Wahi (PW-65) and broker Sh. H.N. Kumraha (PW-23) used to visit the office of the Company with the documents on which the signatures of the parties (allottees of the flats ) thereto were already affixed.
224. He stated that all the aforesaid Flats including the ones in the name of Mr. Inderjeet Singh or transferred subsequently were commercial flats and were not occupied by any person. They had always remained locked.
225. In the cross-examination PW-5 admitted that he was not aware as to who got the Pay-Orders in question prepared/made vide which the consideration amount of the said Flats was paid.
CBI Case No. 213/19 66 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
226. He admitted that he was not having any personal knowledge as to in which mode, and from which account, the money was withdrawn for preparation of these Pay Orders.
227. So, the testimony of PW-5 nowhere reflects that the consideration amount for the purchase of the Flat bearing no. 228 or transferring the ownership of the Flats bearing no.236 & 237 was paid by accused Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2) himself.
228. The consideration amount in the form of Bank Drafts had been paid through New Bank of India NSCI branch, wherein false saving accounts were got opened in the name of bogus and non existing persons by A-1 in connivance with bank officials, wherein role of Mr. D.R. Anand, the then Senior Manager at Chawri Branch, New Bank of India, is also under serious cloud, in terms of the testimony of concerned bank officials as discussed earlier.
229. PW-5 further admitted that the signatures on the Agreement to Purchase, Allotment Letter, Possession Letter and other documents in the name of the allottees were not signed by the concerned persons, i.e. Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-2) here, in his presence.
230. It can also be seen that the Flat bearing no. 228 allotted in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh Walia (A-2) was changed from 3rd floor to Second floor on the basis of a letter which, as per records, was signed by Ms. Guljit Walia, wife of Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), for and on behalf of Inderjit Singh ; and importantly, there is no authority letter in her favour CBI Case No. 213/19 67 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc issued by accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2) in that regard, which further reflects that the documentation work related to purchase and allotment of these Flats allotted in the name of A-2 was primarily carried out without his knowledge and consent.
231. PW-5 stated that Flat no. 232, 236 & 237 were accepted by Inderjeet Singh (A-2), through his GPA holder Mr. Anil Wahi, Chartered Accountant. But the question of authenticity of the GPA and its execution by Sh. Inderjeet Singh( A-2) in favour of Mr. Anil Wahi, Chartered Accountant (PW-65) remained to be proved on record by any evidence of whatsoever nature, wherein the role of Sh. Anil Wahi, C.A, (PW-65) is itself under strong suspicion. Prosecution has also not cited, nor examined, any witness to prove the execution of the GPA's in question.
232. Further, the transfer letter of Flat no.232 is part of D-241, page no.193 (File No. M-499/89) & for Flat no.236 and 237 are at page no.132 and 91 respectively, wherein it is mentioned that Flats no. 232 & 236 have been sold to Inderjit Singh (A-2), and Flat no. 237 to Sh. Mohinder Singh and Inderjit Singh with share of 2/3rd and 1/3rd each.
233. The said transfer letters also does not bears the signatures of accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) at any place, except at one place at page no. 93, but the said signatures also remains 'not proved'. No evidence has been led by the prosecution in that regard to substantiate it.
234. Further, regarding the signatures, PW-5 stated that CBI Case No. 213/19 68 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Mr. Inderjeet Walia had not signed in his presence and he can not identify his signatures. He further stated that he identified the signatures of Sh. Inderjeet Singh just because the signatures are appended in the form of his name, and are also similar to the signatures on the purchase agreement where his name is also mentioned.
235. Significantly, the transfer agreements are also incomplete documents wherein signatures and other relevant details are conspicuously missing, nor the same appears to have been signed and accepted by any of the Nominee(s) thereto.
236. The document seems to have been created by the Chartered Accountant (PW-65) at the instructions of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) only for the purpose of Income Tax, in terms of Form 37EE, then prescribed by Income Tax Department, and to give a colour of legality to the illegally acquired assets /immovable properties.
237. Similarly is the deposition of PW-7, Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, who was working as Assistant Accountant with M/s Pragati Construction Company (Devika Towers) from 1980- 1987 and looked after the maintenance of construction of the flats devloped by Devika Towers, after its completion in the year 1985.
238. He was subsequently appointed as Director in M/s Devika Estate Management for recovery of maintenance charges from the concerned parties of the Flats in the said Towers at Nehru Place.
CBI Case No. 213/19 69 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
239. After seeing the maintenance files of the flats in question, PW-7 stated that the maintenance charges of Rs.8750/- in respect of Flat no. 228, in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh Walia, was deposited vide Receipt bearing no.315 dated 19.11.1985 Ex PW7/17, which is part of the maintenance File of the Flat Ex PW7/15 ; he also identified the maintenance agreement signed between M/s Devika Estate Management Limited and Sh. Inderjeet Singh Walia Ex PW7/16 from the records.
240. PW-7 stated that there are signatures of one Inderjeet Walia on each page of the agreement, running into seven pages, Ex PW7/16 (colly.) but importantly he also did not identify the said signatures to be that of accused herein Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2).
241. PW-7 stated that the said signatures in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh were not affixed in his presence nor was he acquainted with the signatures/writing of accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2).
242. PW-7 also deposed with respect to receipts (part of D-59) bearing :-
-i) No. 285 dated 23.11.1985 for Rs. 8355/- issued in the name of Miss Harpreet Ahluwalia UNG Ms. Guljit Walia for Flat no 236, Devika Towers Ex PW7/27 ;
-ii) No. 314 dated 19.11.1985 for Rs. 8355/- issued in the name of Miss Chanpreet Walia,UNG Ms. CBI Case No. 213/19 70 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Guljit Walia for Flat no 232, Devika Towers Ex PW7/30;
-iii) No. 316 dated 19.11.1985 for Rs. 8355/- issued in the name of Master Gurpreet Walia UNG Ms. Guljit Walia for Flat no 237, Devika Towers Ex PW7/31, wherein the payment of Insurance Charges, Sinking Fund Charges, Fund Charges and Security deposit with respect to the said flats at Devika Towers were made thereto.
243. In the cross-examination PW-7, admitted that he was not aware as to who actually had made these payments with respect to the receipts Exhibited as ExPW7/17, ExPW7/27, Ex PW7/30 & Ex PW7/31, and that no record was maintained in the company to reflect who had physically visited their office to make the payments towards maintenance and other charges.
244. Herein also, PW-7 stated that all these payments were made in cash, and he nowhere identified the accused Inderjit Singh Walia (A-2) to be involved into the payment of aforesaid charges or the person who came to their office with cash to make the aforesaid payments.
245. So, the testimonies of PW-5 & PW-7 does not reflect any thing incriminating against the accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) to say that he was the person who had purchased the said Flat, or was a party to the transfer of other Flats which were in the name of Children /family members of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), or had paid the maintenance charges, or had CBI Case No. 213/19 71 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc signed the documents in question thereto.
246. Accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C has also denied having anything to do with the aforesaid Flats be it Flat no. 228 purchased in his name or Flat no. 232 or 236, or 237 transferred in his name.
247. He has also specifically denied having any knowledge about the said flats purchased in his name, and stated that he came to know about these facts only subsequently after the registration of the present case.
248. So, simply reflecting the name of accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) or Inder Walia in the documents, when the signatures and writing is not proved to be that of accused A-2, nor is it proved that he had paid the consideration amount or the maintenance charges, does not by itself indicates that A-2 was the owner of the said Flats or to say that he was acting in concert with accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) in purchase and maintenance of the Flats in question.
249. And significantly, for the reasons best known to the Investigating agency, there is no GEQD opinion on record to substantiate their case, nor as stated by IO PW-87 Sh. Naveen Chander Jha the specimen signatures of accused A-2 were taken for comparison with the questioned signatures. Why, and for what reasons, I totally failed to comprehend.
250. Further, PW-22 Sh. N.N. Jain, was the independent witness to the search being carried out at the premises of the accused persons. He proved on record the search list dated CBI Case No. 213/19 72 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc 26.03.1987, in terms of Search conducted at the house of accused A-1 situated at Pandara Road, New Delhi and exhibited as Ex PW22/1 (colly).
251. He stated that the file no. 14, as mentioned at Serial no. 14 of D-7 Ex PW22/1 (colly.) containing Delhi Municipal House Tax Receipts in respect of House bearing nos. 6/235, 6/237,6/238,6/232,6/236,6/226A,6/227,6/228,6/230,6/215,6/218, 6/219,6/225 of D-Tower, Nehru Place, with Notices running into 36 sheets, was seized from the house of Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) Ex PW22/13 (colly).
252. He stated that File no.15 containing GPA's, copies of exhibits etc running into 96 sheets Ex PW22/15 (colly) ;
- file no. 17 containing correspondence exchanged with M/s Wahi & Co. & Ors running into 19 sheets exhibited as Ex PW22/17 (colly.)
- File no. 18, photocopies of sale deed dated 21.11.1986 in respect of 46 bighas 14 biswas land in village Badarpur and other deeds running into 63 sheets exhibited as Ex PW22/18 ;
- File no. 20, photocopies of Sale deed in respect of 28 bighas land purchased in village Badarpur, Municipal Receipts etc running into 53 sheets Ex PW22/19 ;
- File no. 28, photocopies of various Sale deeds running into 251 sheets ;
- Miscellaneous File no. 30 containing Affidavit, CBI Case No. 213/19 73 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Power of Attorney etc running into 50 sheets ExPW22/25 (colly), amongst various other documents were also recovered from the house of accused S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1).
253. And, it may be noted that the documents in question in the name of Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-2) were also recovered from the house of Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) and not from the house or possession of A-2, which further substantiate the stand taken by the accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) that he was not aware about any of the transactions carried out in his name, and his name and other details must have been used by accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) for his ulterior motives.
254. PW-23 Sh.H.N.Kumraha was working in Real Estate under the Name & Style of Kumraha Estate Agency at K- 1, Kailash Colony, and he alongwith Sh.Anil Wahi, Chartered Accountant (PW-65), was instrumental in purchase of properties in the name of family members/relatives of accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) at his instructions.
255. PW-23 Sh. Kumraha deposed on to the maintenance agreement executed between the parties related to the Flats situated at Devika Towers, Nehru Place, Delhi.
256. Wherein, he stated that a maintenance agreement, exhibited as Ex PW7/15 ( part of D-241), with regard to Flat no. 228 is in the name of Inderjit Walia (A-2) c/o Wahi & Co., and he identified his signatures at point E on the maintenance agreement executed between Devika Estate Management and Sh. Inderjit Singh Walia (A-2), (running into seven sheets ) CBI Case No. 213/19 74 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
257. He also identified his signatures on an Agreement regarding purchase of Flat no. 228, i.e. 28, 2nd Floor, Devika Towers in favour of Inderjit Singh Walia (A-2). The purchase agreement of flat No. 228 is Ex PW7/16 ( Part of D-241).
258. He stated that he had brokered the deal of the said commercial Flat no. 228, 2nd floor, between the parties and had signed the Purchase Agreement at page no. 810-818 of D-241 (M-232/87) as a witness at point A, and stated that this agreement was executed in his presence and exhibited as Ex PW23/29 (9 pages).
259. The statement of Sh. Kumraha is contradicted by the witnesses (PW-5 & PW-7) from the M/s Paragati Construction Company/Devika Towers, who as noted earlier, have specifically testified all these documents/agreements were already signed when they were produced before them by Sh. Kumraha (PW-23) or by Sh. Anil Wahi (PW-65).
260. PW-23 further stated that the allotment letter at page no. 823 to 826 of D-241 (M-232/87) in respect of the said flat was issued by the Builder M/s Paragati Construction Company and he had signed the same as a witness at point A which was exhibited as Ex PW23/30 (colly).
261. Importantly, PW23 further stated that Sh. Anil Wahi as an attorney of certain other people had purchased commercial properties situated at M/s Devika Towers, Nehru Place through him.
262. So, Mr. Kumraha (PW-23) also nowhere states that CBI Case No. 213/19 75 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc accused Inderjit Singh was present when the aforesaid agreements were executed or that he had seen him signing or executing the relevant documents in that regard.
263. He simplicitor has identified his own signatures on those documents with further statement that Sh. Anil Wahi (PW-
65) had purchased commercial properties at Nehru Place in the name of other persons as their 'Attorney'.
264. The recovery of the relevant files pertaining to the house tax receipts related to the Flats bearing no. 228, which was purchased in the name of accused Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-2), and flats bearing no. 232, 236 & 237, transferred in his name on papers, reflects that the entire control of the said flats including its documentation and payment of charges was under Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) and/or Mr. Anil Wahi (PW-65).
265. The testimony of PW-23 also does not reflect anything to say that accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) was having any knowledge or had given his consent or was a party to the alleged transactions.
266. Nextly, much reliance has been placed by the prosecution on the testimony of PW-65 Sh. Anil Wahi, Chartered Accountant of Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), to establish their case against accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2) .
267. PW-65 stated that a General Power of Attorney was executed by one Sh. Inderjeet Singh s/o Late Sh. Man Singh with local address of GPA holder mentioned as K-1,Kailash Colony, with respect to purchase/acquire any immovable property in the CBI Case No. 213/19 76 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Union Territory of Delhi, in his (PW-65) favour. The GPA was marked as Ex PW65/1 (Part of D-252, Page 1-4).
268. PW-65 further stated that another GPA, carbon copy Mark as PW-65/2 (part of D-252 Page 5-17), was also executed by one Sh. Inderjit Singh in favour of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) to purchase/acquire any immovable property including other acts as mentioned in Clauses 02-09, with the same local address of the executor, his own office address i.e. K- 1, Kailash Colony, Delhi.
269. PW-65 Sh. Anil Wahi deposed that the Purchase Agreement dt. 17.10.1985 Ex. PW-23/29 (Colly) related to a commercial space bearing Flat No. 228 in Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi (D-241/4) is in the name of Inderjeet Singh Walia (A-2) and he identified the signatures of Sh. H.N. Kumhra (witness) at Point A on Page No.12 of the said Agreement.
270. PW-65 also stated that accused Inderjeet Singh Walia was introduced to him by Surender Singh Ahluwalia(A-1) as his relative.
271. And, this introductory statement probably is the only incriminating fact in his entire testimony which the prosecution is heavily relying to say that A-2 was part of the conspiracy, which in my considered opinion is also a misleading statement as discussed underneath.
272. Learned PP for CBI had argued that PW-65 Sh. Anil Wahi in his testimony has identified accused Inderjeet (A-2), who was introduced by accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) to him as one of his relatives, and that Sh Wahi also identified CBI Case No. 213/19 77 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc the signatures of accused Inderjeet on the maintenance agreement executed between M/s Devika Estate Management and Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2), and all these facts indicates that accused (A-2) was well aware about the transactions carried out by accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia(A-1) in his name, and thereby, it is evident that he was also part of the conspiracy so hatched.
273. It is also argued that PW-65 Sh. Anil Wahi was not cross-examined by the accused Inderjeet Singh, therefore the facts deposed by him in his examination-in-chief are deemed to have been admitted by him.
274. I do not concur with the submissions advanced by learned SPP.
275. First to state that it is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
276. Secondly, mere non cross-examination of witness by an accused can not in all circumstances tantamount to admission of the facts stated thereto or the guilt for that matter. Prosecution must established the disputed facts by leading cogent and reliable evidence in support thereof.
277. Thirdly, cross-examination of Mr. Wahi was conducted on behalf of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) and the facts stated thereto are also deemed to be part of his testimony and cannot be ignored just because there was no cross- examination on behalf of other accused.
278. Further more, on merits, though PW-65 identified the signatures of accused Inderjit Singh Walia at Point B on the CBI Case No. 213/19 78 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Maintenance Agreement Ex.PW-7/16 ( Part of D-241) with regard to Flat No. 228, Devika Tower, Nehru Place executed between Inderjeet Singh and M/s Devika Estate Management Pvt. Ltd., but the identification of the signatures of A-2 is only on the basis of his name mentioned in the documents and not from his personal knowledge and information, in terms of his own deposition.
279. Further, herein testimony of PW-5 and PW-7 from M/s Paragati Constructions may be noted, wherein they states that all these documents including maintenance files/agreements were already signed when produced by Sh. Wahi (PW-65) and/or Sh Kumraha (Broker, PW-23). Whereas, contradicting the same, Sh. Kumraha (PW-23) states that maintenance agreement was executed in his presence by the parties.
280. PW-5 and PW-7 have also stated that none of the persons in whose name the flats were purchased or the payments were made had appeared physically before them at the time of its execution. They specifically states that all these documents were already signed and were produced by Mr. Anil Wahi (A-65).
281. Further, the testimony of PW-49 Bank witness may also be noted, who has deposed to the fact that the banking transactions i.e. opening of accounts, deposit of cheques/cash, issuance of Pay Orders/Demand Drafts and other account related activities in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2) and other relatives of accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia(A-1), wherein demand drafts were also issued to make the payments to purchase the said flats/other properties, were carried out on their behalf by Sh.Anil Wahi (PW-65) and Sh. D.R. Anand at the CBI Case No. 213/19 79 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc instructions of Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) .
282. PW-65 further stated that he has not personally known accused Inderjit Singh Walia, and Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) had introduced him, alongwith other persons, as his relative.
283. But at the same time, PW-65 in his examination in chief dated 30.05.2022 stated that accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia "was having entire control over the persons with respect to whom the documents i.e. Agreement to sell, Sale- deeds, Power of Attorneys and Bank Pass books etc., and they used to agree to whatever was said by accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia on behalf of family members, relatives and friends. He was a kind of Head of the Family of the aforementioned persons.
- The instructions were also given by accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia to the said persons, to which they agreed blindly without any objections. Accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia was having such a influence over them and they were not in a position to oppose or react to his instructions. May be, it was due to undue influence or could be due to love and affection. "
284. During cross examination (on 31.05.2022) witness (PW-65) volunteered to state that Whenever such purchases were made and documents were executed or prepared myself, banker, and mostly Mr. Surender Singh Ahluwalia, Mr. Kumra and Mr. Anand and/or his bank officials and the person in whose name the purchase / sale agreement / sale deeds, maintenance CBI Case No. 213/19 80 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc documents / possession certificates / receipts etc (as deposed and exhibited by me in my examination in chief ) used to remain physically present and Mr. Surender Singh Ahluwalia did not sign any of the aforementioned document whenever they were prepared, though he was holding exclusive GPA which includes sale of that property as well as renting of that property.
285. He admitted that he had singed on Page No. 844 at point A, where it is stated that the amount of Rs.2,78,100/- has been paid by him to M/s Pragati Construction Co. towards the cost of the Flat No. 227, in Devika Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi. He volunteered that "This was the payment made through bank draft from the account of the vendors".
286. In terms of his own testimony, PW-65 admitted that he had met accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) in Delhi for the purpose of empanelment of his company for Audit/Inspection/and related works in the Government Institutions at Nagaland and accordingly his company was empanelled and got works from various Government Institutions accordingly.
287. PW-65 conceded that various pass-books of different accounts in the name of relatives of accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) were seized from his office i.e. K-1, Kailash Colony or that of Karol Bagh, and the pass-books were handed over to him by accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia(A-1) for filing Income Tax Returns, and went on to state that these relatives of A-1 were resident of Agra, UP, whereas accused Sh. Inderjeet Singh in the present case (A-2) is resident of Punjab village Zira.
CBI Case No. 213/19 81 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
288. His statement to that effect that the pass-books were handed over by relatives of A-1 for filing of ITR's is false statement as most of the said relatives were not in a sound financial position as per his own admission.
289. And, besides these dummy transactions carried out at various banks through their accounts, they does not seems to have any substantial income, nor filed any ITR, in terms of their depositions.
290. Another fact to note is that in all these documents in the name of relatives of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia(A-1), be it in the banks/account opening forms, GPA or purchase of properties, the office address of PW-65 Anil Wahi, i.e. K-1, Kailash Colony or that of Karol Bagh is mentioned as the correspondence address.
291. PW-65 stated that most of the times accused Inderjit Singh Walia (A-2) and other relatives used to come to his office alongwith Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) whenever the documents in question related to the properties i.e. GPA etc were executed.
292. Here also, he seems to be making a misleading statement as only the GPA's were allegedly executed by the relatives of accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), and besides that, no other document as such was executed wherein their presence was required or noted, and the entire banking and property transactions were undertaken on their behalf through their 'Attorney Holder' (PW-65).
293. Further, none of the said relatives, so examined by the prosecution in support of their case i.e. PW-50 Smt. Paramjeet CBI Case No. 213/19 82 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Kaur Anand, PW-53 Sh. Amar Pal Singh and PW-57 Sh. Lokesh Kumar Anand, have stated to have met Sh.Anil Wahi, Chartered Accountant (PW-65) at any point of time in Delhi or otherwise.
294. PW-64 Smt. Rajinder Bahadur Walia though stated to have met Sh. Anil Wahi (PW-65) but at her house in Agra, UP. Contradicting the deposition of Sh. Anil Wahi that the relatives of accused (A-1) used to come to his office alongwith him.
295. PW-46 Sh. Gurudeep Singh also stated to have met Sh. Anil Wahi, CA but he has also refuted all the transactions, except one of the loan taken in the name of his Firm, related to purchase of Flats at Devika Towers and executing any GPA in favour of Sh. Anil Wahi (PW-65).
296. Both these witnesses Sh. Kumraha (PW-23) and Sh. Wahi (PW-65) are unworthy of credit as they both were actively involved in the purchase of the properties and carried out other miscellaneous transactions thereto at the behest of main accused S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1), and they are also taking conflicting stands qua each other in order to safe guard their own interests.
297. PW-65 Sh. Anil Wahi (CA) very smartly has tried to shrug-off his own wrong doings in the case at hands by choosing to depose cleverly and selectively to save his own skin, as he was one of the main participant in the case at hand via whom, and with his active involvement, accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) seems to have given colour to his illegal designs, which is also evident from the testimony of witnesses (PW-5 and PW-7) from the office of M/s Devika Towers as well as PW-49 from the Bank concerned.
CBI Case No. 213/19 83 of 97
CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
Other witnesses :
298. PW-24 Sh. Ganga Bishan Gupta deposed in terms of the Sale deeds exhibited as Ex PW24/1, purchased by Sh. Anil Wahi CA (PW-65) from his brother Sh. Sushil Kumar and Sh. Bajrang Lal, and Sale deed exhibited as Ex PW24/2 (part of D-
2) purchased by his wife Smt. Bimla Kumari and identified her signatures on it.
299. He stated that he knows Mr. Anil Wahi, (CA), who had approached him in the year 1985-1986 to purchase properties in the name of one Sardarji Mr. Walia.
300. PW-24 stated that he stood as a witness to purchase of properties :-
-in the name of Gurdeep Walia s/o Sh. Jaswant Walia c/o Sh. Anil Wahi, CA (copy of sale deeds marked as Ex PW24/1 and Ex PW24/2),
- in the name of Ms. Amreet Kaur w/o Sh. Jaswant Singh c/o Mr. Anil Wahi, CA, copy marked as Ex PW24/3
- in the name of Smt. Rajinder Walia d/o Sh. S.J. Singh resident of Wahi & Co. CA, marked as Ex PW24/4 & Ex. PW24/5, at the request of Sh. Anil Wahi, CA (PW-65).
301. During examination, he pointed out towards accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) in the court identifying him as the said Sardarji (Mr. Walia), who used to come alongwith Mr. Anil CBI Case No. 213/19 84 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Wahi, CA (PW-65).
302. And thereby, learned PP also argued that the witness has identified the accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2) as the person who was actively involved into the purchase of properties for and on behalf of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), and this fact reflects that he was acting in connivance with main accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia and assisted him in acquiring illegal assets.
303. I do not concur.
Firstly, this is not even the case of the prosecution. As per their own case it was Mr. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-
1) who used to accompany Mr. Anil Wahi (PW-65) and purchased properties in the name of his relatives. This is all together a different dimension given by learned PP just to suit its case in terms of the identification made by the witness.
304. Secondly, may be it was a deliberate attempt on the part of PW-24 to mislead the court and favour accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) by creating a confusion and contradict the case of the prosecution.
305. Thirdly, it may also be an intentional wrong statement as PW-24 himself had assisted accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia in acquiring these properties through the sham transactions, in terms of the deposition of Sh. Anil Wahi (PW-
65), and thereby covering up his acts and role thereto.
306. Fourthly, may be it was an inadvertent error due to CBI Case No. 213/19 85 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc passage of time. And, why so, as under section 313 Cr.P.C in his statement Sh. Inderjit Singh has stated that on the day of the testimony of PW-24, the said fact of identifying him in the Court by mistake was acknowledged by the then Presiding Officer and that it was meant to be Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia ( But no such observation is mentioned thereto in the testimony as well as the judicial proceedings recorded on the given day).
307. Be that as it may be, PW-24 himself stated that Sh. Walia, used to come with Sh. Wahi (PW-65) to purchase the properties, and all the properties thereafter were purchased in the name of his(A-1) children, which implies that PW-24 was referring to accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) as the person accompanying Sh. Anil Wahi (PW-65).
308. This finding is also duly substantiated by the statement of Sh. Anil Wahi (PW-65), wherein he also states that properties in question were purchased by Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) through Sh. Ganga Bishan Gupta, who was a Property broker and close associate of (A-1), and he had merely acted as the attorney holder on behalf of the purchasers.
309. Further, PW-24 Sh. Ganga Bishan Gupta was a close associate of Mr. Anil Wahi (PW-65) and main accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) through whom these benami properties were acquired. He seems to be an interested witness as he himself was part of these sham transaction in association with PW-65 and accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1).
310. So, analyzed in the light of the above discussion, the CBI Case No. 213/19 86 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc testimony of PW-24 on that count qua identity of the accused Inderjeet singh (A-2) during proceedings does not inspire confidence of the Court.
311. Next - PW-26 Sh. Ashok Kumar stated that his father was running a shop in the name of M/s Ram Lal Ashok Kumar Jewellers at 2627 Bank Street, Karol Bagh New Delhi and he used to assist his father in the shop till around 1987.
312. He stated that he had given his books of Sale/ Purchase to the CBI during investigation and identified book no.1 and book no.2 (part of D-67) to be the one relating to Sale/Purchase of his Firm which he handed over to the CBI.
313. He stated that as per records a carbon copy of bill number 286 dated 24.03.1985 (Book no.1) is in the name of one Sh. Inderjit Singh resident of D-II/49 Pandara Road, New Delhi, wherein - 5 gold bangles, 2 gold rings, 6 gold chains, 4 pairs of gold ear rings, 4 gold rings, and three pendents of gold ( having total weight of 234.550 grams with value of gold Rs. 38,827/-) were purchased by them from Sh. Inderjit Singh through pay order no. 202881-332-85 drawn on South India Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Ex PW26/A.
314. With respect to bill no. 0046 dated 27.04.1985 (Book no. 2), in the name of Sh. Inderjit Singh r/o F-5, South Ex Part II, New Delhi, he stated that - 12 gold bangles, 3 pairs of gold ear rings, one mangalsutra of gold, one set of gold consisting of necklace and ear rings and 3 gold chains ( having total weight of 275.450 grams with value of gold Rs. 50,650/-) CBI Case No. 213/19 87 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc were purchased by us from Sh. Inderjit Singh through pay order no. 253743/483/85 drawn on South India Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Ex PW 26/B.
315. He stated that the bills contains his signatures at the place of 'Customer' and the signature of the 'Seller' appears at point 'Y' on both the aforesaid bills.
316. But at the same time, he stated that he can not identify the 'Seller' of the aforesaid two bills due to lapse of time, and he did not know any person namely Sh. Anil Wahi nor he stated to have dealt with him at any point of time.
317. Prosecution has also not lead any evidence to show that the bills in the name of Sh. Inderjit Singh, with two different addresses, pertains to the accused herein, Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-
2), if at all.
318. Nor, the prosecution has produced any thing to show that the payments through the Pay orders at South Indian Bank, Karol Bagh was debited in the account of accused Inderjit Singh or, if at all, he was having any account in the said branch.
319. The questioned signatures on the two bills have also not been analyzed or compared with the specimen/admitted signatures of Sh. Inderjit Singh (A-2).
320. So, the testimony of PW-26 Sh. Ashok Kumar also does not assist the case of the prosecution in any manner to state that accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2) was part of the Conspiracy and in pursuance thereto had actually sold the jewellery articles CBI Case No. 213/19 88 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc in terms thereof.
321. Nextly - PW-62 Sh. Ramji Das Bandil during his examination, after seeing the Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 16.09.1975 ExPW62/D (part of D-244 page no. 42 to 46) pertaining to a part of land in property bearing Old Municipal No 3, Patwari Circle, situated at Maharani Road, Gwalior, M.P. stated that Sale-Deed was executed by him on behalf of his father as a 'Seller' in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2) S/o Late Sh. Man Singh Ahluwalia. He identified his signatures at point A on page no. 42 to 46.
322. During cross-examination, he admitted that the sale of the said property was finalized through Property brokers Sh. Chander Kant Jain and Sh. Murari Lal Khandelwal and he had no personal knowledge regarding the 'Purchaser' of the said property i.e. Inderjeet Singh (A-2).
323. The said transaction also appears to be a sham transaction with some ulterior motive wherein, in a similar manner, other properties were also allegedly purchased in the name of Manpreet Singh (minor son of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia A-1, Ms. Guljit Ahluwalia w/o Sh. S.S. Ahluwalia (A-
1) and Sh. Mohinder Singh brother of Sh. S.S.Ahluwalia (A-1).
324. Next - PW-74 Sh. T.Veera Raghavan was working as Senior Manager, at Parliament Street Branch, Canara Bank in the year 1982, and had handed over two paid Demand Drafts bearing no. 121723 & 121724 both dated 04.08.1982, issued from Canara Bank, Cantonment Branch, Agra, UP, in the sum of Rs.10,000/- & Rs.15,000/- Ex. PW74/2 & Ex PW74/3 CBI Case No. 213/19 89 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc respectively to the CBI.
325. He stated that two Application Forms for purchase/ Allotment of Flats, issued by the DDA under the 5 th Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, in the name of Sh.M.S Ahluwalia and Inderjeet Singh (A-2) with the common address mentioned as D-II/52, Pandara Road, New Delhi, were received in their concerned bank branch, and on the back of the application the name of Inderjeet Singh alongwith details of DD bearing no. 121724 dated 04.08.1982 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- are mentioned.
326. He identified the Bank Seal and the impression of his branch on the two applications forms which are exhibited as Ex PW74/4 and Ex PW74/5 respectively. He also identified the signatures at point A to be that of one of the official of the concerned branch at Parliament Street, Canara Bank, Delhi, but failed to recollect the name of the said official.
327. In the cross-examination witness stated that both the drafts were prepared at Cantonment Branch, Agra, UP, and he admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the contents of the said DDs. He also did not state anything about the persons in whose favour the applications were made or about the signatures of the persons concerned thereto.
328. PW-87 Sh. Naveen Chander Jha, the subsequent IO of the case who filed the chargesheet, identified the signatures of Insp. Dalip Singh on the production memo dated 26.08.1987 ( D-
45) vide which five files were handed over by Sh. Vijay Kumar, the then UDC, Vigilance Branch, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi to Sh.
CBI Case No. 213/19 90 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Dalip Singh, the then IO of the case.
329. He stated that files mentioned at Serial no. 3 & 4, (D-236 & D-235 respectively) were containing the documents qua the registration amount deposited in the name of Sh. M.S. Ahluwalia and Sh. Inderjit Singh Ahluwalia. The files were separately exhibited as Ex PW87/31 and Ex PW87/32 (colly.) respectively.
330. Testimony of PW 74 and PW-87 does not prove anything to say that these applications and the corresponding drafts thereto were handed over by accused Inderjeet Singh or if he had any role to play into it.
331. Nextly - PW-86 Sh. D.P.Nagraj ( substituted witness in place of LW-124 ) simply identified the signatures of his father on the copies of two receipts, both dated 11.06.1986, vide which the donation in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- was given to RSS Trust Bangalore through a demand draft bearing no. 78/499083, drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore, and capitation fee of Rs. 30,000/- were paid to R.V. College of Engineering, through a demand draft no.78/491062 dated 11.06.1986 by Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) via Inderjeet Singh Ahluwalia (A-2).
332. The receipts are marked as X & Y respectively. And besides that there is not a whisper of anything incriminating against A-2. Here, I would say that the original receipts have also not been produced on record. So, the testimony of this witness also leads to nowhere.
333. PW-87 Sh. Naveen Chander Jha identified the signatures of the then DSP Sh. R.P.Sharma at point A on the CBI Case No. 213/19 91 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Search List dated 26.03.1987 (D-6) Ex PW87/1, conducted at the house of Mohinder Singh, Village Zira, District Firozpur, Punjab by Sh. R.P.Sharma.
334. He stated that in terms of the search list at serial no. 23, it contained a 'Consent Deed' of Subhadra Bai & Shubhamala of Laskar in respect of property situated at MLB Road in favour of Sh. Mohinder Singh, Manpreet Singh and Inderjeet Singh (A-2) for construction of a Cinema. The said document D-242 & D-243 were exhibited as Ex PW87/32 (colly.).
335. He further identified the signatures of the then DSP Sh. A.K.Srivastawa at point A on the Search List dated 28.03.1987 (D-10), conducted at the residence of Sh. S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1) at government quarters No. AF/3 Kohima, Nagaland.
336. He stated that in terms of the Search List at Serial No. 70-75 undated receipts signed by N.Lotha (A-4 since expired) regarding having received Rs.5 lacs each advanced to Mohinder Singh, Jitender Walia, Gurdeep Singh, Daljeet Walia and Inderjeet Singh respectively were recovered from the residence of accused S.S. Ahluwalia (A-1). The said documents were exhibited as Ex PW87/37(colly.)
337. The objections to the mode and manner of proof and admissibility of the document were taken by the defence counsel during the trial.
338. Here, I would concur with the submissions of learned defence counsel to the extent that a document is required CBI Case No. 213/19 92 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc to be proved by leading evidence as per law, and merely exhibition of a documents does not tantamount to its proof. No evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the execution of the 'consent deed' in question.
339. However, I do not find any substance in respect of other objections so raised for the reasons that witness has identified the signatures of his colleague/official with whom he was working in the CBI and had seen him writing and signing during the course of discharge of his official duties.
340. The documents are relevant to the case at hand to reflect the nature of transactions alleged to have been undertaken by the accused persons and has direct bearing on the issues involved at hand, and therefore, the objections regarding the relevancy and admissibility of the said documents cannot be sustained.
341. Moreover, the witness has simply proved a fact that all these documents were recovered from the premises of accused Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) and Sh. Mohinder Singh, other brother of accused (A-1) and not from the premises of accused Inderjeet Singh (a-2).
342. Further, PW-87 concedes to the fact that there is no GEQD opinion against Inderjit Singh (A-2) viz-a-viz the questioned/disputed documents.
343. He further admits that he had not taken the specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Inderjeet Singh (A-2), and also admitted that the other investigating officers had also not taken his specimen signatures/writings, as the reference for the CBI Case No. 213/19 93 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc GEQD examination was made by him.
Conclusion :-
344. So, in light of my discussion and appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence so adduced by the prosecution, it can not be said that accused Inderjit Singh (A-2) was part of the conspiracy so hatched to acquire assets illegally for and on behalf of accused Sh. Surender Singh Ahluwalia (A-1) or had played any active role in pursuance to that.
345. The crime seems to have been committed in a very calibrated and planned manner wherein details and other particulars of the persons, some of whom were fictitious/non- existing, seems to have been used in acquiring the properties by layering of ill-gotten money without their consent and knowledge.
346. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused Sh. Inderjeet Singh (A-2) and thereby he is acquitted of all the charges so pressed against him.
347. However, since accused Inderjeet Singh had no knowledge, and claims no legal right or interest or title over the properties standing in his name i.e. :-
i)- Flat no. 228, i.e. 28, 2nd Floor, Devika Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi in the name of Inderjeet Singh
ii)- Flats no. 232 & 236, Devika Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi transferred in the name of Sh. Inderjeet Singh, and
iii)-2/3rd share in Flat no. 237 Devika Towers, Nehru CBI Case No. 213/19 94 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc Place, New Delhi, transferred in the name of accused Inderjeet Singh,
iv)- and property measuring 32'6" X 287', bearing Old Municipal No. 3, Patwari Circle, situated at Maharani Road, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh registered on 16.09.1975 from page no. 004428 to 004430 ( having previous Sale Deed number 1058 dated 13.03.1974, falls in the category of Benami properties, and thereby, stands confiscated and be vested in the Government of India.
HIO/CBI Officials directed to take steps as per law in terms thereof.
348. Before I part, I must state that the case at hand is a classical example wherein justice has become casualty not only to the protracted trial, but also to the deliberate lapses and to the perfunctory, shoddy investigation on the part of the Agency, wherein it seems that from day one the Agency never intended to take the case to its logical conclusion. And, Why So ?
- In the present case FIR was registered on by the agency on 24.03.1987 ;
- the charge sheet was presented before the court by the agency for its trial of accused persons on 10.04.1992 ;
- that as per procedure initially copies of charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons on 18.09.1992 ;
- that effective compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C got completed only in the month of January, 1997 ;
- that matter got stayed by the Hon'ble High Court on 08.05.1997 till 2000 ;
CBI Case No. 213/19 95 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc
- arguments/ consideration on charge started on 07.12.2000 and charge was framed on - 23.02.2008 ;
- that in between matter remained pending for consideration / disposal of miscellaneous applications moved on behalf of accused persons ;
- thereafter TCR was requisitioned by the Hon'ble High Court in May-July, 2008, which was received back after a year or so in the year 2009 ;
- that matter was then put on for examination of prosecution witnesses ; and many a times matter was adjourned without any effective hearing due to non availability of witnesses/execution of summons upon witnesses/untraceable / whereabouts unknown.
- and some times it was adjourned at the request of parties wherein at times original documents were also not untraceable ; and also miscellaneous applications were moved.
(i) The agency had cited 327 witnesses in total. Out of which 48 witnesses were shown to be residing at the temporary addresses of hotels and guest houses, and which the agency was well aware that they would never be found available to appear before the court for deposition.
(ii) Remaining 200 witnesses had either expired or left the address or due to their ailments were in incapacity to appear and depose before the Court.
(iii) So, at the end, only 87 witnesses were examined including the substituted witnesses during this inordinate long period of trial commencing from the year 1992, when the CBI Case No. 213/19 96 of 97 CBI vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia etc charge sheet was filed, i.e. about 32 years.
(iv) And, by this time, the main accused Sh. Surendra Singh Ahluwalia (A-1), now aged about 90 years, became unstable and of unsound mind and was declared " unfit to stand trial" ( trial qua him already stands adjourned indefinitely).
349. Delay by any stakeholder cog in the dispensation of the criminal justice system be it by investigating agency or by the unscrupulous devices adopted by accused not only cause miscarriage of justice, rather "delay becomes an instrument of inflicting fatal blow on the efforts of justice dispensation."
350. And, I end with a quote -
"when the system fails, the truth remains hidden in the shudders of injustice" -Justice Denied
351. This is the entire story and fate of the case at hand.
Announced in the open court on this 12th Day of July, 2024.
(ANIL ANTIL)
SPL. JUDGE (PC ACT): CBI-15
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT
NEW DELHI/12.07.2024
CBI Case No. 213/19 97 of 97