Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: architects in Cbi vs . 1. N.K. Grover (A1), on 10 September, 2013Matching Fragments
126.PW12 has further deposed that subsequently, to assist CBI, a team was constituted in December, 2006, of which CBI vs. N.K. Grover & Ors. 43 of 154 pages he was a member. He deposed contrary to PW5 that inspection of the spot was conducted 67 times. PW5 has deposed that they went to the spot on two occasions. That the team pointed out the discrepancies in the plans, which were prepared by private architect, who was issued work order (no work order was placed or proved on record) for preparation of existing building plan of M/s Uppal Properties Private Limited. That accordingly, modified/corrected plans were got prepared, as per existing position. The original (defective) plans, prepared by PW6, however, were not produced nor shown to this witness by the prosecution, throwing doubt on this issue. He reiterated subsequent plans, prepared by the architect, Ex.PW5/C to Ex.PW5/G, which bear his signatures at pt C, on each plan, which have been duly identified by him.
215.It has also been contended that as per clause 7.5.2 of the Building Bye Laws, on completion of construction work, the owner has to submit notice of the completion through the licensed Architect/Engineer, who supervised the construction, in the prescribed proforma along with copies of the completion plan and other documents, mentioned therein. That it was not the job of accused (A2) to verify the genuineness of the documents, submitted by the owner through the architect along with the application or thereafter. Even otherwise, the prosecution has miserably failed to show that any such document was intentionally used by the owner knowing it to be forged to obtain the completion certificate.
220.In this case, PW1, Mr. Anil Jain, Architect, prepared plans, which are Ex.PW1/A1 to Ex.PW1/A6. He, subsequently, turned hostile and was cross examined by the State but to no benefit to the prosecution.
221.PW2, Mr. Ashu Paul Malhotra is the material witness, cited and examined by the prosecution. That he has not supported the case of the prosecution. On the other hand, he has ruined the case of the prosecution, altogether. This witness has deposed that he was Architect, who supervised the construction and prepared basement completion plan, Ex.PW2/A1. He has also proved ground floor completion plan, Ex.PW2/A2 and that of first floor, which is Ex.PW2/A3. That it is the prosecution itself, which has got these documents proved. That once, the prosecution itself got proved that there was a basement completion plan, the case of the prosecution stands demolished at once.
289.That PW2 has owned the responsibility and stated that someone in his office must have got signed the structural certificate from the Structural Engineer. The signatures of PW2 were not done in the presence of accused B.K. Uppal (A3). Hence, it cannot be said that any false document was created either by PW2 or accused B.K. Uppal or that it was to his knowledge that some employee of the architect has made signatures of PW2 in his presence. Admittedly, application for completion certificate has to be submitted through the licensed architect. Thus, no offence under section 471 is made out against accused (A3). CBI vs. N.K. Grover & Ors. 117 of 154 pages