Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. In furtherance of the conspiracy, documents from the judicial file in the Main Uphaar Trial were destroyed (some documents went missing; some were mutilated, torn; and ink was spread over some of the documents).

12. When the fact of destruction of documents was brought to the knowledge of the Court, and after his dismissal from service, Mr. Dinesh Chand Sharma contacted Mr. P.P. Batra to secure employment.

13. Thereafter, at the behest of Mr. Sushil Ansal & Mr. Gopal Ansal, through Mr. P.P. Batra, Mr. Dinesh Chand Sharma was provided with a job at A-Plus Security Agency, upon the recommendation of Mr. D.V. Malhotra. He was paid salary through Mr. D.V. Malhotra, in cash, at a rate higher than the usual rate at A-Plus Security for a work of similar nature (Rs.15,000/- was paid to Mr. Dinesh Chand Sharma as against Rs.7,500/- paid to other Field Officers in the firm).

CRL.REV.P. 262/2016, CRL.REV.P. 263/2016, CRL.REV.P. 264/2016 & CRL.REV.P. 265/2016  The said missing documents are the covering letters for the Managing Director's conference held on 07.05.1997, 02.04.1997 and 01.05.1997. The covering letters had named Mr. Gopal Ansal as the Managing Director (MD). The minutes, which are not missing, referred only to 'MD'. The said 'MD' could not have been identified without the covering letters.

 It is stated that these letters, therefore unequivocally establish who the MD referred to in the minutes, was. Further, the Covering letters authenticate the minutes, as the bare minutes do not bear any signatures.

22. Next, Ms. John, Ld. Senior advocate and Mr. Pawan Narang, learned counsel, would seek to assail the charge framed against the revisionists for the commission of the offence of conspiracy under the IPC. It would be urged that the Ld. Trial Court has erroneously held that the alleged conspiracy, to destroy the documents in the Main Uphaar Trial, continued to persist even after the factum of the missing documents in the Main Uphaar Trial was brought to the knowledge of the concerned Court. In this behalf, it would be further argued that there is nothing on record to support of the finding that the conspiracy persisted till the time Mr. Dinesh Chand Sharma was provided a job at A-Plus Security Agency.

33. Mr. Aggarwal would also make an asseveration that the Ld. Trial Court ought not to have proceeded to frame charges against the accused persons, without there being a sanction for prosecution of Mr. Dinesh Chand Sharma. In order to buttress this submission, reliance would be placed on the decisions in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. CBI & ors., rendered in W.P. (Crl) 1401/2002; and Prof. N.K. Ganguly v. CBI, reported as (2016) 2 SCC 143.

34. Mr. Aggarwal would vehemently assert that, contrary to what has been found by the Ld. Trial Court, the proceedings in the Main Uphaar Trial were not hampered by any acts of commission or omission on the part of the revisionists, inasmuch as, the prosecution proceeded to in fact, lead secondary evidence qua the documents which went missing; were torn, tampered with; or destroyed. In order to buttress this submission, reliance would be placed on the decisions in State of NCT of Delhi v. Shiv Charan CRL.REV.P. 262/2016, CRL.REV.P. 263/2016, CRL.REV.P. 264/2016 & CRL.REV.P. 265/2016 Bansal, reported as 2009 (3) JCC 2202; State of U.P. v. Dr. Sanjay Singh & anr., reported as 1994 Supp (2) SCC 707.