Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. Mr. Janender Kumar Jain was the next witness to be examined. He deposed that he was working with Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd. since 1970. The company was managed by Surender Jain, B.R. Jain and N.K. Jain. Surender Jain was the Managing Director in 1991. On 03.05.91 his house was searched by CBI team at about 6.30 a.m. He told the CBI officers that Surender Jain was Managing Director and he was residing in Friends Colony. In course of search, cash Rs.58 Lacs Indian Currency, foreign currency of about Rs.57,000/­ and Indira Vikas Patra were recovered. In the evening a senior officer of CBI CC 255/07 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Sharma came to his house and made enquiries about TADA as the search was under TADA. He also told him regarding provisions of TADA. The witness was cross­examined by Ld. PP. He admitted therein that his statement was recorded by CBI. He could not admit or deny if the senior officer who visited his residence in the evening was the accused. However, he claimed that it was one Mr. Sharma. He could not remember if he had disclosed in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that name of the said senior officer was O.P. Sharma. He admitted that he had been told that search was regarding funding of terrorist. However he denied the suggestion that accused had threatened to deal him under TADA. He admitted that he was taken to CBI office in the morning of 04.05.91 and enquiries were made and he was allowed to go in the evening and directed to come back again next day. Mr. M.P. Singh had met him and also made enquiries from him. During course of same cross examination he claimed that he could not remember if he had stated to CBI in his statement that accused had threatened to deal him under TADA and had asked him to call Surender Jain. He also denied that he had told CBI that due to recovery of huge currency from his CC 255/07 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Sharma house, he was worried about threatened arrest under TADA as accused was connected with recovery of currency notes under TADA. He further claimed that he could not remember if he had stated in his statement to CBI that Surender Jain had told him that he knew L.K. Kaul who had close connection with the accused. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused and so he was not deliberately identifying the accused.

32. Mr. M.P. Singh Retired DIG was PW­11 in the case. He deposed that in 1991 he was DSP in SIC­II branch of CBI, Delhi. He was IO of RC 5(S)/91, SIU­V u/s 120­B IPC, u/s 3&4 TADA and u/s 56 r/w 8 (1) FERA. He deposed further that on 3.5.91, 11 places were searched in connection with the said case including residence of J.K. Jain. DSP Mr. D.P. Singh had conducted search in the residence of J.K. Jain. Mr. D.P. Singh informed him telephonically that one business Associate of J.K. Jain was S.K.Jain and his residence A­13 Friends Colony was also to be searched. Thereafter he (PW M.P. Singh) issued authorization u/s CC 255/07 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Sharma 165 Cr.P.C. in the name of DSP Mr. Manku. Search was done and in the evening Mr. Manku came back with S.K.Jain. He (PW M.P. Singh) informed S.K. Jain that search had been conducted in relation to terrorist funding case. He could not interrogate S.K. Jain thoroughly due to other searches. Lateron he summoned S.K. Jain but S.K. Jain did not appear. Case was transferred on 4.7.91 to Sh. D.K. Chaudhry. Mr. Rajender Singh S.P and accused O.P. Sharma then DIG were supervisory officer of the case. Upon being cross examined, the witness admitted that some diaries had been recovered from J.K. Jain which contained names of political leaders of party in power and also in opposition. Names of senior bureaucrats were also mentioned therein. The diaries also revealed cash amounts paid to those politicians and bureaucrats. Charge sheets were filed subsequently as money was paid by Jain to those politicians and bureaucrats. He admitted that in 1991 C.M. Sharma was Joint Director and overall incharge of case registered under TADA. He had not attended any meeting with C.M. Sharma for arrest of accused persons in that case. He could not exactly recollect names mentioned in the diary but admitted that it contained CC 255/07 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Sharma names of L.K. Advani, Buta Singh, Sharad Yadav and Balram Jakhar. He was not sure if name of former Union Ministers Arif Mohd. Khan and Zafar Sharif also figured in the diary. He could not recollect if names of bureaucrats namely Shiv Shankar, R.K. Dhawan, Yashwant Sinha and Natwar Singh were also there but all of them had been charge sheeted. He submitted that he did not deem it necessary to arrest S.K. Jain and J.K Jain in the said case and no charge sheet was filed against them under TADA. There were discussions for invoking provisions of TADA against Jains' but he had opposed the same. He also admitted that supervision of the case was being conducted by Joint Director C.M. Sharma of UP Cadre.

35. Thereafter, CBI examined Surender Jain as PW14. He claimed CC 255/07 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Sharma that he was an industrialist. He did not recollect any incident which had taken place on 3.5.91. He did not know any L.K. Kaul or O.P. Sharma. He denied having any knowledge of matter involving accused or any demand of bribe. He claimed that his premises No. 13, New Friends Colony were searched in 1991 by CBI. He claimed that CBI was suspecting him of funding terrorist activities in Kashmir and he was having links with terrorists. He knew nothing about house No. 29, Pamposh Enclave, Greater Kailash ­I. He did not remember how many telephone connections were there in house. He did not remember their numbers either. Cassettes Ex.PW2/E­1, PW2/F­2, PW2/K were played. Witness denied his voice and purpose of recording. He had personal staff and Jenny was main staff member. Whenever call was made to him from outside, Jenny used to connect him. He did not remember his extension number. Witness was then cross­examined by Ld. PP wherein he claimed that he had visited CBI office 400/500 times. He had been summoned in connection with Jain diary case, leakage of diaries matter, but he had not visited CBI office regarding case of trapping of O.P. Sharma. He admitted that his premises were searched CC 255/07 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Sharma in connection with TADA matter. He did not remember having told M.P. Singh that he was innocent. He denied making of statement, portions of which were read out to him in the court u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. He did not remember whether he had asked the CBI officers about reason of raid. He further claimed that he had not stated that M.P. Singh had taken him to the accused O.P. Sharma who had asked him to meet in private and threatened to implead him in a TADA case. He also denied having stated that accused O.P. Sharma had told him that lot of incriminating material had been recovered from premises of Janender Jain who was working for him. He also denied the suggestion that L.K. Kaul was his friend. He claimed that he had also not told the IO that he had asked L.K. Kaul to meet O.P. Sharma. He also claimed that he had not told CBI that accused had demanded Rs. 30 Lacs for not impleading them in TADA matter. He had also not told CBI that he felt worried and had been left with no option but to fulfill the demand to avoid arrest. He had not given any money to L.K. Kaul for delivery to O.P. Sharma but admitted that he had discussions with Janender Jain about the raid and Janender Jain had told him that CBI had raided his CC 255/07 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Sharma premises and taken away some papers. He had thereafter contacted Kapil Sibbal regarding the raid.

42. PW­20 was Mr. C.M. Sharma Joint Director, CBI. He claimed that he knew Aslam Khan as a friend. He belonged to a royal family of Afghanistan. He had met Arif Khan through Aslam Khan and his elder brother. Aslam telephoned him one day and expressed his desire to meet him. He came to meet alongwith Mr. Jain. Premises of Jains had been raided by CBI. To his knowledge, S.K. Jain had no connection CC 255/07 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Sharma with terrorist activities. He was not in favour of arrest of simple hawala dealers in RC no. 5(S)/91­SIU­V of SIC­II. He was interested in arresting those involved in funding of terrorists and recipients of money. Nand Kishore had been arrested without his permission. He was basically a hawala dealer. In his cross examination he claimed that it was in 1991 he came to know that premises of Jain referred by him had been searched. However he denied the suggestion that the said investigation related to funding by Jains to various politicians and bureaucrats. At the time of search of premises of the Jain, he was incharge of the unit but could not tell as to how long he remained as incharge thereafter. He admitted that a diary had been recovered from Jains but he had just seen it once and returned it to the officer concerned who had brought it to him. He claimed that he was not interested in arrest of Jain under TADA but it was true that some persons had been arrested under provisions of TADA. Normally progress of the investigation of case under TADA was discussed by Supervisory officer i.e. S.P. and DIG with him and files relating to investigation of the case would have been sent to him from time to CC 255/07 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Sharma time. According to note of DSP M.P. Singh, Nand Kishore had been arrested on 3.6.91. However Shambhu Dayal would have been interrogated by CBI before search was conducted at premises of Jains on 3.5.91. He admitted that premises of Jains were searched on basis of disclosure by Shambu Dayal and others and Rs. 58,09,100/­ and foreign currency and Indira Vikas Patra were recovered. He admitted he had opposed arrest of Jains by O.P. Sharma, but he could not remember if O.P. Sharma wanted to arrest Jains. He had also suggested that matter should be referred to Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Authorities for action against Jains. He denied the suggestion that Senior officials of CBI had connived and got instituted a false case against the accused as he wanted to arrest Jains and scuttle the investigation against bureaucrats and politicians who figured in Jain diaries. Some files dealt with the accused in which he had made notings while he was functioning as DIG of CBI were also produced. According to one noting, the persons who had not been arrested so far fell in two categories. Category one were of bankers/financers while category two was of recipients of hawala money. He admitted that he CC 255/07 CBI Vs. Om Prakash Sharma made a note opposing arrest of Nand Kishore on 18.6.91. Lastly he denied the suggestion that few notings made by the accused had been deliberately removed.