You are on page 1of 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

INTHECOURTOFSH.VINODKUMAR SPECIALJUDGEII(PCACT,CBI),ROHINI,DELHI IDNo.02404R0649862007 RC22(E)/2005/EOWII/DLI CCNo.45/2010 CBIVs 1. SriChand S/oLateSh.HariSingh R/o274A,PocketC,MayurVihar,PhaseII, Delhi. 2. RameshChandra S/oLateSh.AgyaRam R/oCD/52F,DDAFlatHariNagar,NewDelhi64. 3. FaizMohammed, S/oSh.GhulamMohammed, R/o4794,HaataKedara,PahariDharaj,NewDelhi. 4. RakeshKumarHasija S/oSh.UdhooDass, R/oFlatNo.113,TypeII,DelhiAdmn.Flats GulabiBagh,Delhi. O/oExecutiveEngineer,Irrigation&Food ControlDeptt.,CivilDivisionIIGovt.ofNCT ofDelhi. 5. PrahladKumarThirwani S/oLateSh.MotiRamThirwani R/o348E,Pocket2,MayurVihar,PhaseI, Delhi91. 6. JitenderSinghSharma S/oSh.NarayanSingh R/o1073/A3,WardNo.1,Mehrauli, NewDelhi30. 7. JasbirSinghSindhu S/oDr.BharatSingh R/oA315,MeeraBagh,NewDelhi.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 1 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

8. 9.

10.

11.

NarayanDiwakar S/oLateSh.ChattiLal R/oG30,MasjidMoth,NewDelhi48. SushilKumarSharma S/oSh.MadanLalSharma R/oVill.Lalsa,P .O.Dansa,TehsilRampurBushar, Distt.Shimla,HimachalPradesh. AnnaWankhede D/oLateSh.Parunji R/o148E,PocketII,MayurVihar,PhaseIII, Delhi91. MohanLal S/oLateSh.AjmeriLal R/oF228/3,AndrewsGanj,NewDelhi49.

Dateonwhichthefinalargumentswereconcluded:22.8.2012 Dateofjudgment:29.8.2012 JUDGEMENT In CWP No. 2885/90 i.e. Kaveri CGHS Vs Union of India,

Hon'bleHighCourtofDelhipassedanorderdated10.5.1991tothe effectthatoriginaldateofregistrationofsocietywithRCROfficewas to be considered for establishing the seniority of the society for allotmentoflandbyDDA. Hon'bleDelhiHighCourtinWP(C)No. 10066/2004hadpassedanorderEx.PW90/A7(D147),whereinit wasobservedthatthereappearedtobeanexusbetweenthebuilders takingoverthecooperativemovementinDelhiinconnivancewith theofficialsofRegistrarofCooperativeSocieties. Itwasobserved thatlandinDelhiisallotedatapredeterminedrateandnotonthe
CC No. 45/2010 Page 2 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

basisofthemarketvalueoftheland. Thesecooperativesocieties wereformedinordertohaveflatsataaffordablepricebymiddle income group and lower income group. It was observed that its element of profit making in viewof difference of market value of landandvalueonwhichthelandisallottedtothesociety,whichhas resultedinnexusbetweenthebuildersandofficials. Inviewofthe enormousamountofmoneyinvestedandinvolvementoftheaccused persons,natureofcrimeandvoluminousrecordsHon'bleHighCourt directedCBItoformulateaspecialinvestigatingteamtoinvestigate thewholematter.Preliminaryenquiryinrespectoftheeachsociety in all 135 societies was conducted and in appropriate cases the regular cases were registered including the present one i.e. RangmahalCGHS. Prosecutioncaseinbriefisthatduring197080orthereafter,a It is alleged that Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. was registered on largenumberofGroupHousingSocietieswereregistered. 31.3.1973 vide Regn. No. 152 (GH) with 15 promoter members, havingitsregisteredofficeat81,SunderNagar,NewDelhionthe basis of an application dated 15.1.1973 submitted by Sh. Sumat PrasadJain,thethenSecretaryofthesocietyandthatsubsequently the membership of the society was enhanced to 50 in the next GeneralBodyMeeting. InvestigationhasfurtherestablishedthatSh.M.A.Hashmi,the

CC No. 45/2010

Page 3 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

thenAsstt.Registrarin199192,hadverifiedandforwardedalistof 51 members of Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. vide his letter dated 8.11.1991.Itisfurtherallegedthatin1977,RangmahalCGHSLtd. hadbeenallotted1acreoflandatPlotNo.13,Pitampura,Delhi,its possessionwastakenbythesocietyand50flatsconstructed,which were subsequently allottedto the genuine members ofRangmahal CGHSLtd.throughdrawoflotsheldinthepresenceofDDA&RCS officialson23.1.1993. M.A.Hashmi,thethenAssistantRegistrar, alsoaddressedaletterdated24.11.1992toDDAfordrawoflotsof thesociety.Hefurtherclarifiedthatonememberwasallottedaflat muchlaterundertheordersoftheSupremeCourtand,therefore, strengthofthesocietywentupto51.Sh.SMSChaudhary,thethen ExecutiveOfficer,DDAhadprovedtheallotmentofaplotof1acreto RangmahalCGHSLtd.videhisletterdated31.3.1977addressedto theSecretaryofthesociety. Themembersoccupiedtheseflatsandareresidingtheresince then.Theauditofthesocietyhadalsobeenconductedregularlytill 199293. Itisallegedthatintheyear2003thebuildermafiaincollusion with RCS officials hatched a conspiracy to create a duplicate Rangmahalsocietywiththesameregistrationnumber,asitwasone oftheearliestsocietiestoberegisteredandthereforehadthereal chancesofquickallotmentoflandbyDDAinviewoftheseniority

CC No. 45/2010

Page 4 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

criteriaaslaiddowninKaveri'sjudgement.Henceafakesecretary ofthefakesociety,namelySh.DeepakKumar,madeanapplication fortheauditofthesocietyintheyear2003onthebasisofwhich,the matter was taken up by the RCS and the defucnt society was activatedandfurtherattherequestofSh.DeepakKumar,Secretary, thenameofthesocietywasalsochangedto'SilverViewApartments CGHSLtd'. It was further alleged that Faiz Mohd., Gr.II (A3), who had been appointed to conduct the inspection of the society on 27.1.2004,submittedafalseinspectionreporton3.2.2004inwhich hehadstatedtohavevisitedtheofficeofthesocietyon31.1.2004, wherehewasinformedthattheofficeofthesocietyhadbeenshifted from 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar,PhaseIII,Delhi96. Hehasfurtherstatedtohavevisitedthe newaddressofthesocietyon1.2.2004andmetSh.DeepakKumar, Secretaryofthesociety, whereas,infact,hehadneithervisitedthe oldaddressnornewaddressandhadsubmittedafalseinspection report. Investigation has further revealed that during the period 200304, Sri Chand in connivance with Anna Wankhede (A10), Mohan Lal (A11), Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9) and RCS officials enrolled 70 fictitious members in the society in the year 2004 by antedating their enrollments wayback to 1976 1978 and an

CC No. 45/2010

Page 5 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

applicationdated29.12.2003wassubmittedbySh.DeepakKumar,a socalledSecretaryofthesocietyandanonexistententity,requesting the Assistant Registrar (East) for the approval of final list of 120 membersforallotmentofland.Itwasfurthermentionedinthesaid applicationthattheregisteredaddressofthesocietyhadbeenshifted to 147G, Pkt. A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi96, vide ManagementCommitteeResolutiondated20.8.1995.Itwasfurther mentionedintheletterthatthesocietyhad50promotermembers belonging to the lower middle class, who were mostly salaried persons,havingnoroofovertheirheadsinDelhiandthatthesociety had enrolled another 70 members from time to time, thereby bringing the total strength of the society to 120. It was also mentioned that the matter regarding the approval of final list of members, had been put up in the General Body Meeting of the societyheldon28.12.2003anditwasdecidedtosubmitarequestto theRCSforapprovaloffinallistof120members.TheManagement Committeeofthesaidsocietyalsosoughtcondonationofthevarious irregularitiesoccurredduetolackofknowledgeonthepartofthe members to run the society. It alleged that this letter dated 29.12.2003 was nothing but a misrepresentation of the facts and submitted with a view to create a parallel/fictitious society to regularize the enrollment of fictitious members in the name of existingsocietyatadifferentaddressandalsotochangethenameof

CC No. 45/2010

Page 6 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

thesocietytoavoiddetectionofthesame.Thisletterwasreceived byNarayanDiwakar(A8),thethenRCSon29.12.2003andmarked toJointRegistrar(East)i.e.A7. InvestigationhasfurtherrevealedthatJ.S.Sharma(A6),the then Assistant registrar (Audit) sent a letter dated 30.12.2003 to Assistantregistrar(East) (i.e.A2) mentioningthereinthat aletter had been received from Deepak Kumar, Secretary of Rangmahal CGHSLtd.,RegistrationNo.152(H)dated31.3.1973,requestingfor theauditofthesocietysinceitsinception,asthesamewaspending. HerequestedtheAssistantregistrar(East)toconfirmthestatusof the members of the society so that further action could be taken. ThisletterwasreceivedbyRameshChandra(A2),thethenAssistant registrar (East) on 10.1.2004, who marked it to the Dealing Assistant. However, the notesheet from 1973 onwards is not available in the file. The noting starts from 13.1.2004 only after receiptoftheletterfromJ.S.Sharma,thethenAssistantregistrar (Audit). On 13.1.2004, in the first note of Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4), the then Dealing Assistant, it has been dishonestly and fraudulentlymentionedthataspertherecordsavailable,theauditof thesocietywaspendingsinceregistrationandnolisthadbeensent toDDAforallotmentoflandtilldateandnoliquidationorderwas available in the file. It was further mentioned that as per the availablerecords,statusofthesocietywasnonfunctional. Inthis

CC No. 45/2010

Page 7 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

note, a suggestion was incorporated to inform the position to Assistantregistrar(Audit)andtoappointFaizMohd.AsInspectorto conductinspectionofthesocietyu/s54oftheDCSAct1972.This notewasapprovedbyRameshChandra,thethenAssistantRegistrar (East)andfurtherbyJasbirSinghSindhu,thethenJointRegistrar (East)on16.1.2004afterdiscussionwithRameshChandra,thethen Assistant Registrar (East). Ramesh Chadra, put up a note dated 20.1.2004withthesuggestiontoappointFaizMohd.asInspecting Officer. ThisproposalwasapprovedbyNarayanDiwakar,thethen RCSon21.1.2004. InvestigatinghasfurtherrevealedthatFaizMohd.submittedan inspectionreportdated3.2.2004whichwasputupbyRakeshKumar Hasija(A4),thethenDealingAssistanton10.2.2004. Inhisnote, Rakesh Kumar Hasija mentioned that the inspecting officer visited theofficeofthesocietyinMayurViharandmetSh.PradeepKumar, Secretaryofthesociety,whoproducedalltherelevantrecordsand informedthattherewere120membersinthesocietybutthelistof members had not yet been approved by the RCS for allotment of land.Itwasfurtherrecordedthatmembershipregisterwascomplete inallrespectsandthattheauditofthesocietywaspendingsince 1.7.1970 onwards. Further, as per the report of Faiz Mohd., the electionofthesocietywasheldlaston28.12.2003andthatallthe recordsofthesocietywereinthesafecustodyofSh.DeepakKumar,

CC No. 45/2010

Page 8 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Secretaryforproductionofcompleteoriginalrecordon20.2.2004at 12.00whichwasapprovedbyRameshChandra,thethenAssistant registrar(East).ItmaybementionedtherethatthenameofPradeep Kumar, Secretary has figured twice in the note dated 10.2.2004 recorded by Rakesh Kumar Hasija, the then Dealing Assistant whereasinthesamenote,hehasmentionedthatalltherecordswere in the safe custody of Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary, as per the inspectionreportsubmittedbyFaizMohd. Investigationhasfurtherrevealedthatpremisesno.147G,Pkt. A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi96 is owned by one Sh. Ram Naresh Prasad Singh where Mohan Lal was a tenant. Sh. Ram NareshPrasadSinghhascategoricallystatedthatthesaidpremises wereneverusedbyanysocietyandthatthenomeetingevertook placeatthesaidaddress.ItmaybementionedherethatMohanLal fabricated the records containing bogus proceedings of the Management Committee meetings at the said address. GEQD has givenapositiveopiniononhiswriting. Investigatinghasfurtherrevealedthatafalseandbogusreport waspreparedbyRakeshKumarHasija,thethenDealingAssistanton computer on 19.3.2004 stating therein that Sh. Deepak Kumar, SecretaryofthesocietyattendedtheofficeoftheRCSandproduced theoriginalrecordsforverificationwhichwereexamined/verified.It hasalsobeenmentionedthattherelevantdocumentspertainingto

CC No. 45/2010

Page 9 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

the verification of final list of 120 members were examined and verifiedandrequestedthecompetentauthoritytoapprovethelistfor onwardstransmissiontoDDAforallotmentofland. Thenotewas approved by Ramesh Chandra, then the Assistant registrar (East), Jasbir Singh Sindhu, the then Joint Registrar (East) and Naryana Diwakar,thethenRCSon19.3.2004itself. Investigation has further revealed that Rakesh Kumar Hasija thethenDealingAssistantwasnottheconcernedDealingAssistantin theofficeofAssistantregistrar(East)andsuchmattersusedtobe dealtwithbyoneSmt.SunitaNagpal. Aftertheapprovaloflistof 120members,thefilewasgiventoSmt.SunitaNagpalforfurther processing. She put up a letter dated 22.3.2004 addressed to Assistantregistrar(Policy)toRameshChandra,thethenAR(East), whoforwardedthefreezelistof120memberstoDDAforallotment oflandon22.3.2004itself.Surprisingly,noneoftheseRCSofficials pointedoutaboutthemissingnotesheetpagesinthefileandthe concerned RCS officials colluded with the private persons in the approvalofsecondlistofmembersandalsoforallotmentoflandto thesocietyforthesecondtimebytheDDA. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Deepak Kumar, a selfstyled Secretary of the society made another request vide his letter dated 29.3.2004 to Assistant Registrar (East) for change in nameofthesocietyandalsofortheapprovalofnewmodelbyelaws.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 10 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Three names i.e. Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd., Hill View ApartmentsCGHSLtd.&SkyBlueApartmentsCGHSLtd.,werealso suggestedbyhim.ThisrequestwasprocessedbySmt.SunitaNagpal onthesameday.Thefiletravelledwithalighteningspeedandthe samewasclearedbyRameshChandra,thethenAssistantRegistrar (East),JasbirSinghSindhu,thethenJointRegistrarandapprovedby NarayanDiwakar,thethenRCSonthesamedayandthenameofthe societywasorderedtobechangedtoSilverViewApartmentsCGHS Ltd.on29.3.2004,whichclearlyreflectsthecollusionbetweenRCS officialsandtheotherprivatepersons. It is alleged that the aforesaid parallel/duplicate society was formed by Sri Chand (A1). The very fact that the RCS officials entertainedanapplication aftera gapof33years, points towards theirconnivancewiththeprivatepersons.Nooneraisedanyquery ormadeanyeffortstosearchforthemissingnotesheets/papers.It wasalsonotconsiderednecessarytomakeanyverificationfromthe DDA.ItwouldbeinterestingtonotethatRameshChandra,thethen AssistantRegistrar(East)certifiedeachpageofnewmodelofbye lawsofthesocietybyaffixinghisofficialstampbutthesemodelbye lawsdidnotcontaineventhenameofthesociety.Investigationhas further revealed that most of the documents of Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. was forged by Anna Wankhede, Sushil Kumar Sharma and MohanLal.GEQDhasgivenpositiveopinionontheirwritings.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 11 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

InvestigationhasfurtherrevealedthatduringDecember,2004, SriChandgotanadvertisementpublishedthroughM/sV .A.Agency, C28, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi in leading newspapersonapaymentofRs.26,880/requestingallthemembers ofthesocietytofurnishtheRCSvidepublicnoticedated18.12.2004. InvestigationhasfurtherrevealedthatP .K.Thirwani(A5),Sr. AuditorintheofficeofRCS,hadconductedtheauditofthesociety foraperiodof33yearsi.e.19702003atastretch. Ithasbeen establishedthatthebalancesheetsofthesocietyforaudithadbeen prepared by Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Chartered Accountant, Aravali ShoppingCentre,Alaknanda,NewDelhiattheinstanceofSriChand. She.NeerajKumar,CAhasadmittedtohavereceivedRs.6,500/in cashfromSriChandinlieuoftheservicesrenderedbyhim.During the course of investigation, the original documents relating to the audit of Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. have been collected from the promotermembersandithascometolightthattheauditofthesaid societyhadalreadybeencompletedsinceinceptiontill199293.P .K. Thirwani,hasconductedtheauditofthesocietyforaperiodof33 yearsatastretchinviolationofSec.84(1)ofDCSRules,1973.It wouldnotbeoutofplacetomentionthatP .K.Thirwanihadbeen appointedasanAuditortoconductauditofRangmahalCGHSLtd. foraperiodof33yearsbyJ.S.Sharma,thethenAssistantRegistrar (Audit)whowasfullyawareoftherulesthattheauditatastretch

CC No. 45/2010

Page 12 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

couldonlybeconductedforaperiodof3years. GEQD has opined that the proceedings dated 4.3.2004, 23.11.2003andforgedmodelbyelawswereinthehandofMohan Lal. GEQDhasfurtheropinedthatAnnaWankhedehasforgedthe proceedingsandfilledupthebogusreceiptsshowingthereceiptsof share moneyin thename offictitiousmembers andSushilKumar Sharma had forged some of the proceedings, check list of audit report which also bears the signatures of J. S. Sharma, the then AssistantRegistrar(Audit)andproveshisknowledge. Investigation has established that Arun Kumar, President, DeepakKumar,Secretary&P .K.Singh,Treasurer,shownastheoffice bearers of the Management Committee of the society, are non existent and fictitiouspersons. Ld. PublicProsecutorsubmitsthat during the course of investigation, FIR named accused person namely,DeepakKumarwasfoundtobeafictitiousandnonexistent entity. Hence his name has been shown in Column No.2 of this chargesheet. Afterhearingthearguments,chargewasframedagainstallthe accusedpersonsunderSection120readwithSection420/511IPC, 468/471 IPC and Section 15 read with Section 13 (2) read with Section13(1)(d)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct1988. AchargeagainstaccusedJ.SSharma(A6),RameshChandra (A2), Faiz Mohd. (A3), Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4), P K. Thirwani .

CC No. 45/2010

Page 13 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

(A5), Jasbir Singh Sindhu (A7) and Narayan Diwkar (A8) was framedunderSection13(2)readwithSection13(1)(d)readwith Section15ofPreventionofCorruptionAct1988. AseparatechargewasframedagainstaccusedSriChand(A1) underSection420readwithSection511IPC. Separate charge was framed against accused Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9), AnnaWankhede(A10)andMohanLal(A11)under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and under the substantial offenceunderSection468IPC. Inordertoproveitscaseprosecutionexamined94witnesses, whichareasunder:

CC No. 45/2010

Page 14 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

PW1 Sh. Ram Naresh Prasad Singh deposed that Flat No. 147G,Pocket8,MayurVihar,PhaseIII,Delhibelongedtohimandhe hadoccupiedthesaidhouseintheyear1990. Hefurtherdeposed thataccusedMohanLalhadresidedinthesaidhousefrom1997to 2002.AfterthatMr.MadhusudanSahuandSh.DharamSinghhad residedinthesaidflat.NosocietyinthenameandstyleofSilver ViewApartmentsorRangmahalCGHShadworkedinthesaidflatat anypointoftime. Here, I may point out that there appears to be a clerical mistake. Pocket8 hasbeentyped inadvertently due tophonetic similaritywith PocketA2. Ld. PublicProsecutorhas drawnmy attentionduringfinalargumentsthatthisaddressshouldbereadas PocketA2andandnotasPocket8.Therefore,acorrectiontothis effectinstatementu/s313CrPCwasmadesubsequently. PW2SatyaPrakashdeposedthatduringtheyear2006hewas working in the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, ParliamentStreet,NewDelhiasLDCintheAuditDepartment.He had proved a Seizure memo (D7) dated 23.5.2006 Ex.PW2/A; provedtheAuditReportfortheauditperiod1.7.1970to31.3.2003 Ex.PW2/A1. PW3ManoharLal deposedthathewasworkingasPostman andwaspostedintheLajpatNagarareasince1999.Hehadproved thatenvelopes(D27)Ex.PW3/AcontainingaddressofSh.BrijBihari

CC No. 45/2010

Page 15 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

SinghvisonofSh.G.N.Singhviresidentof248D,DefenceColony, NewDelhi;(D87)Ex.PW3/BcontainingaddressofSh.Sumantson of Sh. Magan Bhai Desai resident of D13, Defence Colony, New Delhi. He went to the aforesaid addresses for delivery of the envelopesbutnosuchpersonwereavailable. PW 4 Rajender Prasad had deposed that he had been working as a Postman since 1995 in the area of Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi. He had proved an envelope (D124) Ext.PW4/A1 in the name of Sh.Manish Gupta S/o Late Sh.Nand Prakash75,Paharganj,NewDelhi.Onthereverseofsaidenvelope, an endorsement had been made might be in the hand writing of BanwariLal.Hehadfurtherprovedthataddressmentionedonthe envelopeas75,Paharganj,NewDelhiwasnotcompleteaddress. PW5KamalSinghhaddeposedthatduringtheyear2003,he wasworkingasLDCintheOfficeofRegistrar,CooperativeSocieties, ParliamentStreet,NewDelhi.HewasattachedtotheAuditSection. His duties were to Diarise & Dispatch the documents which were receivedinthesaidsection.HeremainedpostedintheAuditSection tillSeptember,2005.HewasappointedasanAuditorinabout45 societies.HeknewaccusedPrahladKumarThirwani.Hehadproved anappointmentletterEx.PW5/Ainrespectofauditor(CSCopyD11) of RangMahal Cooperative Group Housing Society; proved photocopyofreceiptno.038dated30.01.2004Ex.PW5/A1bearing

CC No. 45/2010

Page 16 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

his signature at point A. He did not receive any payment from accusedP .K.Thirwani. PW 6 Hardutt Sharma deposed that he was working as a PostmanandwaspostedinB1Block,JanakPuriPostOfficesince 1989. He had proved an envelope (D114) Ex.PW6/A which was given to him for delivery at A402, Janak Puri, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Pankaj Mittal S/o Sh. R. K. Mittal. He visited the aforesaidaddressandfoundthatnosuchnumberwasinexistenceat thegivenaddress. PW7GopiChanddeposedthathewaspostedasaPostmanat RajenderNagarPostOffice,NewDelhisince1989.Intheyear2006, hewaspostedthereinthesamecapacity.Hehadprovedanenvelope (D130)Ex.PW7/Awhichwasgiventohimfordeliveryat212E, NewRajenderNagarinthenameofSh.RajenderKumarSinghS/o Sh.PramodKumarSingh; PW8VijayKumar haddeposedthathe waspostedasPostmanatSriNiwasPuriPostOffice,NewDelhiinthe year2006.HeremainedpostedasPostmanw.e.f.1990to2006.He hadprovedanenvelope(D45)whichwasgiventohimfordelivery atD20,N.D.S.EII,inthenameofSh.TulsiDassMundraS/oSh. GangarDassMundra.Theaforesaidletterscouldnotbedeliveredat thegivenaddressesasno suchpersonswereresidingatthegiven address. PW 8 Vijay Kumar further proved another envelope

CC No. 45/2010

Page 17 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

(D48)Ex.PW8/B which was given to him for delivery at C117, South Extension, PartII, New Delhi in the name of Sh.Raj Kumar DagaS/oSh.BadriDassDaga.Hevisitedtheaforesaidaddressand foundthattheaddresseehadchangedtheaddressto7/18,Kalkaji Extension,NewDelhiandhemadeanendorsementtothiseffectin hishandwritingwhichwasredirectedtobedeliveredatthegiven addressas7/18,KalkajiExtension,NewDelhi. PW9BhagwatPrasaddeposedthathewaspostedasPostman at Lajpat Nagar Post Office, New Delhi in the year 2006. He had proved envelopes (D71) Ext.PW9/A in the name of Sh.RajniKant UpadhyayS/oSh.V .G.UpadhyayatD42,DefenceColony,NewDelhi, in the name of & (D117) Ex.PW9/B in the name of Sh. Sunil S. SinghalS/oI.M.PrakashatD280,DefenceColony,NewDelhiwhich was given to Sh. Giriraj, Postman for delivery. The aforesaid envelopescouldnotbedeliveredatthegivenaddressesasnosuch personswereresidingthere. PW 10 Rajbir Singh had deposed that he was posted as PostmanatLajpatNagarPostOffice,NewDelhiintheyear2006.He hadprovedanenvelope(D110)Ex.PW10/Awhichwasgiventohim for delivery at J38, Defence Colony, New Delhi, in the name of Sh.Krishnachandra Oza S/o Sh. Girija Shankar Oza but the said envelopecouldnotbedeliveredasnosuchblockexistedinthatarea. PW11 Dharam Pal had deposed that he was posted as

CC No. 45/2010

Page 18 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

PostmanatZorBaghPostOfficeintheyear2006andhewasalso lookingaftertheareaofSunderNagar,NewDelhi. Hehadproved envelopes(D33)Ex.PW11/Awhichwasgiventohimfordeliveryat 137, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Sh.Satish Chander MaheshwariS/oSh.NanakChandMaheshwari;(D46)Ex.PW11/B whichwasgiventohimfordeliveryat86,SunderNagar,NewDelhi inthenameofSmt.VimleshKumarMaheshwariW/oSh.HariPrasad Maheshwari;(D52)Ex.PW11/Dwhichwasgiventohimfordelivery at 53, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Anil Kumar MaheshwariS/oSh.H.K.Maheshwari;D53Ex.PW11/Ewhichwas giventohimfordeliveryat27,SunderNagar,NewDelhiinthename ofSh.MithanLalS/oSh.RamSwaroopbutthesamecouldnotbe deliveredasnosuchpersonswereavailableonthegivenaddresses. PW11 Dharam Pal proved another envelope (D50) Ex.PW11/C which was given to him for delivery at 179, Sunder Nagar,NewDelhiinthenameofSh.MohanKumarbutthesame couldnotbedeliveredasnosuchnumberexisted. PW 12 Chander Bhan Arya had deposed that he had been practising as an advocate since 1970 and had been appointed as Notary by the Central Government. He proved the list of 120 membersmarkedasAXandBXExt.PW12/DA. PW13 Vikram Singh had deposed that he was posted as PostmanatGPO,Delhiintheyear2006andhewasalsolookingafter

CC No. 45/2010

Page 19 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

theareaofSitaRamBazar,NewDelhi. Hehadprovedenvelopes (D20)Ex.PW13/Awhichwasgiventohimfordeliveryat8166,Lal Darwaza Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi06 in the name of Sh. Surender Kumar Maheshwari S/o Sh. Shyam Lal Maheshwari; (D31) Ex.PW13/B which was given to him for delivery at 8203, Lal Darwaza,BazarSitaRam,Delhi06inthenameofSh.BholaNath S/oSh.RattanLal.Hevisitedtheaforesaidaddressesandfoundthat no such house numbers existed and the envelopes were returned undeliveredtothesender. PW14MahenderSingh haddeposedthathewaspostedas PostmanatIndraprasthaHeadPostOffice,Delhiintheyear2006and provedanenvelope(D57)Ex.PW14/Awhichwasgiventohimfor delivery at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi in the name of Sh. P .C. MaheshwariS/o Sh.C.D.Maheshwari. Theenvelopewasreturned undeliveredtothesenderastheaddresswasincomplete. PW15 Ram Kumar had deposed that he was posted as PostmanatIndraprasthaHeadPostOfficeintheyear2006andhe wasalsolookingaftertheareaofMintoRoad,NewDelhi. Hehad provedanenvelope(D121)Ex.PW15/Awhichwasgiventohimfor deliveryatB80,MintoRoad,NewDelhiinthenameofSh.Vinay GoelS/oSh.J.B.Goel.Theenvelopewasreturnedundeliveredtothe senderasnosuchpersononthisaddresswasresiding. PW16 Mukesh Kumar had deposed that he was posted as

CC No. 45/2010

Page 20 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

PostmanatLajpatNagarPostOfficeintheyear2006andhewasalso lookingaftertheareaofPartIII,LajpatNagar,NewDelhi. Hehad provedanenvelope(D66)Ex.PW16/Awhichwasgiventohimfor deliveryatB22,LajpatNagar,NewDelhiinthenameofSh.Bipin BhaiPatelS/o Sh.AmbaLalPatel. Hevisitedtheaforesaidaddress on02.03.2006andfoundthatnosuchpersononthisaddresswas residing. Hehadfurtherdeposedthattheaforesaidenvelopewas given to another Postman for delivery who also made an endorsementatpointCon01.03.2006thatnosuchpersonwasin Part I & Part II of Lajpat Nagar. The envelope was returned undeliveredtothesender.Hehadfurtherprovedanotherenvelope (D84)Ex.PW16/BwhichwasgiventohimfordeliveryatD9,Lajpat NagarinthenameofSh.PraffulWinS/oSh.ChhataniyaLalwin. The envelope was returned undelivered to the sender as no such persononthisaddresswasresiding. PW 17 Rakesh Kumar had proved that he was posted as PostmanatLajpatNagarPostOfficeforthelast15yearsandevenin the year 2006 he was posted in the said post office in the same capacity.Hehadprovedanenvelope(D83)Ex.PW17/Awhichwas giventohimfordeliveryatL8,LajpatNagarIII,NewDelhiinthe name of Sh.Ratti Lal Patel S/o Sh.Jhavar Bhai Patel. The said envelopeD83couldnotbedeliveredasnosuchpersonatL8,Lajpat NagarIII, New Delhi was residing and the same was returned

CC No. 45/2010

Page 21 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

undelivered to the sender. He had proved another envelope D96 Ex.PW17/B which was given to Sh.Sudhama(since retired) for deliveryatL11,LajpatNagar,NewDelhiinthenameofSmt.Kokila ChandenW/oSh.DharmajiChanden.Thesaidenvelopecouldnotbe deliveredatthegivenaddressastheaddresswasincompleteandwas returnedbacktothesenderasthesameremainedundelivered.He provedthesignaturesofSudhamaatpointAonthesaidenvelope. Pw17identifiedhishandwritingandsignaturesashehadworked withhim. PW18Brahmanandhaddeposedthatheremainedpostedas Postman at Sarojini Nagar Post Office during the period 1983 to 2009.HehadprovedanenvelopeD119Ex.PW18/Awhichcouldnot bedeliveredasnosuchpersonbythenameSh.MukeshJindal,S/o Sh. S.P Jindal lived at L130, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. The . aforesaidenvelopecouldnotbedeliveredandthesamewasreturned undeliveredtothesender. PW 19 Namechand had deposed that he was posted as Postman at Inderprastha Post Office since 18.02.1987. He had provedanenvelope(D58)whichwasgiventohimfordeliveryat 1638,KhuchaChela,GaliGadhaiya,Daryaganj,Delhiinthenameof Sh.Ishwar Dass Aggarwal S/o Sh.Gopi Nath. The envelope D58 Ex.PW19/Acouldnotbedeliveredasnosuchpersonin1638,Beat no.12,KhuchaChelan,GaliGadhaiya,Daryaganj,Delhiwasresiding

CC No. 45/2010

Page 22 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

atthegivenaddressandthesamewasreturnedundeliveredtothe sender. PW 20 Jai Prakash had deposed that he was posted as Postman at Indraprastha Post Office since 1989. In the year 2006 also, I was posted at Indraprastha Post Office. He had proved an envelope(D22)Ex.PW20/Awhichwasgiventohimfordeliveryat 5A/8, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi in the name of Sh.Gunveer KumarJainS/oSh.MadanLalJain.ThesaidenvelopeD22couldnot be delivered as no such person at 5A/8, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhiwasresidingatthegivenaddress.Theaforesaidenvelopecould not be delivered and the same was returned undelivered to the sender. He had proved another envelope D25 Ex.PW20/B which wasgiventohimfordeliveryat185A/8,AnsariRoad,Daryaganj, DelhiinthenameofSmt.SukhbeerKumarJainS/oSh.MadanLal Jain for delivery. The said envelope could not be delivered at the givenaddressasnosuchhousenumberexistedthereandreturned backtothesender. PW 21 Dayanand Singh had deposed that he had been workingasapostmanintheareaof16,AnsariRoad,NewDelhi2for thelast29years.Intheyear2006,hewaspostedinthesamearea. HehasprovedenvelopeD94Ex.PW21/AinthenameofSh.Shanti Lal Seth S/o Sh.Vanmali Lal Seth R/o F21/10, Ansari Road, Daryaganj,NewDelhiwhichwasgiventohimfordelivery.Thesaid

CC No. 45/2010

Page 23 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

envelopecouldnotbedeliveredastheaddressmentionedinthesaid envelope was not correct. However, the person Sh.ShantiLal Seth whowaslivinginF1/16,AnsariRoad,NewDelhididnotreceivethe saidenvelopeduetoincorrectaddressmentionedintheenvelope. PW22IshwarChandhaddeposedthathehadbeenworking asapostmanintheareaofSector5,R.K.Puram,NewDelhisince 1996. Intheyear2006,hewaspostedintheareaofSector5, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. He had proved the envelope D125 Ex.PW22/A in the name of Sh.Vinet Goyal S/o Sh.D.D.Goyal R/o 2/231, R.K.Puram,NewDelhiwhichwasgiventohimfordelivery. Thesaidenvelopecouldnotbedeliveredasthepersonbythename ofSh.VinetGoyalwasnotresidingthere. PW23Sh.RameshChandhaddeposedthathewasworkingas a postman in the area of InderParastha, Head Post office, New Delhi2since1983.Intheyear2006,hewaspostedinthesamearea. Darya Ganj area was under his jurisdiction. He had proved the envelopeD107Ex.PW23/AinthenameofSh.HarmukhParekhS/o Sh.ChanduLalR/o12F,DaryaGanj,Delhi6whichwasgiventohim fordelivery.Thesaidenvelopecouldnotbedeliveredastheaddress givenwasincomplete. PW24Sh.TrilokChandhaddeposedthathewasworkingasa postmanintheareaofJungpura,Postoffice.Intheyear2006,he waspostedinthesamearea. HehasprovedtheenvelopeD103

CC No. 45/2010

Page 24 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Ex.PW24/AinthenameofSh.KishanMehtaS/oSh.K.T.MehtaR/o 108, Link Road, Jungpura, Delhi 24 which was given to him for delivery.Thesaidenvelopecouldnotbedeliveredastherewasno suchnumberintheLinkRoad. PW25Sh.AzadSinghhaddeposedthatintheyear2006,he was posted as Postman in the GPO, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The RailwayQuarter,NayaBazaarArea,Delhi,wasunderhisjurisdiction. HehasprovedtheenvelopeExt.PW25/AaddressedtoSh.Kailash NathJoshis/o.BannaLalr/o.B53,RailwayQuarters,NayaBazaar, Delhi110006. Thisletterwasassignedtohimandaccordingly,he wenttodeliverthesame.However,nosuchpersonandsuchnumber existedinNayaBazaar.Hence,hereturnedthesaidenvelopetothe sender. PW26Sh.RaghubirSinghhaddeposedthatintheyear2006, he was posted as Postman in the Malkaganj Post Office. He was called by the CBI and certain inquiries were made regarding the deliveryofenvelopecontainingletter.Hehasprovedtheenvelope (D93) Ex. PW26/A addressed to Sh. Bhamurai Babaria S/o Sh. Hemraj Babaria, R/o 779,Prem Nagar, Kamla Nagar, Delhi06. However,nosuchnumberexistedthere.Hence,hereturnedthesaid envelopetothesender. PW27Sh.JaiPrakashhaddeposedthathehadretiredfrom Postal Department. In the year 2006, he was posted at Rajender

CC No. 45/2010

Page 25 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Nagar,PostOffice,Delhi7asaPostman.Hehadprovedenvelope (D76) Ext.PW27/A addressed to Sh. Madhusudhan Shah S/o Sh.MangalDassShahR/o18D,BazarMarg,RajenderNagar,New Delhi.Thesaidenvelopecontainingletterwasassignedtohimfor deliveryastheaddressgivenontheenvelopewasunderhisbeat.He foundthatnosuchnumber18DinBazarMarg,RajenderNagarwas inexistence.Thesaidenvelopewassentbackundelivered. PW28 Sh. Nawab had deposed that he retired from Postal Department. Intheyear2006,hewaspostedatNizamuddin,Post Office,DelhiasaPostman. HewascalledbytheCBIandcertain inquiriesweremaderegardingthedeliveryofenvelopecontaining letter.Hehadprovedtheenvelope(D86)Ext.PW28/Aaddressedto Sh.ArvindBhaiDesaiS/oSh.ManiBhaiDesaiR/oD89,Nizamuddin (East),NewDelhi.Thesaidenvelopecontainingletterwasassigned tohimfordeliveryastheaddressgivenontheenvelopewasunder hisbeat. ItwasfoundthatnosuchnumberD89inNizamuddin (East) in existence. Accordingly, the said envelope was sent back undelivered. PW28 provedanotherenvelope(D85)Ext.PW28/B addressedtoSh.RandhirJhavaniS/oSh.KartarChandJhavaniR/o C52,Nizamuddin(East),NewDelhi.Hewenttothegivenaddress and made inquiries and found that no such person in C52, H.N.Delhi13Nizamuddin(East)wasresiding.Accordingly,thesaid envelopewassentbackundelivered.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 26 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

PW29Sh.MurliRamSharma haddeposedthatintheyear 2006,hewaspostedatGPO,ChawriBazarPostOffice,Delhiasa Postman.HewascalledbytheCBIandcertaininquiriesweremade regardingthedeliveryofenvelopecontainingletter.Hehasproved theenvelope(D23)Ext.PW29/AaddressedtoVijenderKumarJain S/oSh.MadanLalJainR/o1344,ChawriBazar,Delhi6.Thesaid envelopecontainingletterwasassignedtohimfordeliveryasthe addressgivenontheenvelopewasunderhisbeat. Hewenttothe givenaddressandmadeinquiriesandfoundthatnosuchnumberin Chawri Bazar in existence. The said envelope was sent back undelivered. PW29 Sh.Murli Ram Sharma had proved another envelope (D24) Ext.PW 29/B addressed to Sh.Devenender Kumar JainS/oSh.MadanLalJainR/o1344,ChawriBazar,Delhi6.The saidenvelopecontainingletterwasassignedtohimfordeliveryas theaddressgivenontheenvelopewasunderhisbeat. Hewentto thegivenaddressandmadeinquiries. Itwasfoundthatnosuch number inChawriBazarinexistence.Thesaidenvelopewassent backundelivered. PW29Sh.MurliRamSharmafurtherprovedenvelopes(D36) Ext.PW29/C addressed to Smt. Santosh Aggarwal W/o Sh.S.K.AggarwalR/o208,ChawriBazar,Delhi;(D38)Ext.PW29/D addressed to Sh.Ram Kishan Dass S/o Sh.Munshi Lal R/o 208, Chawri Bazar, Delhi; (D40) Ext.PW 29/E addressed to Smt. Tara

CC No. 45/2010

Page 27 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Devi W/o Sh.Munshi Lal R/o 208, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. The said envelopescontainingletterwasassignedtohimfordeliveryasthe addressgivenontheenvelopeswasunderhisbeat.Hewenttothe givenaddressandmadeinquiries.Itwasfoundthatnosuchperson was residing. Accordingly, the said envelopes were sent back undelivered. PW30Sh.SurenderSinghhaddeposedthatintheyear2006, he was posted at Andrews Ganj Post Office as Postman and was looking after the South Extension PartI area. He had proved an envelopeD90Ext.PW30/Awhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliveryto Sh.J.C.Shah,S/oSh.ChagganLal,R/oA21,SouthExtensionPartI, NewDelhi.Theenvelopewasreturnedtotheconsignee. PW31Sh.PremSinghhaddeposedthatintheyear2006he waspostedatLajpatNagarPostOfficeasPostmanandwaslooking aftertheBlockB&EandsomepartofBlockCofDefenceColony area. He had proved an envelope D97 Ext.PW31/A which was markedtohimfordeliverytoSh.B.J.Trivedi,S/oSh.JayShankar, R/o P23, Defence Colony, New Delhi24. The aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as no such BlockP was in that area,. He further deposed that he also tried to deliver the said envelope in BlockE.Therealsohecouldnotdeliverthesameasnosuchperson was found there. He had proved another envelope D98 Ext.PW31/B whichwasmarkedtohimfordeliverytoSh.Shikhar

CC No. 45/2010

Page 28 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Chand Jain, S/o Sh. Bansi Dhar Jain, R/o S106, Defence Colony, NewDelhi.Theaforesaidenvelopecouldnotbedeliveredasnosuch BlockSwasinthatarea,hence,thesamewasreturnedbacktothe CBI. He had also proved another envelope D118 Ext.PW31/C whichwasmarkedtohimfordeliverytoSh.AshokSinghal,S/oSh. O.P .Singhal,R/oE83,DefenceColony,NewDelhi.Hewenttothe givenaddressbuttheaforesaidenvelopecouldnotbedeliveredasno such number was existing in EBlock. He had also proved an envelopeD131Ext.PW31/Dwhichwasmarkedtohimfordelivery toSh.M.K.Singh,S/oSh.D.K.Singh,R/oE27,DefenceColony, NewDelhi.Theaforesaidenvelopecouldnotbedeliveredasnosuch person was living at the given address. He had also proved an envelopeD74Ext.PW31/Ewhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliveryto Sh.VijayKumar,S/oSh.VasantLal,R/oB29,DefenceColony,New Delhi.Theaforesaidenvelopecouldnotbedeliveredasthehouse was found locked. He further deposed that he visited the given address for three days consecutively but the same could not be delivered. HehadprovedanenvelopeD68Ext.PW31/Fwhichwas marked to him for delivery to Sh. Ramneek Lal Basaria, S/o Sh. JagjeevanDasBasaria,R/oE211,DefenceColony,NewDelhi.The aforesaidenvelopecouldnotbedeliveredasnosuchnumberwas existingintheareaofEBlock.Hehadalsoprovedanotherenvelope D78Ext.PW31/GwhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliverytoSh.Luv

CC No. 45/2010

Page 29 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

KumarVadhera,S/oSh.K.N.Vadhera,R/oE250,DefenceColony NewDelhi.Theaforesaidenvelopecouldnotbedeliveredasnosuch numberwasexistingintheareaofEBlock.PW31 provedanother envelopeD88Ext.PW31/Hwhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliveryto Sh. JaiSingh, S/oSh. Mohan Singh, R/o E104, Defence Colony NewDelhi.Theaforesaidenvelopecouldnotbedeliveredasnosuch numberwasexistingintheareaofEBlock. Hehadprovedanother envelopeD34Ext.PW31/Jwhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliveryto Sh. Manik Chand Sawani, S/o Sh. Gagan Lal Sawani R/o E224, Defence Colony New Delhi. The aforesaid envelope could not be deliveredasnosuchnumberwasexistingintheareaofEBlock.All theaforesaidenvelopeswerereturnedbacktotheCBIundelivered. PW32Sh.SitaRamhaddeposedthatintheyear2006hewas posted at Hauj Khas Post Office as Postman and at the time of depositioninthecourthewaspostedatSarojiniNagarPostOfficeas Assistant. He had further proved an envelope D81 Ext.PW32/A whichwasmarkedtohimfordeliverytoSh.M.G.Vaidhya,S/oSh. G.V .Vaidhya,R/oD34,GreenPark,NewDelhi16. Theaforesaid lettercouldnotbedeliveredasnosuchnumberhadexistedinthe saidlocalityandthesamewasreturnedtotheconsignee. PW33Sh.KarambirSinghhaddeposedthatintheyear2006 hewaspostedatRameshNagarPostOfficeasPostmanandhewas looking after the area of Kirti Nagar. He had proved an envelope

CC No. 45/2010

Page 30 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

D89 Ext.PW33/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Satyapal Thukral, S/o Sh. Bihari Lal, R/o F303, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi16. The aforesaid letter could not be delivered as no such numberinFBlockhadexistedinthesaidlocalityandwasreturned totheconsignee. PW34 Sh. Hem Raj Sharma had deposed that in the year 2006,hewaspostedatDelhiGPOasPostman.Heremainedposted inthesaidpostofficewef1991. Hewaslookingaftertheareaof DaribaKalanBeatNo.13,ChandniChowk,Delhi06.Hehadproved the envelopes D61 Ext.PW34/A which was marked to himfor delivery to Sh. Bharat Bhushan Gupta, S/o Late Sh. Bishambhar SahaiR/o1877, Dariba Kalan, Delhi06; D56 Ext.PW34/B which was marked tohimfordeliveryto Ms.Kundlata, D/oSh.Mehtab SinghR/o1305,DaribaKalan,Delhi06;D59Ext.PW34/Cwhich wasmarkedtohimfordeliverytoSmt.KusumLata,S/oDr.VijayLal R/o 155, Dariba Kalan, Delhi06; D55 Ext.PW34/D which was markedtohimfordeliverytoSh.YashodharaKumar,S/oSh.Mehtab SinghR/o1305,DaribaKalan,Delhi06.Hewenttotheaforesaid addressesfordeliveryoftheaforesaidlettersbutthesamecouldnot bedeliveredasnosuchnumbersinDaribaKalanhadexistedinthe saidlocality.Theenvelopeswerereturnedtotheconsignee. PW35 Sh. Vimal Kant Malik had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Kalkaji Post Office as Head Postman. He
CC No. 45/2010 Page 31 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

remainedpostedinthesaidpostofficewef1972tillhisretirement i.e.December,2007.TheareaofC9,Kalkajiwasbeinglookedafter bySh.R.S.Rana,Postman.HehadfurtherprovedanenvelopeD72 Ext.PW35/A whichwasmarkedtohimfordeliverytoSh.MotiBai Joshi,S/oSh.GoverdhanDasJoshiR/oC9,Kalkaji,NewDelhi.He identifiedthehandwritingandsignaturesofSh.R.S.Ranaashehad worked under R.S. Rana and he was well conversant with his handwriting and signatures. The letter could not be delivered despitehisvisittothegivenaddressandthehousewasfoundlocked everytime.Theenvelopewasreturnedtotheconsignee. PW36Sh.MohanLal haddeposedthatintheyear2006he waspostedatSriniwasPuriPostOfficeasPostmanandwaslooking after the area of Garhi. He had proved an envelope D112 Ext.PW36/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Vijay KumarGoel,S/oSh.R.B.GoelR/o56,Garhi,POSriniwasPuri,New Delhi.Hewenttotheaforesaidaddresson30.03.2006,31.03.2006& 01.04.2006fordeliveryoftheaforesaidletterbutthesamecouldnot bedeliveredasnosuchpersonwasresidingonthesaidaddress.The envelopewasreturnedtotheconsignee. PW37Sh.SatyapalSinghhaddeposedthatintheyear2006, hewaspostedatLodhiRoadPostOfficeasPostman.Hewaslooking after the area of Kaka NagarNew Delhi03. He had proved an envelopeD82Ext.PW37/Awhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliveryto
CC No. 45/2010 Page 32 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Smt.GorbhiBhai,W/oSh.DassaBhaiR/o161,KakaNagar,New Delhi.Hewenttotheaforesaidaddresson01.03.2006fordeliveryof theaforesaidletterbutthesamecouldnotbedeliveredasnosuch personwasresidingonthesaidaddress.Theenvelopewasreturned totheconsignee. PW38 Sh. Vijay Kumar proved an envelope D123 Ext.PW38/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Pankaj Goel,S/oSh.J.B.GoelR/oD38,PandaraRoad,NewDelhi;PW39 Sh.DharamDuttprovedanenvelopeD99Ext.PW39/Awhichwas markedtohimfordeliverytoSh.RamneekLalKadhi,S/oSh.Nand LalKadhiR/o87B,KamlaNagar,Delhi07; PW40Sh.DurgaDas provedanenvelopeD35Ext.PW40/Awhichwasmarkedtohimfor delivery to Sh. Surjeet Kumar, S/o Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta R/o B13/73 Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Accordingly, they all went to the respectiveaddressesfordeliveryoftheaforesaidlettersbutthesame couldnotbedeliveredasnosuchnumberswereexistinginthesaid locality.Theenvelopeswerereturnedtotheconsignees. PW41Sh.BaristerShahhaddeposedthatintheyear2006he waspostedatIndraprasthaPostOfficeasPostmanandwaslooking aftertheareaofAnsariRoad,DaryaGanj,Delhi.Hehadprovedan envelopeD41Ext.PW41/Awhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliveryto Sh. Pratap Narain Sharma, S/o Sh. Raj Narain Sharma R/o Kala Kunj,AnsariRoad,DaryaGanjNo.1,Delhi06.Thelettercouldnot

CC No. 45/2010

Page 33 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

be delivered as no such person was residing on the said address. Theenvelopewasreturnedtotheconsignee. PW42Sh.YogenderSinghhaddeposedthatintheyear2006, hewaspostedatGKIIPostOfficeasPostmanandwaslookingafter the area of GKII, Delhi. He had proved an envelope D67 Ext.PW42/A which was marked to him for delivery to Dr. sushila Mehta,W/oDr.V .Mehta,R/oD211,GreaterKailashII,Delhi.He .V went to the aforesaid address on 01.03.2006 & 02.03.2006 for deliveryoftheaforesaidletterbutthesamecouldnotbedeliveredas nosuchnumberwasinexistence. HealsowentonB211butno suchpersonbythenameofDr.SushilaMehtawasresidingthere. Theenvelopewasreturnedtotheconsignee. PW43Sh.AvinashKumarJainhaddeposedthatintheyear 2006hewaspostedatMalkaGanjPostOfficeasPostmanandwas lookingaftertheareaofSohanGanj,ShoraKothi,KolhapurHouse and Lehna Singh Marg. He had proved an envelope D73 Ext.PW43/AwhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliverytoSh.DeviDayal, S/oSh.KashmiriLal,R/o1123,SohanGanj,SubziMandi,Delhi07. Hewenttotheaforesaidaddressfordeliveryoftheaforesaidletter but the same could not be delivered as no such number was in existenceandtheenvelopewasreturnedtotheconsignee. PW44Sh.JeetSingh haddeposedthatintheyear2006he was posted at GPO Post Office, New Delhi as Postman and was

CC No. 45/2010

Page 34 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

lookingaftertheareaofEBlock&MBlock,ConnaughtPlace,New Delhi. He had proved an envelope D43 Ext.PW44/A which was markedtohimfordeliverytoSh.JagdishPrasadSharma,S/oSh. Hardev Prasad Sharma, M/s Fort Frostal Industries Ltd., M77, ConnaughtCircus,NewDelhi.Hewenttotheaforesaidaddresson 24.02.2006fordeliveryoftheaforesaidletterbutthesamecouldnot bedeliveredasnosuchpersonwasresidingonthesaidaddress.He madeaninquiryfromtheneighbourhoodaswellasfromSh.B.R. Maheshwari&Sh.VedPrakashSharma,Adv.Hehadprovedanother envelopeD44Ext.PW44/Bwhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliveryto Sh. Ganesh Das Batler, S/o Sh. Mewal Das Batler, R/o M74, ConnaughtCircus,NewDelhi.Hewenttotheaforesaidaddresson 24.02.2006fordeliveryoftheaforesaidletterbutthesamecouldnot bedeliveredasnosuchpersonwasresidingonthesaidaddress.In fact, Federal Bank exists on the said address. Both the envelopes werereturnedtotheconsignee. PW45Sh.RadheySham haddeposedthatintheyear2006 he was posted at Lajpat Nagar Post Office as Postman and was lookingaftertheareaofNewDoubleStorey,LajpatNagar,NewDelhi andhadprovedanenvelopeD64Ext.PW45/Awhichwasmarkedto himfordeliverytoSh.ChanderKantJoshi,S/oSh.RahiLalJoshi, R/o3/21,NewDoubleStorey,LajpatNagar,NewDelhi24; D79 whichwasmarkedtohimfordeliverytoSh.RajniBenMehta,S/o
CC No. 45/2010 Page 35 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Sh.P .Mehta R/o32/118B,NewDoubleStorey,LajpatNagarII, .V NewDelhi24. Hewenttotheaforesaidaddressfordeliveryofthe aforesaid letters but the same could not be delivered as no such numberswasinexistence.Hehadfurtherprovedanotherenvelope D65Ext.PW45/CwhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliverytoSh.H.P . Patel, S/o Sh. Hira Lal Patel, R/o 22/103, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi24. He went to the aforesaid address on 01.03.2006 for deliveryoftheaforesaidletterbutthesamecouldnotbedeliveredas the address was incomplete. Accordingly, the envelopes were returnedtotheconsignee. PW46Sh.DuliChandhaddeposedthatintheyear2006,he waspostedatSarojiniNagarPostOfficeasPostmanandwaslooking aftertheareaofKidwaiNagar.HehadprovedanenvelopeD106 Ext.PW46/AwhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliverytoSh.ShantiLal Shah,S/oSh.MangalDasShah,R/oB27,KidwaiNagarEast,New Delhi.Hewenttotheaforesaidaddresson28.03.2006fordeliveryof theaforesaidletterbutthesamecouldnotbedeliveredasnosuch number was in existence. The envelope was returned to the consignee. PW47Smt.KamlaTariyalhaddeposedthatintheyear2006 shewaspostedatMalwiyaNagarPostOfficeasWomanPostmanand was looking after the area of Nill Block, 80 Block, Bhagat Singh Market,HBlock,TootSarai,LBlock. Shehadprovedanenvelope

CC No. 45/2010

Page 36 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

D111Ext.PW47/AwhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliverytoSh.P .K. Singhal,S/oSh.KolaSingh,R/o13MalwiyaNagar,NewDelhi.She went to the aforesaid address on 30.03.2006 for delivery of the aforesaidletterbutthesamecouldnotbedeliveredastheaddress mentionedintheletterwasincompleteduetothereasonthatno block number was mentioned. The envelope was returned to the consignee. PW48Sh.ManojKumarGond haddeposedthatintheyear 2006hewaspostedatSafdarjungPostOfficeasPostmanandwas lookingaftertheareaofKrishnaNagarandSafdarjungEnclave.He hadprovedanenvelopeD91Ext.PW48/Awhichwasmarkedtohim for delivery to Sh. Shanti Lal Ray, S/o Sh. Jetha Bhai Roy, R/o B101/5,SafdarjungEnclave,NewDelhi.Hewenttotheaforesaid address on 01.03.2006 for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the samecouldnotbedeliveredasnosuchpersonbytheaforesaidname wasresidingonthesaidaddress.Heinquiredfromthehouseowner Mr.Sharmawhohadstatedthatnopersonbytheaforesaidname hadeverresidedinthesaidhouse.Theenvelopewasreturnedtothe consignee. PW49Sh.RakeshSharmahaddeposedthatintheyear2006 he was posted at Jungpura Post Office as Postman. Sh. Ramesh Kumarwasalsopostedinthesamepostofficewhowaslookingafter the area of Hari Nagar, Ashram. PW49 had proved an envelope
CC No. 45/2010 Page 37 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

D115 Ext.PW49/A which was marked to Sh. Ramesh Kumar for delivery to Smt. Seema Mittal, W/o Sh. R.K. Mittal, R/o 523, Ashram,NewDelhi. Pw49Sh.RakeshSharmahadidentifiedhis handwritingandsignaturesonthebacksideoftheenvelopebeing conversantwiththesame. Hemadeanendorsementthatnosuch numberinHNAshram.Theenvelopewasreturnedtotheconsignee. PW50Sh.AjabSinghhaddeposedthatintheyear2006he waspostedatHauzKhaasPostOfficeasPostmanandwaslooking aftertheareaofSafdarjungDevelopmentArea. Hehadprovedan envelopeD92Ext.PW50/Awhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliveryto Sh. Hansmukh Bhai Ray, S/o Sh. Jetha Bhai Ray, R/o C2/51, SafdarjungEnclave,NewDelhi.Hewenttotheaforesaidaddresson 02.03.2006fordeliveryoftheaforesaidletterbutthesamecouldnot bedeliveredastheaforesaidpersonhadalreadyleftthesaidaddress. Theenvelopewasreturnedtotheconsignee. PW51Sh.AnilKumarTetehaddeposedthatintheyear2006 he was posted at Sarojini Nagar Post Office as Postman and was lookingaftertheareaofPilanji.HehadprovedanenvelopeD126 Ext.PW51/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Arun Kumar,S/oSh.VishwasRao,R/o120,VillagePilanji,NewDelhi.He wentonthesaidaddressonvariousdatebutcouldnotdeliverthe letterasnopersonwasresidingonthesaidaddress.Theenvelope wasreturnedtotheconsignee.
CC No. 45/2010 Page 38 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

PW52Sh.JitenderKapoordeposedthathewasthepromoter member of Rangmahal CGHS having registration no. 152H. The society was having 50 members. He had further deposed that besideshim,Sh.RaviKapoorhisbrotherwasalsooneofthemember ofRangmahalCGHS. Thesocietywasallotedoneacrelandbythe DDAvideletterno.F4(139/73.CS/DDAdt.31.03.1977)atPlotNo. 13,OppositeSaraswatiVihar,NewDelhi. Thedrawoflotofflats wasconductedbytheDDAintheyear1993andthemembersofthe societywereallotedflatsaccordingly.Hewasallotedflatno.C16. Hefurtherdeposedthatheparticipatedinthemeetingsofthe society which was alloted flats in the year 1993 but he never attendedanymeetingwithregardtosubsequentcreatedsocietyby the name of Rangmahal CGHS. He had proved an affidavit dt. 01.01.2006 Ext.PW52/A; proceedingregisterD15 Ext.PW52/B of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society for the period dt. 16.04.1971 to 24.10.1979; register Ext.PW52/C for the period 28.01.1982 to 27.10.1985; file no. F4 (139 73/GH/DDA) D13 Ext.PW52/D.Inthesaidfile,heidentifiedthesignaturesofSh.S.P . Jain, Secretary of the society on the various papers at points X placedatpage179Ext.PW52/D1,atpage175Ext.PW52/D2, atpage156to162perpetualleaseat pointsXExt.PW52/D3, at page 145 Ext.PW52/D4, page 143, 142,141 Ext.PW52/D5 collectively,page128 Ext.PW52/D6and page126 Ext.PW52/D7.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 39 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

PW52 Sh. Jitender Kapoor had further proved an application for membershipExt.PW52/F;photocopyofreceiptno.19placedatpage no. 155/C (D9) Ext.PW52/G; the application dt. 26.5.1975 Ext.PW52/G1whichwaswrittentoAssistantRegistrarCooperative Societies by Sh. S.P Jain; photocopy of minutes of general body . meeting dt. 11.5.1975 Ext.PW52/G2; registration certificate Ext.PW52/G3 issued to Rangmahal CGHS having registration no. 152(H), 81 Sunder Nagar, New Delhi; copy of application dt. 15.3.1973 Ext.PW52/G4 for registration Rangmahal CGHS which was written under the signatures of Sh. S.P Jain; photocopy of . minutes of general body meeting dt. 14.1.1973 Ext.PW52/G5; copiesoflettersdt.10.10.1972&25.7.1972,23.11.1971whichwere written under the signatures of Sh. S.P Jain marked as . Ext.PW52/G6,Ext.PW52/G7&Ext.PW52/G8; copyofbyelaws ofRangmahalCGHSExt.PW52/G9collectively. PW53Sh.AjayKumarGupta;PW54Sh.VirenderKumar Gandotra;PW55Sh.PremVerma;PW56Sh.AnilKumarGupta; PW57Sh.JaswantJain haddeposedthatthey werethepromoter membersofRangmahalCGHShavingregistrationno.152H. This societywashaving50members. Thesocietywasallotedoneacre landbytheDDAvideletterno.F4(139/73.CS/DDAdt.31.03.1977) atPlotNo.13,OppositeSaraswatiVihar,NewDelhi.Thedrawoflot offlatswasconductedbytheDDAintheyear1993andthemembers

CC No. 45/2010

Page 40 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

ofthesocietywereallotedflatsaccordingly.PW53wasallotedflat no.B2;PW54wasallotedflatno.B8;PW55wasallotedflatno. 11A but he could not get the possession of the said flat due to personalreasons;PW56wasallotedflatno.9A;PW57wasalloted flatno.B10andflatNo.A2wasallotedtohisbrotherSh.Ram MeharJain.Theyallhadparticipatedinthemeetingsofthesociety which was alloted flats in the year 1993 but never attended any meetingwithregardtosubsequentcreatedsocietybythenameof RangmahalCGHS. After the allotmentofflats, noactivities of the RangmahalCGHStookplace. Theyfurtherstatedthathedidnot knowaboutthemanagementofsubsequentofficebearersofsocalled Rangmahal CGHS. They had proved the list of members for RangmahalCooperativeGroupHousingSociety Ext.PW54/A ason 15.07.1990 which was approved by the RCS Office; proceeding registerD15ofRangmahalCooperativeGroupHousingSocietyfor the period dt. 16.04.1971 to 24.10.1979 (already marked as Ext.PW52/B); register Ext.PW52/C for the period 28.01.1982 to 27.10.1985;theoriginalproceedingregisterExt.PW57/Awhichwas beingmaintainedbytheofficebearersofthesocietyattherelevant time; file no. F4 (139 73/GH/DDA) D13 already marked as Ext.PW52/D. PW58 Sh. Ram Mehar Jain; PW59 Sh. Vinod Kumar Tripathi haddeposedthathebecamememberofRangmahalCGHS

CC No. 45/2010

Page 41 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

having registration no. 152H in the year 1986. This society was having50members.BesidesPW58,hisbrotherSh.JaswantJainwas alsooneofthememberofRangmahalCGHS.PW59deposedthat earlier,hisfatherSh.RajKishoreTripathiwasthefoundermemberof RangmahalCGHSandlateronhetransferredhismembershiptohim intheyear1985.ThesocietywasallotedoneacrelandbytheDDA videletterno.F4(139/73.CS/DDAdt.31.03.1977)atPlotNo.13, OppositeSaraswatiVihar,NewDelhi.Thedrawoflotofflatswas conducted by the DDA in the year 1993 and the members of the societywereallotedflatsaccordingly.PW58wasallotedflatno.A2 andflatNo.B10wasallotedtohisbrotherSh.JaswantJain;Pw59 wasallotedflatno.C3jointlywithSh.PawanKumarTripathi,his brother.Theyfurtherdeposedthatheparticipatedinthemeetingsof thesocietywhichwasallotedflatsintheyear1993buttheynever attendedanymeetingwithregardtosubsequentcreatedsocietyby thenameofRangmahalCGHS.Even,theydidnotknowaboutthe subsequentcreatedsocietybythenameRangmahalCGHS.Theyhad proved the proceeding register D18 of Rangmahal Cooperative GroupHousingSocietyfortheperioddt.07.12.1985to30.06.1987. The original proceeding register was the same which was being maintainedbytheofficebearersofthesocietyattherelevanttime; thelistofmembersalreadyexhibitedasExt.PW54/AforRangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society as on 15.07.1990 which was

CC No. 45/2010

Page 42 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

approved by the RCS Office. The audit of the society was being conducted time to time. No correspondence was made with the officeofRCSoncetheobjectiveofsocietywasachieved.PW59had provedthelistofmemberswhereinthenumberofflatsallotedtothe originalmembersofRangmahalCooperativeGroupHousingSociety hadbeenmentionedexhibitedasExt.PW59/A&alreadyexhibitedas Ext.PW57/A17.HehadidentifiedthesignaturesofSh.JaswantJain onExt.PW59/Aashehadseenhimsigningandwritingduringthe official course of business. The audit of the society was being conducted time to time. No correspondence was made with the officeofRCSoncetheobjectiveofsocietywasachieved.PW59Sh. VinodKumarTripathithathehadprovedanaffidavitdt.01.01.2004 as Ext.PW59/B purportedly shown to have been executed in the name of Sh. Raj Kishore Tripathi, his father; proved the list of promotermembersExt.PW59/CtobeappendedwiththeModalBye LawsofCooperativeGroupHousingSocietyplacedatpage334& 335 in file D8; proved the application for membership placed at page 234/C in file no. D9 Ext.PW59/D purportedly having the signaturesofhisfatherSh.RajKishoreTripathiat pointA; proved thereceiptbearingno.050placedatpageno.145/Cinfileno.D9 Ext.PW59/E purportedly issued for receipt of Rs. 110/ on 04.01.1973 having the signatures of his father Sh. Raj Kishore Tripathiat pointA; provedtheregisterD17alreadyexhibitedas

CC No. 45/2010

Page 43 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Ext.PW52/C. PW 60 Sh. Ajay Kumar Maheshwari had deposed that he became joint member with Smt. Raj Kumari Maheshwari of RangmahalCGHShavingregistrationno.152Hintheyear1987.He wasallotedflatno.C2jointlywithSmt.RajKumariMaheshwari,his sisterinlaw(Bhabhi).NeitherhenorSmt.RajKumariMaheshwari attendedanymeetingwithregardtosubsequentcreatedsocietyby thenameofRangmahalCGHS.Even,theydidnotknowaboutthe subsequentcreatedsocietybythenameRangmahalCGHS. Hehad proved the proceeding register D16 Ext.PW60/A of Rangmahal CooperativeGroupHousingSocietyfortheperioddt.02.12.1979to 16.11.1982; the listofmembersforRangmahalCooperativeGroup HousingSocietyason15.07.1990alreadyexhibitedasExt.PW54/A whichwasapprovedbytheRCSOffice;proved thelistofmembers (already exhibited as Ext.PW59/A & already exhibited as Ext.PW57/A17)whereinthenumberofflatsallotedtotheoriginal members of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society had been mentioned; proved an affidavit dt. 01.01.2004 Ext.PW60/B purportedlyshowntohadbeenexecutedinthenameofSmt.Raj Kumari Maheshwari, his sister in law (Bhabhi); proved the list of promoter members to be appended with the Modal Bye Laws of Cooperative Group Housing Society (already exhibited as Ext.PW59/C);provedtheapplicationformembershipExt.PW60/C.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 44 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

PW 61 Sh. Giriraj Ratan Soni; PW 62 Sh. Sudhir Maheshwari; PW 63 Sh. Anil Kumar Maheshwari; PW 64 Sh. KailashChandJain;PW 65Sh.Sunil Jain had all deposedthat they becamemembersofRangmahalCGHShavingregistrationno. 152Hintheyear1988.Thissocietywashaving51members. The society was alloted one acre land by the DDA vide letter no. F4(139/73.CS/DDA dt. 31.03.1977) at Plot No. 13, Opposite SaraswatiVihar,NewDelhi.Thedrawoflotofflatswasconducted bytheDDAintheyear1993andthemembersofthesocietywere allotedflatsaccordingly. PW61wasallotedflatno.C6;PW62was allotedflatno.A4;PW63wasallotedflatno.A6;PW64wasalloted flatno.C10andPW65wasallotedflatno.B91. Theyallstated thattheyhadparticipatedinthemeetingsofthesocietywhichwas allotedflatsintheyear1993butheneverattendedanymeetingwith regard to subsequent created society by the name of Rangmahal CGHS.Even,theydidnotknowaboutthesubsequentcreatedsociety bythenameRangmahalCGHS.Theyhadprovedthelistofmembers forRangmahalCooperativeGroupHousingSocietyason15.07.1990 (already exhibited as Ext.PW54/A); the list of members(already exhibited as Ext.PW59/A & already exhibited as Ext.PW57/A17) wherein the number of flats alloted to the original members of RangmahalCooperativeGroupHousingSocietyhadbeenmentioned; proved the proceeding register D17(already exhibited as

CC No. 45/2010

Page 45 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Ext.PW52/C)ofRangmahalCooperativeGroupHousingSocietyfor the period dt. 28.12.1982 to 27.10.1985; proved the register Ext.PW57/A; provedthelistofpromotermemberstobeappended with the Modal Bye Laws of Cooperative Group Housing Society (Ext.PW59/C);provedtheapplicationformembershipExt.PW62/B; proved the receipt bearing no. 046 Ext.PW62/C; proved the proceedingregisterExt.PW60/A;provedanaffidavitdt.01.01.2004 Ext.PW63/A; proved theapplicationformembershipplacedatpage D9asExt.PW63/B. PW 66 Sh. Sudhir Mittal that he had been working as an advocateandhadalsobeenworkingasOathCommissioner. Inthe year2004hewassittinginParliamentStreet,NewDelhi.Hehad furtherdeposedthattheaffidavitsplacedinfileno.D9atpages1/C to 120/C shown to have been attested by Mr. S. Kumar, Oath Commissioneron1.1.2004didnotbearseal;affidavitsEx.PW66/1to PW66/75; Ex.PW62/A; Ex.PW66/76 to PW66/82;Ex.PW63/A; Ex.PW66/83toPW66/88;Ex.PW60/B;Ex.PW66/89toPW66/98; Ex.PW52/A;Ex.PW66/99toEx.PW66/116wereneitherattestedby himnorbearshissignatures. PW67Sh.ChanderBhanGuptahaddeposedthatintheyear 1977,hebecameamemberofRangmahalCGHS.Thesocietywasin existencesince1973andlandwasallotedintheyear1977atPlot No.13,SaraswatiVihar,PitamPura,NewDelhi. Intheyear1993,

CC No. 45/2010

Page 46 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

flatswereallotedto50membersofsocietybyadrawwhichwasheld in the presence of DDA & RCS officials and the members of the society.Hewasalsoallotedflatno.B3inthesaidsociety. PW68Sh.JatenderPalSinghJoharhaddeposedthatthathe had been practising as Chartered Accountant by profession since 1985inLajpatNagarunderthenameandstyleofM/sJ.S.Johar& Associates. He had proved a letter dt. 30.08.1991 (D145) Ext.PW68/Awherebyhisfirmi.e.J.S.Johar&Associates,5/30Old DoubleStorey,LajpatNagarIV ,N.D.24wasappointedasAuditorfor conductingtheauditofRangmahalCGHSandproved theauditor's report dt. 31.10.1991 (D134) for the period 31.03.1991 Ext.PW68/B. PW69 Sh. S.M.S. Chaudhary was posted in Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityasExecutiveOfficerwef1971to1979and provedaletterExt.PW69/A;provedanotherletterNo.F4(139)/73 CS/DDAdt.31.03.1977asExt.PW69/B. PW70 Sh. Radhey Shyam Maheshwari had deposed about the membership of his wife Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Maheshwari in RangmahalCGHSintheyear1973andwasallotedflatno.C19.He hadproved theproceedingregisterD15 Ext.PW52/B; proved the listofmemberswhereinthenumberofflatsallotedtotheoriginal members of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society Ex.PW59/A;provedanaffidavitdt.01.01.2004(alreadyexhibitedas

CC No. 45/2010

Page 47 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Ext.PW66/90);provedthelistofpromotermemberstobeappended with the Modal Bye Laws of Cooperative Group Housing Society Ext.PW59/C; proved theapplicationformembership Ext.PW70/A; provedthereceiptExt.PW70/B. PW71Sh.P .R.Bhatia haddeposedthathewasworkingas stampagentandobtainedlicensefromtheDeputyCommissioner,Tis Hazari,Delhi.InMay2001Sh.AvinashKumarwasappointedasSub Agent. PW 71 Sh. P R. Bhatia had proved the affidavits (stamp . papers)placedatpagesno.1/Cto120/CinfileD9.Allthestamp papersofthedenominationofRs.10/eachwassoldbysubagent Sh.AvinashKumarandbearinghisstampatthebackofeachstamp paperbythenameofP .R.BhatiaStampAgent,LicenseNo.262, ParliamentStreet.Heidentifiedthestamponthebackofthestamp papers at points PX on each affidavit already exhibited as Ex.PW66/1 to Ex.PW66/75, Ex.PW62/A, Ex.PW66/76 to Ex.PW66/82, Ex.PW63/A, Ex.PW66/83 to Ex.PW66/88, Ex.PW60/B, Ex.PW66/89 to Ex.PW66/98, Ex.PW52/A and Ex.PW66/99toEx.PW66/116. PW72Sh.AwanishKumar haddeposedthatearlierhewas working as sub agent with Sh. P R. Bhatia for selling the stamp . papersanddeposedthatduringtheyear2003affidavitswereusedto bepurchasedfromhimbyaccusedAnnaWankhede,arepresentative ofRangMahalCGHS,throughoneMr.RaviRobinson,atypist,who

CC No. 45/2010

Page 48 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

used to sit in Parliament Street for typing. He had proved the affidavits(stamppapers)placedatpagesno. 1/Cto120/C infile D9. Heidentifiedthestamponthebackofthestamppapersat points PX on each affidavit already exhibited as Ex.PW66/1 to Ex.PW66/75, Ex.PW62/A, Ex.PW66/76 to Ex.PW66/82, Ex.PW63/A, Ex.PW66/83 to Ex.PW66/88, Ex.PW60/B, Ex.PW66/89 to Ex.PW66/98, Ex.PW52/A and Ex.PW66/99 to Ex.PW66/116. PW73 Sh.Ravi Robinson had provedthe affidavits (stamp papers)placedatpagesno.1/Cto120/CinfileD9.Allthestamp papersofthedenominationofRs.10/eachweresoldbySh.Awnish Kumar,subagentbearingstampatthebackofeachstamppaperby thenameofP .R.BhatiaStampAgent,LicenseNo.262,Parliament StreettoSh.AnnaWankhede.Heidentifiedthestamponthebackof thestamppapersatpointsPXoneachaffidavitalreadyexhibitedas Ex.PW66/1 to Ex.PW66/75, Ex.PW62/A, Ex.PW66/76 to Ex.PW66/82, Ex.PW63/A, Ex.PW66/83 to Ex.PW66/88, Ex.PW60/B, Ex.PW66/89 to Ex.PW66/98, Ex.PW52/A and Ex.PW66/99 to Ex.PW66/116. He further deposed that all the aforesaidaffidavitswerebroughtbyaccusedAnnaWankhede. PW74Sh.GunveerJainhaddeposedthatRangmahalCGHS havingregistrationno.152Hwasformedbyhimintheyear1971. Earlier the society was having 15 members but subsequently the

CC No. 45/2010

Page 49 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

membership of the society was enhanced to 51. The society was allotedoneacrelandbytheDDAvideletterno.F4(139/73.CS/DDA dt.31.03.1977)atPlotNo.13,OppositeSaraswatiVihar,NewDelhi. Heresignedfromthesocietyafter3/4yearsandheparticipatedin themeetingsofthissocietytillheremaineditsmemberforabout3/ 4yearsbutheneverattendedanymeetingwithregardtosubsequent createdsocietybythenameofRangmahalCGHS.Even,hedidnot knowaboutthesubsequentcreatedsocietybythenameRangmahal CGHS. He had proved the proceeding register D15 (already exhibitedasExt.PW52/B)ofRangmahalCooperativeGroupHousing Society for the period dt. 16.04.1973 to 24.10.1979; proved the affidavitsdt.01.04.2004purportedlyshowntohavebeenexecuted by him, Vijender Kumar Jain, Devender Kumar Jain, and Sukhbir Kumar Jain already exhibited as Ex.PW66/114, Ex.PW66/113, Ex.PW66/112 and Ex.PW66/111; proved the list of promoter memberstobeappendedwiththeModalByeLawsofCooperative GroupHousingSociety(alreadyexhibitedas Ext.PW59/C); proved the applications for membership Ex.PW74/A, Ex.PW74/C, Ex.PW74/CandEx.PW74/D; proved thereceiptsbearingno.003, 004, 005 and 006 Ex.PW74/E, Ex.PW74/F, Ex.PW74/G and Ex.PW74/H; proved the envelopes D22, D23, D24 and D25 Ex.PW20/A,Ex.PW29/A,Ex.PW29/BandEx.PW20/B. PW75Sh.S.K.Punhanihaddeposedthatheremainedposted

CC No. 45/2010

Page 50 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

in CBI from October, 2005 to November, 2008 as Steno. He was posted to CBI on attachment basis from Department of Social Welfare,Govt.of Delhi pertainingtoCooperativeGroupHousing SocietyScamCases.Hehadprovedthaton10.01.2007,Insp.Bodh Raj had taken the specimen signatures/writing of accused Anna Wankhade;accusedSushilKumarSharma;accusedSriChand;Shri SatenderKumar,S/oSriChandonvariouspaperswhichweregiven by them voluntarily. He witnessed the said specimen signatures/writings from S722 to S751 Ext.PW75/A; S752 to S785 Ext.PW75/B; S786toS820 Ext.PW75/C; S821toS849 Ext.PW75/D. PW76Sh.R.P .Shuklahaddeposedthatduringtheyear2006, hewaspostedasLDCintheGroupHousingSectionofDDA.Hehad provedaseizurememodt.19.07.2006(D150)Ext.PW76/A. PW77Sh.V .K.Bansal hadstatedthatheremainedpostedin theofficeofRegistrarofCooperativeSocieties,Delhiwef31.01.2004 to31.05.2008asAssistantRegistraratParliamentStreet,NewDelhi. Initially, he was looking after Banking Zone and later on, he was askedtolookafterNorthWestZone.Hefurtherdeposedthathewas conversant with Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 and Delhi CooperativeSocietiesRules,1973anddeposedabouttheprocedure regardingworkingofcooperativesocieties. Hehadalsoprovedthe copy of notification no. F.9/38/68/Estt./Coop/VolI/1675 dt.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 51 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

28.08.2003 Ext. PW77/DB, copy of order no. F5/5/81/Estt./Coop/Vol.III/145964 dt. 07.08.2003 Ext.PW77/DC, list of Rangmahal Society with its registration no. 152 D146(Ext.PW77/DD), letter of G.S. Meena, Jt. Registrar as Ext PW77/DE&identifiedthesignaturesofG.S.MeenaatpointAand anotherletterExt.PW77/DF. PW78Sh.SurinderKumarAbrol haddeposedthatinthe year2006hewaspostedatDaryaGanjinDelhiStateCooperative Bank Ltd., DelhiasAccountsOfficer. Smt. ShikhaVermawas the BranchManageratthattime. Anaccountwasbeingmaintainedin thenameofRangMahalCooperativeGroupHousingSocietyhaving registration no. 152(H). He had proved a letter dated 11.9.2006 Ext.PW78/A; ledger sheets Ex.PW78/B and copy of statement of accountasExt.PW78/C. PW79Sh.SherSinghhaddeposedthatduringtheyear2006 hewaspostedatIndraprasthaPostOfficeandwaslookingafterthe area of Kuncha Chalan, Darya Ganjandproved an envelope D63 Ex.PW79/AwhichwasmarkedtohimfordeliverytoSh.RajKishore Tripathi S/o Sh. Raghav Ramji R/o 1762, Kuncha Chalan, Darya Ganj,Delhibuttheenvelopewasreturnedundeliveredtothesender as nosuch personby the nameofRajKishore Tripathi was living there PW80 Sh. Ram Naresh Thakur had deposed that he had
CC No. 45/2010 Page 52 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

workedinDelhiDevelopmentAuthorityandretiredinApril,2008as AssistantDirector. HewaspostedinGroupHousingDepartmentin theyear2005anddescribedtheprocedureofallotmentoflandtoa society and had proved letters dt. 31.03.1977 Ext.PW69/B; Ext.PW80/Aplacedatpage63infileD13(Ext.PW52/D);perpetual lease Ext.PW52/D3; the form Appendix 'D' Ext.PW80/B; proved anotherletterdt.03.04.1982Ext.PW80/C;provedalistofmembers Ext.PW59/A. PW81 Insp. S.L. Garg had proved production cum seizure memodt.12.08.2005Ext.PW81/A;handingover/takingovermemo D5Ext.PW81/B;anotherhandingover/takingovermemo(D3)dt. 16.12.2005 Ext.PW81/C vide which Insp. Rajenderan had handed overtheaforesaidthreefilesmentionedinhandingovertakingover memoExt.PW81/BtoInsp.L.HangshinofEOWII. PW82 Sh. Naresh Saxena had deposed that he is the proprietorofV .A.Agency. Hehadprovedproductioncumseizure memodt.13.09.2005Ext.PW82/A;provedthecertifiedtruecopyof the notice pertaining to Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd. (Registrationno.152)whichwaspublishedintheTimesofIndia newspaperExt.PW82/B; proved the certified true copy of bill/cash memohavinginvoiceno.52dt.04.01.2005Ext.PW82/C;provedthe certifiedtruecopyofbillcumreceiptdt.27.12.2004Ext.PW82/D; proved the certified true copy of Release Order dt. 27.12.2004
CC No. 45/2010 Page 53 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Ext.PW82/E. Hetestifiedthattheadvertisementforthenewspaper wasgivenbyaccusedSriChand. PW83 Sh. Neeraj Kumar is a Chartered Accountant by profession and has been practising from the office M/s ANK & Associates(EarlieritwasC.L.Golchha&Co.)atUnitNo.6,Second Floor, Arawali Shopping Center, Alakhnanda, New Delhi. He had provedD11AuditReportVolumeIpertainingtoRangmahalGroup HousingSocietyhavingregistrationno.152H(alreadyexhibitedas Ext.PW2/A1)andprovedthepages12to240Ext.PW83/A(colly.); provedD12AuditReportVolumeIIpertainingtoRangmahalGroup HousingSocietyhavingregistrationno.152Handprovedthepages 12 to 240 Ext.PW83/B (Colly.); proved the carbon copy of his statementwhichwasrecordedu/s164CrPCExt.PW83/Cbeforethe Ld.MMatPatialaHouseCourtsandprovedtheoriginalstatement recordedu/s164CrPCasExt.PW83/D.Hetestifiedthattheworkof preparing balance sheets for the society was done by him on the instructionsofaccusedSriChand,whohadsentthedocumentsand feethroughhisemployeeSushilKumarSharma. PW84Sh.C.S.Prakashnarayanandeposedthatheremained associatedasInvestigatingOfficerinCGHSScamCaseswhichwere orderedtobeinvestigatedbytheHon'bleHighcourtofDelhi. He had proved the certified copy of production cum seizure memo (D19) Ext.PW82/A; proved the certified copy of notice, bill/cash
CC No. 45/2010 Page 54 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

memo of V Agencies dt. 04.01.2005 and bill cum receipt dt. .A. 27.12.2004andthereleaseorderdt.27.12.2004(alreadyexhibited asExt.PW82/BtoExt.PW82/E). PW85Ms.SunitaNagpalwasanLDCintheofficeofRegistrar ofCooperativeSocietiesandhadprovedanotesheetdt.22.03.2004 Ext.PW85/AplacedinfileD8;provedanothernotesdt.29.03.2004 Ext.PW85/A1 & dt. 29.03.2004 Ext.PW85/A2. She had also proved another note which was put up before the then RCS Sh. Narayan Diwakar regarding approval of the note put up by Jt. Registrarmarkedas Ext.PW85/A3. Shefurtherproved anotedt. 31.03.2004 Ext.PW85/A4; proved a letter dt. 31.03.2004 Ext.PW85/A5;provedthecopyofByeLawsofCooperativeGroup Housing Society Ltd. Ext.PW85/A6; proved the list of promoter members placed at pages 334/C to 336/C already exhibited as Ext.PW59/C;provedanothercopyofbyelawsofthesocietyaswell as list of promoter members placed at pages 324/C to 333/C Ext.PW85/A7;provedaletterdt.29.12.2003placedatpage322/C Ext.PW85/A8;provedanotherletterdt.10.02.2004Ext.PW85/A9; provedletterdt.03.02.2004Ext.PW85/A10;provedtheinspection report dt. 03.02.2004 Ext.PW85/A11; proved a letter dt. 27.01.2004 Ext.PW85/A12; proved letters dt. 27.01.2004 Ext.PW85/A13&Ext.PW85/A14.Shehadalsoprovedaletterdt. 22.03.2004,notesheetsplacedatpages9to22infileD8.Shedid
CC No. 45/2010 Page 55 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

not fully support the prosecution case and therefore was cross examinedbyLd.PublicProsecutor. Duringsuchcrossexamination, shetestifiedthatthefileofRangmahalCGHSwasgiventoherby accusedRameshChandra. PW86Sh.M.A.HashmiwastheDy.Registrarintheofficeof RCS.HehadprovedalistalreadyexhibitedasExt.PW52/D;proved aletterdt.08.11.1991 Ext.PW86/A; provedaletterdt.24.02.1992 Ext.PW86/B. PW87Sh.P .VijayaShankar was postedatGEQD(Documents Division), Hyderabad as Dy. GEQD. He had proved the letter dt. 09.10.2006 Ext.PW87/A; acknowledgment dt. 16.10.2006 Ext.PW87/A1, had proved his opinion/report dated 29th of November2006runningintothreepagesEx.PW87/A5;provedthe copyofhisreasonsforopinionEx.PW87/A6(colly.);provedaletter dated2.3.2007(D154)Ex.PW87/A7videwhichhissupplementary opinionno.CH338/2006wasforwardedtotheSuperintendentof Police,CBI; provedhis supplementaryopinion/reportdated27th of February 2007 running into two pages Ex.PW87/A8; proved the copy of his reasons for his supplementary opinion Ex.PW87/A9 (colly.). He had also proved the questioned signatures compared withthestandardsignaturesS455toS459ofJasvirSinghSandhu, whichcollectivelystandsprovedasEx.PW87/A16;S460toS466 ofNarayanDiwakar,collectivelyprovedasEx.PW87/A20;S467to
CC No. 45/2010 Page 56 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

S486 of Mohan Lal, which collectively proved as Ex.PW87/A23; S528 to S542 of Faiz Mohd., collectively exhibited as Ex.PW87/A24;S607toS626ofSh.RameshChandra.,collectively exhibitedas Ex.PW87/A38(total sheets20);S487toS527 of Sh. Prahlad Kumar Thirwani collectively exhibited as Ex.PW87/A40; S467 to S471 (already exhibited as Ex.PW87/A23) and S472 to S486 (Ex.PW87/A43), S701 to S721Ex.PW87/A44ofSh.MohanLal;S739toS743,S748to S751(alreadyexhibitedasEx.PW75/A) ofSh.AnnaWankhede; S680 to S683 (Ex.PW87/A66) and S781 to S783 (already exhibitedasEx.PW75/B)ofSushilKumarSharma. PW88 A.Subramaniam isaGradeIV (LDC)in the office of RCS and had proved the list of members of Rangmahal CGHS Ext.PW59/A. PW89 Sh. R.Narayanaswami was the Chief Secretary, Government/NCTofDelhiduringtheyear20062007andgranted sanctioninrespectofSh.PrahladKumarThirwani. Hehadproved thesanctionorderdt.30.04.2007Ext.PW89/A. PW90Insp.BodhrajHansistheInvestigatingofficerandhas provedtheinvestigationofthiscase.Hetestifiedthatthenoticesto joininvestigationweresentthroughspeedposttoall120members. (Perusaloftheseletterswouldshowthatalltheselettersreceived backbyCBIundeliveredwiththereportthatNosuchpersonorno
CC No. 45/2010 Page 57 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

suchaddresswereavailable.)Heseizedvariousfilesfromtheoffice ofRegistraraswellasfromtheofficeofRangmahalCGHS.Healso seized the files from DDA vide which the land had already been alloted to Rangmahal CGHS. He testified that the specimen signaturesoftheaccusedpersonswerealsotakenandthequestioned documents and specimen signatures were sent to GEQD for comparison. PW91 Sh. Rajneesh Tingal proved the sanction order dt. 11.10.2007 Ext.PW91/A in respect of Sh. Jasbir Singh Sindhu; PW92 Sh. Rakesh Behari proved the sanction Ext.PW92/A for prosecuting Sh. Rakesh Kumar Hasija; PW93 Sh. B.A. Coutinho provedthesanctionorderdt.08.05.2007 Ext.PW93/A inrespectof accusedJitenderSinghSharma. PW94 Sh. Yogi Raj was Assistant Registrar in the office of RegistrarofCooperativeSocieties,ParliamentStreet,NewDelhiwef 2000to2005. Heprovedthephotocopyoflettersdt.25.03.2004 (D155) Ext. PW94/A; dt. 22.03.2004 Ext.PW94/B; proved the notification dt. 28.08.2003 as Ext.PW77/DB and copy of FIR Ext.PW94/DA.Hehadprovedtheattestedphotocopyoflistof120 members Ext.PW94/C which was forwarded vide letter dt. 25.03.2004Ext.PW94/Abyhim;provedtheRule11(1)of1973. InstatementunderSection313CrPCaccusedpersonsdenied

theallegations.AccusedSriChandexaminedDW1VinayKumarin
CC No. 45/2010 Page 58 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

defence.ThiswitnessisaHeadClerkinAuditBranchintheofficeof RCS. Hetestifiedthattheauditorwouldonlychargetheauditfee. However,healsotestifiedthataspernewDCSAct2003&DCSRules 2007, the Chartered Accountant cannot audit the accounts of the societywithoutpermissionofRCS. Heexplainedthatsincehewas not a commerce student, therefore, he was unable to make any commentaboutthebalancesheetsshowntohimfordifferentyears pertainingtoRangmahalCGHS. Accused Ramesh Chandra (A2) examined Sh. R.K. Mudgil (DW2)inhisdefence.ThiswitnesstestifiedthatheispostedasSub InspectorintheofficeofRCS.Hetestifiedthathehadreceivedthe summonsissuedbythecourttoproducethefollowingrecords: (1) Registers maintained in the policy division of the RCS office regarding sending of list of members of CGHS to the DDA for allotment of land, alongwith separate register for CGHS for land allotmentbetween1976to2004. (2) Relevant instructions/order of the Government of NCT Delhi/RegistrarCooperativeSocietyregardingfunctioningofPolicy DivisionoftheRCSoffice. Hetestifiedthattheseregistersarenotmaintainedintheoffice ofRCSbuttherelevantfilesaremaintainedandhebroughtthesame to the court. He also testified that no document or registers

CC No. 45/2010

Page 59 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

maintainedinPolicyDivisionregardingsendingoflistofmembersof CGHStoDDAforallotmentoflandisavailable.Evenafter199798, nosuch registers were maintainedin Policy Branch. However, he addedthattherelevantfilesareavailablefrom1997onwards. In crossexaminationbyLd.PublicProsecutor,hetestifiedthatbefore theyear199798,thereweretwounitsofgrouphousing.Onewas calledOldGroupHousingandtheotherunitwascalledasNew GroupHousing. Thewitnessaddedthatbeforetheyear199798, thelistsapprovedbyofficeofRCSusedtobesentbyaforesaidgroup housingunitstoDDA.After199798,theofficeofRCSwasdivided inninezonesforthepurposeofgrouphousingsocietiesandthefiles which were being dealt in the above stated units were distributedzonewiseafterdivisionoftheofficeofRCSinnine zones. He further testified that the file of a society prior to 199798 would be found in respective zone. I would like to reproducetherelevantportionsofcrossexaminationbyLd.Public Prosecutordated17.05.2012and21.05.2012asunder:
Q Idrawyourattentiontothelettersdt.24.02.1992bearing no.F.47/152/GH/Coop389(Ext.PW86/B)&dt.08.11.1991 bearingno.F.47/152/GH/Coop2931Ext.PW86/Awhich weresenttoDDAalongwithalistof50membersof RangmahalCGHS.Isitcorrectthattheselettershadthe samefilenumberinthedispatchnumber,whichis appearingonthefilesofRangmahalCGHS(D8&D9)? (ObjectedtobyLd.DefenceCounselonthegroundsalready statedabove.Objectionoverruled.) ThefileD8bearsthenumberF47/152/75/Coop/GHand Page 60 / 214

CC No. 45/2010

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

D9bearsthenumber F47/152/Coop/GH. Theletters bearthenumberofthefile asF.47/152/GH/Coopinthe dispatchnumber. Q Isitcorrectthatasperletterdt.27.01.2004 Ext.PW85/A13, it contains the same file number i.e. F. 47/152/GH/Coop? (ObjectedtobyLd.DefenceCounselonthegroundsalready statedabove.Objectionoverruled.) A Itisamatterofrecord. ............................................. Q Isitcorrectthatthereisnomentionregardinglettersdt. 08.11.1991Ext.PW86/Aandletterdt.24.02.1992Ext.PW86/B inthenotingportionoffileD8senttoDDAbytheAsstt. Registrar(GH)?(objectedtobytheaccused.) A Icannotanswertothisquestion.Itisamatterofrecord. ItisincorrecttosuggestthatIamdeliberatelyevadingthe answertotheaforesaidquestion. Q Isitcorrectthatasandwhendrawoflotsforallotmentofflats isconductedbytheDDAtoanysociety,anofficerfromthe officeofRCSremainspresentatthattime?(objectedtobythe accused.) A Itiscorrect.However,Icannotsayabouttheearliersystem. Q Isitcorrectthatacopyofletterdeputinganofficerbythe officeofRCSforattendingthedrawoflotsisalsosenttothe President/Secretaryofthesociety?(objectedtobyaccused) A Idonotknowabouttheprevioussystem,but,presentlythis practiceisbeingfollowed. Icannotadmitordenythesuggestionthatthispracticewas alwaysprevalent. Q Isitcorrectthatanorderdt.22.01.1993(D142) Ext.PW90/A60wasissuedbytheAsstt.Registrar(GH)vide whichSh.A.SubramaniamSubInspectorwasdeputedasan observerforattendingthedrawoflotstobeheldon 23.01.1993at11a.m.pertainingtoRangmahalCGHS? (Objectedtobyaccused.) A Itisamatterofrecord.(Voltd.Iwasnotpostedattherelevant time.)

The other accused persons did not lead any evidence in


CC No. 45/2010 Page 61 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

defence. SubmissionsofthePublicProsecutor Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that the evidence led by the prosecutionprovesthatSriChand(A1)wasoneofthosebuilders, whowerethekingpinofthesocietyscam.Hegotpreparedvarious documents of the alternative society with active involvement of accused Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9), Anna Wankhede (A10) and MohanLal(A11). Itissubmittedthatpursuanttothisconspiracy oneapplicationwasfiledbyoneDeepakKumar,afictitioussecretary ofthesociety,on29.12.2003requestingforapprovalofthefinallist of120membersofthesaidsocietyforallotmentofland. Allthese 120memberswerefoundfakeinthesensethattheoutofthe50 originalmembers,namesofonlyafewwereshownasthepromoters members,whereasrestofthesamedidnotevenexit. Eventhose members, who were also the members of the actual society had deniedhavingparticipatedintheproceedingspertainingtochangeof addressetc.oftheparallelsociety.Moreovertheregisteredofficeof thesocietywasalsoshowntohavebeenshiftedfrom 81,Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, New Delhi vide a forged managing committee resolution dated 20.8.1995sothatthesocietycomesinthejurisdictionofAssistant Registrar(East),whowasRameshChandra(A2)atthattime. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the letter dated

CC No. 45/2010

Page 62 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

29.12.2003Ex.PW85/A8(D8)page322C.Inthisapplication,itis mentionedthat50membersofthesocietyhadnoroofovertheir familiesinDelhiandthereafter70memberswereenrolledfrom timetotimeandthatnowthefreezestrengthofthesocietyis 120members.Itissubmittedthatthisletterwasmadewithaview to create a parallel/fictitious society functioning at a different address than the original society merely to avoid detection. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that although this letter was addressed to Assistant Registrar (East), however it was directly presentedtoNarayanDiwkar(A8),theregistrar,whichstandsproved from the fact that on that very day i.e. on 29.12.2003 Narayan Diwakar (A8) had put his initial at point B. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is a system of central receipt of correspondencesfromwherealltheletters(evenifaddressedtothe otherofficialsofRCS)areputbeforeRegistrar,whomarksittothe relevantbranches.ThisletterwasmarkedtoJ.R.(East)JasbirSingh Sandhu(A7),whofurthermarkedtoRameshChandra(A2)toA.R. (East).A.R.(East)markedthislettertoDealingAssistant. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentiontoaletterdated 31.12.2003 Ex.PW85/A14(D8)page69C,whereinJ.S.Sharma (A6)A.R.AudithaswrittenA.R.Eastthataletterhasbeenreceived from Deepak Kumar Honorary Secretary of Rangmahal CGHS in whichhehasrequestedforauditofthesocietysinceregistrationupto

CC No. 45/2010

Page 63 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

31.3.2003.J.S.Sharma(A6)hastoexplainastoonwhichletterhe actedbecausetheletterdated29.3.2003hadnotreachedhimtill thatdate. On receiving this letter the Dealing Assistant Rakesh Kumar Hasija(A4)initiatedhisnotesheetdated13.1.2004. Hewritesin thenotesheet(page9ofD8)thataspertherecordsavailablethe auditofthesocietyispendingsinceregistrationandnolistwas sent to DDA for allotment of land till date and there is no liquidationorderinthefile. ItwasalsorecommendedthatFaiz Mohd. (A3) may be appointed as inspector for conducting the inspectionunderSection54ofthepresentrunningconditionofthe society.Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentiontopage66/C ofthefile(D8)inwhichthereisareferenceofdepositionofearnest moneytobedepositedbytheoriginalsocietywithDDA. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the letter dated26.5.1975Ex.PW52/G1(page68/CofD8),whichisaletter writtenonbehalfoftheoriginalRangmahalCGHStotheAssistant Registrar. The last note sheet available on the file was dated 27.8.1973. Sincetherewerecommunicationsinthisfileuptothe year 1975 also, this shows that note sheet in respect of the said communicationsmustbeavailable,thereforeinsteadofnotingthis factthedealingclerkclearlywrotecontrarytotherecordthatthe statusofthesocietyisnonfunctional.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 64 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

VidethisnoteheproposedappointmentofFaizMohd.(A3)as

inspector for conducting the inspection under Section 54 for the presentrunningconditionofthesociety. Ld. Public Prosecutor has again drawn my attention to the letterdated 29.12.2003 Ex.PW85/A8 wherein it was written that thesocietywasregisteredatitsaddress81,SunderNagar,New Delhi110003andwasshiftedto157G,PocketA2,MayurVihar, PhaseIII,Delhi110096videMCresolutionpassedon20.8.1995. Ld.PublicProsecutorsubmitsthattherewasnothingonrecordto show that the RCS was informed about this change of address previously,thereforethedealingclerkRakeshKumarHasija(A4)and RameshChandra(A2)shouldhaveraisedthequeryastowhysuch change of address has not been informed as per rules, which is mandatoryruleaspertheruleofDCSAct. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentiontothefactthat Jasbir Singh Sindhu (A7) wrote PL. Spk. i.e please speak at Ex.PW87/10. Howeverhedoesnotexplainastowhatquerywas soughtbyhimfromhissubordinatesi.e.dealingclerkRakeshKumar Hasija(A4)andRameshChandra(A2). Ld.PublicProsecutorsubmitsthatthisshouldbeseenatthe backdropofthefactthattheoriginalregisteredofficeofthesociety fallinCentralNewDelhiZonebutitwasshowntohavechangedits address fraudulently in the letter dated29.12.2003 as wellasthe

CC No. 45/2010

Page 65 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

fake MC resolution dated 20.8.1995 with an intention to bring it within the jurisdiction of A. R. (East), who was Ramesh Chandra (A2)atthattime. InresponseofnoteofJasbirSinghSandhu(A7)thedealing clerk Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4) put up a note dated 20.1.2004 Ex.PW87/A30 reiterating his initial note dated 13.1.2004 stating thestatusofthesocietybeingnonfunctionalandhavingnotbeen auditedsinceinceptionmaybeinformedtoA.R.Audit. Thisnote sheetwentuptoRCSandwasapprovedon21.1.2004.Pursuantto approvalofthisnote,RameshChandra(A2)informedA.R.(Audit) J.S.Sharma(A6)videletterEx.PW85/A12(pageno.71/CofD8) informing the fact that audit of the society was pending since registration,nolistwassenttoDDAforallotmentoflandtilldate andthesocietywasnotunderliquidation.Ld.PublicProsecutorhas furtherdrawnmyattentiontotheorderofRameshChandra(A2)Ex. PW85/A13 vide which Ramesh Chandra (A2) appointed Faiz Mohd.(A3)asinspectingofficertofindoutthefactualposition ofthesocietyandtoverifydocumentsandrecordsofthesociety andsubmitthereportwithin10days. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentiontotheletterof Faiz Mohd. (A3) dated 3.2.2004 Ex.PW85/A10 (page 318/C of D8)addressedtoA.R.Eastinwhichhehasclearlystatedthathe hadvisitedat81,SunderNagar,NewDelhion31.1.2004andhewas

CC No. 45/2010

Page 66 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

informed that theoffice ofthe society has been shifted to 147/G, PocketA2,MayurVihar,PhaseIII,Delhi.Hefurtherstatesthathe visited the office of society at Mayur Vihar address on 9.2.2004 wherehemetDeepakKumar,secretaryofthesociety.Healsostated thatDeepakKumar,secretaryofthesociety,producedalltherelevant recordsofthesocietyandthattherewere120membersofthesociety andthelistofthemembershasnotbeenapprovedbytheRCSoffice for allotment of land. In audit report Ex.PW85/A11 Faiz Mohd. (A3)writesthattheauditofthesocietyispendingsince1.7.1770till date. This letter and the inspection report were duly received by RameshChandra(A2)on4.2.2004. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentiontothenotedated 10.2.2004signedbydealingassistantRakeshKumarHasija(A4)and A.R.EastRameshChandra(A2).Inthisnotesheet(Ex.PW87/A32 page11/NofD8) itiswrittenthatasperthereportofinspector, thesocietyhasshiftedaddressfromSunderNagartoMayurVihar andthathecheckedtherecords.Itwasproposedthatalettermaybe writtentothesocietytoproducethecompleterecordinoriginalfor 20.2.2004. PursuanttothisnoteRameshChandra(A2)A.R.East sent a letter Ex.PW85/A9 dated 10.2.2004 asking the President/Secretaryofthesocietytoappearwiththerecordsofthe society. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that pursuant to this letter

CC No. 45/2010

Page 67 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4) prepared a note signed by Ramesh Chandra (A2)A.R. EastinwhichitisstatedthatDeepakKumar, secretaryof the society, hadattended the office andproducedthe records for verification. After writing in detail about the general bodyresolutionforfinallistofthemembersforallotmentletteretc., hereproducedinspectionreportofFaizMohd.(A3). Thereafter he wrotethattheaccountsofthesocietyhavebeenauditedbythe departmentauditorupto31.3.2003. Intheendof thisdetailed notesheet,dealingclerkandA.R.(East)haveproposedtheapproval of final list of 120 members foronwards transmission to DDA for allotmentofland.ThisnotewasconsideredbyJasbirSinghSandhu (A7) and was finally approved by Narayan Diwkar (A8) on 19.3.2004. Ld.PublicProsecutorsubmitsthatSmt.SunitaNagpal wroteanotesheetEx.PW85/AputtingalettertobesenttoDDAfor allotmentofland.ThisletterwassentbyRameshChandra(A2)on 22.3.2004toAssistantRegistrar(Policy),whointurnsenttheletter toDDA. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentiontoaletter dated19.1.2005 Ex.PW77/DF writtenbyAssistantRegistrarto all the branches of RCS stating that DDA has returned a list of 135 cooperativehousingsocietiesforreverificationofmembershipand otherdetails. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentiontothe listEx.PW77/DD,whichmentionsRangmahalCGHSi.e.SilverView CGHS,whichisthechangedname.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 68 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the letter

Ex.PW85/A1dt.29.03.2004writtenbyDeepakKumar,thefictitious secretaryofthesociety,toA.R.(East)inwhichitwasprayedthat theoldnameofthesocietymaybechangedandnewnamei.e.Silver ViewApartmentsCGHSLtd.maybegiventoit.OnthisletterSmt. SunitaNagpalthedealingassistantwroteanotingproposingthatthe filemaybesenttoRCSforapproval. ItissubmittedthatRamesh Chandra (A2) and the A. R. (East) and Jasbir Singh Sindhu (A7) havewrittentheirnotesproposingthechangeofthenameofthe society and it was finally approved by Narayan Diwakar vide his signaturesdated29.3.2004.Itissubmittedthatthiswasdonesoas toavoidthedetectionofthefraudofcreationofaparallelsociety. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that in the entire note sheets upto20.1.2004,thereisnoreferencetotheletterdated29.12.2003 Ex.PW85/A8writtenbyDeepakKumar,thefictitioussecretary.Itis submitted that the PUC which is being referred in the note dated 13.1.2004 in which the secretary of the society is stated to have applied for audit does not exist. Ld. Public Prosecutor has also drawnmyattentiontothefactthatinfactthereisnoorderofaudit formorethan3yearspassedbyRCSbutstilltheauditofthesociety isbeingdonesincethetimeitsinception.Itisarguedthattheonly courseforRCSofficewastowritealettertoDDAtoverifyasto whether the land has been allotted to this society or not but the

CC No. 45/2010

Page 69 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

entire hierarchy right from the dealing clerk upto registrar deliberatelyomittedtodoso. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentionto Ex.PW52/D (D13),whichisafileofDDAinrespectoftheallotmentoflandto therealRangmahalsociety,whichshowsthatthelandwasallottedto thesocietywaybackintheyear1977.Ld.PublicProsecutorhasalso drawnmyattentiontothelistof50members,whichwasapproved bytheAssistantRegistrarM.A.HashmiandthislistsentbyM.A. Hashmi, the then A. R., vide letter dated 8.11.1991, which is Ex.PW86/A. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasalsodrawnmyattentionto the order Ex.PW90/A16 written by AR dated 22.1.1993 to the President/SecretaryofRangmahalCGHSaswellasA.Subramanyam, theSub.Inspector,whowasdeputedtoactasobserverforthedraw ofallotmenttothesocieties. Itissubmittedthatthecopyofthis letteris alsonot available on the file D8 and D9 oftheRCS in respectofthissociety,thoughitshouldbeavailableonit. Further theDDAfile D13 showsthatA.Subramanyam,theSub.Inspector, postedinRCSofficewasalsopresentinthedrawoflotsheldon 23.1.1993videwhichtheparticularlandcametothissociety. Itis submittedthatallthesecommunicationsmusthavebeenpresenton the file of RCS office, which shows that the same were removed deliberatelywithaviewtocreateafake/parallelsociety. Ld.PublicProsecutorsubmitsthatallthesefactsareenoughto

CC No. 45/2010

Page 70 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

provethatalltheaccusedpersonshadconspiredtocreateaparallel society of Rangmahal CGHS, it being one of the earliest societies havinghigh seniorityvalueforlandallotmentandthelist offake memberswassenttoDDAbyRCAofficialsbyabusingtheirofficial positionstobenefitthebuildermafia. KaveriCGHSJudgementofHon'bleDelhiHighCourt Ld.PublicProsecutorarguesthatinKaveriCooperativeGroup HousingSocietyLtd.VsUnionofIndia(AIR1991Delhi217)had orderedthecriteriaofseniorityofthesocietyasperthedateoftheir registration,soastostopthebunglingsintheofficeofRCSbutthe RCS officials were smart enough to defeat the purpose of that judgementandhadinventedanewtrickbyfraudulentlyrevivingthe defunct societies at the instance of builder mafia. The another modusoperandiwasfraudulentlycreatingaparallelsocietywiththe samenameandsameregistrationnumber,eventhoughtheactual societywasstillfunctional.Theparallelsocietywascreatedbecause theregistrationnumberoftheactualsocietywashighinsenioritylist onaccountofitsdateofregistration. The circumstances of the present case fully justify the submissionsofLd.PublicProsecutor.Forsakeofunderstandingthe logicofHon'bleHighCourtofDelhiinKaveriCGHSjudgement,I wouldliketoreproducetherelevantparagraphsfromthisjudgement asunder:

CC No. 45/2010

Page 71 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Whereinrespectofallotmentofland bytheDelhiDevelopmentauthority(DDA)to theGroupHousingSocieties,undertheDelhi Development Authority (Disposal of DevelopedNazulLand)Rules(1981)framed under S. 22 read with S. 56 of the Delhi Development Act (1957), an office memorandum was issued determining seniorityonthebasisoffinalisationoflistof members of such societies by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, instead of earlier criteria of date of registration of such Societies, the said office memorandum was unreasonableandhencearbitrary. Themain principlewhichhasbeensetoutinthesaid officememorandumisthattheseniorityisto be determined witheffect fromthedateon which the papers of the Society have been foundinorderandapprovedbytheofficeof the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The effectofthisisthatirrespectiveofthedate when the Societies were registered, the senioritywillnotbedeterminedwitheffect from the date of registration nor with effect from the date when the list of members were submitted, but is to be determinedwitheffectfromthedatewhen the Registrar accords its approval to the listsofiled. Thiscriteriaisunreasonable, tosaytheleast.Theeffectofthisprinciple isthatthesocietieshavebeenleftatthe mercy of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. There may be cases, and they probablyare,wherefullparticularsmaynot havebeensuppliedbythesocieties. Butas
CC No. 45/2010 Page 72 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

andwhenverificationhastakenplace,itmust necessarilyrelatebacktothedatewhenthe list of members was filed. There are numerousinstanceswhichshowthatwithno faultofthesocietiestheyhavebeenrelegated to a lower position in the seniority list, as there are societies where the lists were verifiednumberofyearsaftertheyhadbeen submitted even though no defects were indicatedinthelistoriginallyfiled. Inthisjudgementitwasspecificallyheldthatlandwastobe allotted to the society according to the seniority i.e. date of registration. The purpose of this judgement was to restrict the powersofRCSsothatthesepowersarenotabused. Howeverthe factsofthepresentcaseshowthattheRCSofficialsinconspiracy withtheprivatepersonsinventednewfraudulentmethods. OfficialProceedings TheproceedingsinthepresentmatterstartedwhenAR(East) receivedaletterfromAR(Audit)askingforstatusofthesociety.The said letter Ext.PW85/A14 (placed at page 69/C of D8) is reproducedasunder:
To TheASSTT.REGISTRAR(EAST) OFFICEOFTHER.C.S SANSADMARG,NEWDELHI01 SUB: REGARDINGAUDITOFTHERANGMAHALCOOP .G/HSOCIETYLTD. (Regn.No.152(H)dated31.3.1973.) SIR,

CC No. 45/2010

Page 73 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

AletterhasbeenreceivedfromSh.DeepakKumarHony.Secretaryofthe Ranmahalcoop.G/HSocietyLtd.inwhichhehasrequestedfortheauditofthesociety sinceregistrationto31.3.3.2003.Astheauditofthesocietyispendingsinceregistration,it Is,therefore,requestedtoconfirmthepresentstatusofthesocietyfromyourrecordsat theearliest,sothatfurtheractioninthisregardwillbetakenaccordingly. (J.S.SHARMA) ASSTT.REGISTRAR(AUDIT)

Onreceivingofthisletter,accusedRakeshHasija(theDealing Clerk)typedanotesheetwhichwassignedbyRameshChandraon 13.01.2004,but,Sh.J.S.Sindhu,AR(East)wrote'Pl.Spk.andfile returnedtoAR(East).Ireproducethenotesheetasunder:


MaykindlyseethePUCreceivedfromAsstt.Registrar(Audit)reg. RangmahalCoop.GroupHousingSocietyLtd.TheSecretaryofthesocietyhas appliedforauditinauditbranchsinceregistrationofthesociety.Asperrecord availabletheauditofthesocietyispendingsinceregistrationandnolistwassent toDDAforallotmentoflandtilldateandthereisnoliquidationorderinthefile. Asperrecordavailablethestatusofthesocietyisnonfunctional.Asstt. Registrar(Audit)hasrequestedandaskedforstatusofthesociety.Ifagreedwemay informtoAR(Audit)accordinglyandSh.FaizMohamadmaybeappointedas inspectorforconductingtheinspectionU/s54forpresentrunningconditionofthesociety. BothlettersareaddedforSignatureplease.
Sd/ DealingClerk. 13/1

WemayinformAR(Audit) accordinglyandorderon inspectionu/s54forthe presentstatusofthesociety.Maykindlyapprove. JR(E) Sd/ RameshChandra 13.1.04 PlSpk. Sd/ J.R.Sindhu 16.1.04 AR(E) Sd/

CC No. 45/2010

Page 74 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.


RameshChandra 16.1.04 DA

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

OnthenotingPl.Spk.ofSh.J.R.SindhuJR(E),thedealing assistantSh.RakeshHasijatypedthefollowingnotesheetwhichwas signedbyAR(E)on20.01.1984. Sh.J.R.SindhuJR(E)wroteFor approval of 'A' above please and then it was approved by Sh. Narayan Diwakar on 21.1.2004. The note sheet is reproduced as under:
AsdiscussedwithworthyJRCSreg.StatusofRangmahalCooperative GroupHousingSocietyLtd.TheSecretaryofthesocietyhasappliedforaudit branchsinceregistrationofthesociety.(seeatFlagB)Asperrecordavailablethe auditofthesocietyispendingsinceregistrationandnolistwassenttoDDAfor allotmentoflandtilldateandthereisnoliquidationorderinthefile.Asperrecord availablethestatusofthesocietyisnonfunctioned.Asstt.Registrar(Audit)has requestedandaskedforstatusofthesociety.Ifagreedwemayinformto AR(Audit)accordinglyandSh.FaizMohamadmaybeappointedasinspectorfor conductingtheinspectionU/s54forpresentrunningconditionofthesociety.Both lettersareaddedforSignatureplease. AR(East) Sd/ RameshChandra 20.1.04 JR(E) Forapprovalof'A'aboveplease Sd/ J.S.Sindhu 21.1.04 Sd/ NarayanDiwakar 21.1.04 Sd/ J.S.Sindhu 23.1.4 AR(E) Sd/ RameshChandra 23.1.4

'A'

Sd/ DealingClerk. 20.1

RCS

JR(E)

AfterreceivingthereportofFaizMohd.andreceivinganother PUC dt. 29.12.2003 , a note sheet typed by Rakesh Hasija and recommended byAR(E) is written at page no. 11/N of D8. The
CC No. 45/2010 Page 75 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

sameisreproduced(withemphasissupplied)asunder:
MaykindlyseethePUCisareportofSh.FaizMohammad,InspectorofRCS officereg.statusofRangMahalCooperativegroupHousingSociety.Asperreportof Inspectorthissocietyhasbeenshiftedfrom81,SunderNagar,NewDelhito147G, PocketA2,MayurVihar,PhaseIII,Delhi96.AftervisitedatMayurViharhemet Sh.PardeepKumar,Secretaryofthesociety.Sh.PardeepKumarSecy.Ofthesociety hasproducedalltherelevantrecordsofthesocietyandinformedthatthereare120 membersareexistinginthesocietyandlistofthemembersofthesocietyhasnotyet approvedbytheRCSofficeforallotmentofland.TheMembershipRegisteris completeinallrespect.TheAuditofthesocietyispendingsince01/07/70onwards alltheaccountsarereadyforauditsince01/7/70to31/3/03.(copyofunaudited accountssince1/7/70to31/3/03enclosedwiththereport).Sh.FaizMoh.Hasalso statedthattheelectionofthesocietywasheldon28/12/03asperDCSrules.Allthe societyrecordsarefoundunderthesafecustodyofSh.DeepakKumarSecy.ofthe society.KindlyseethePUCreceivedfromthesocietyreg.Listofmembers.Inthis regardifagreewemaysentalettertosocietyforproducethecompleterecordin original,inthisofficedated20.2.04at12.00Noon. FairletterisaddedforSignatureplease. Sd/ RakeshHasija 10.2.04 Sd/ RameshChandra 10.2.04 AR(East) (ExPW87/A32) 5.11.2011 :13: VerificationoftherecordsoftheSociety. MaykindlyseethatSh.DeepakKumar,Secretaryof theRangmahalCooperativeGroupHousingSocietyLtd. hasattendedthisofficeandproducedtheoriginalrecordsfor verificationandthesamewasexamined/verified, accordinglysubmissionsareasunder: TheRangmahalCooperativeGroupHousingSociety Ltd.isregisteredwiththisdepartmentatS.No.152(H)on 31.03.73atitsregd.Address81,SunderNagar,NewDelhiand presentlyfunctioningat147G,PocketA2,MayurVihar PhaseIII,Delhi110096andregisteredundertheprovisionsof BombayCooperativeSocietiesAct,1925(BombayActNo.VII of1925)asextendedtotheUnionTerritoryofDelhiandlater governedundertheprovisionsofDelhiCooperativeSocieties Act,1972&Rulesframedthereunderwiththeobjecttoacquire landforconstructionofflatsforitsmembers(Copyofthe RegistrationCertificateandRegd.ByeLawsareplacedatP24 /CtoP30/Crespectively(MainFile.)

CC No. 45/2010

Page 76 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.


TheSecretaryofthesocietyhassubmittedresolutionof ManagingCommitteeMeetingdated200895(seeP383/C Vol.I)thatthesocietyhadshifteditsofficefrom81,Sunder Nagar,NewDelhito147G,PocketA2,MayurViharPhase III,Delhi110096duringtheyear1995. Sh.DeepakKumar,SecretaryoftheSocietyhasfurther submittedthatthematterofapprovaloffinallistofmembersfor allotmentoflandwasputupbeforetheGeneralBodyon 28/12/2003(resolutionNo.5)(seeP322/CtoP323/C(Vol I)) anditwasunanimouslyapprovedbytheGeneralBodyto praybeforetheRegistrarCooperativeSocietiestoapprovethe finallistof120120membersinorderoachieveitsobjectiveto providesheltertoitsmembers.Hehafurthersubmittedthatthe electionsofthesocietywereheldfromtimetotimeandthelast electionwasheldon28/12/2003(resolutionno.1)inthe GeneralBodyMeeting(photocopyoftheminutesofGBM placedatP322/CtoP323/C(VolI). Inthisconnection,anInspectionundersection54ofthe DCSAct,1972wasconductedtoknowtheexistenceand functioningofthesocietybeforetakingactionforapprovalof finallistof120membersandtogettingitsaccountsAuditedby theDepartmentalAuditor.Sh.FaizMohammadGr.IIInspector ofNorthWestZonewasappointedasInspectingOfficervide thisofficeorderno.F.47/152/GH/Coop./2064dated 27.01.2004(seeP71/C(MainFile.)

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

TheInspectionReportofInspectingOfficerisplacedatP 72/Cto319/C(VolIII).Thecontentsofhisreportaregiven asunder: (i) Thathehadvisitedat81,SunderNagar,NewDelhion 31.01.2004.HewasinformedfromtherethattheOfficeofthe Societyhasbeenshiftedfrom81,SunderNagar,NewDelhito 147G,PocketA2,MayurVihar,PhaseIII,Delhi110096. Thereafter,hehadvisitedattheOfficeAddressoftheSociety i.e.147G,PocketA2,MayurVihar,PhaseIII,Delhi 110096on01.02.2004andtherehemetSh.DeepakKumar, SecretaryoftheSociety. (ii) ThatSh.DeepakKumar,SecretaryoftheSocietyproducedall therelevantrecordsoftheSocietyandinformedthatthereare 120membersareexistingintheSocietyandlistofmembers hasnotyetapprovedbytheRCSofficeforallotmentofland. (iii) ThattheRegd.AddressoftheSocietywas81,SunderNagar, NewDelhiandatpresenttheSocietyisfunctioningat147G, PocketA2,MayurVihar,PhaseIII,Delhi96 (iv) ThattheMembershipRegisterwascompletedinallrespect. (v) ThattheAuditoftheSocietywaspendingsince01.07.70 onwards.Alltheaccountswerereadyforauditsince01.07.70

CC No. 45/2010

Page 77 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

(vi) (vii) (viii)

to31.03.2003(Acopyofunauditedaccountssince01.07.70to 31.03.2003wasenclosed) ThattheProceedingRegisterwasalsocompletedandthelast ManagingCommitteemeetingwasheldon29.12.2003. ThatasperrecordsoftheSocietythelastElectionwasheldon 28.12.2003asperDCSRules(CopiesofElectionrecordwas enclosed) ThatalltheSocietyrecordswerefoundunderthesafecustody ofSh.DeepakKumar,SecretaryoftheSociety,

Keepinginviewofthefactsstatedaboveitappearsthat thesocietyisfunctioning,butfailedtofulfillthestatutory obligationsundertheprovisionsofDCSAct&Rulesandbye lawsofthesociety(seenoteatP9/N)andthemembersofthe societyarestillhopingtohaveashelteroftheirown. TheSecretaryofthesocietyhasproduced/submittedthe originalrecordsanddocumentspertainingtomembership,audit &election,etc.forverificationandthesamewascounter checked/verifiedandfoundinorder.Adetailedreportinthis regardisgivenasunder: 1. Thesocietyhassubmittedalistof120members(seeP 325/CtoP364/CVolI)forapprovalandonward submissionstoDDAforallotmentofland. TheSocietywasregisteredwiththisdepartmentatS.No.152 (H)on31.03.1973with56promotermembers(refercopy ofthebyelawsatP22/CtoP24/C(MainFile)). Thefollowing6membersweredeletedoutof56membersby theRCSatthetimeofregistration,thedetailslistisgivenas under: M.No. 24 25 29 33 38 56 Member'sName PremNarainMaheshMani NandLalRathi VikramKumarSurbani MadanLalJoshi RamSwaroopBakshi NandKishoreKhanna

2.

3.

Sl.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Enrolmentspriorto30.6.86: Thesocietyhasenrolled 71memberspriortofreezedatei.e.30.6.86.Aconsolidatedlist ofthesemembersisplacedatP365/CtoP366/C(VolI)and thedetailsaregivenasunder: Sl. No. M. No. Member'sNameDateof Dateof Dateof Application MC Receipt

CC No. 45/2010

Page 78 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.


Approval ofShare Money 1. 2. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 71. 57 58 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 127 ChandraKantJoshi K.H.Patel .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. M.K.Singh 10.09.76 10.09.76 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 08.07.78 16.09.76 16.09.76 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 15.07.78

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

20.09.76 20.09.76 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 22.07.78

Sincealltheabovementionedenrolmentsweremadepriorto freezedatei.e.30.6.86,therefore,noapprovalisrequiredforthe same.However,thesocietyhassubmittedthefollowing documentsinconnectionwiththeseabovementioned enrolments: i) ii) iii) iv) Photocopyofapplicationformsformembershipfrom120 enrolledmembersisplacedfromP162/CtoP288/C VolI). PhotocopyofreceiptofShareMoneyfromenrolled membersisplacedfromP121/CtoP161/CVol. I). Photocopyoftheminutesofthemanagingcommittee meetingsinwhichtheenrolmentswereapprovedare placedatP369/CtoP375/CVolI). Freshaffidavitsinoriginalinr/o120existingmembers areplacedatP1/CtoP120/CVolI).

4. Resignationspriorto30.6.86: Thefollowingone memberhasresignedfromtheSociety.Aconsolidatedlistof memberisplacedatP382/CVolI)andthedetailslistisgiven asunder: Sl. No. M. No. Member'sNameDateof Dateof Dateof Resignation MC Refund ApprovalofShare Money Mrs.AchammaAbraham11.05.75 11.05.75 11.05.75

47

Sincetheabovementionedresignationwasmadepriortofreeze datei.e.30.6.86,therefore,noapprovalisrequiredforthesame.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 79 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

However,thesocietyhassubmittedthefollowingdocumentsin connectionwiththisabovementionedresignation: i) ii) iii) Photocopyofresignationfrommembershipof1member isplacedatP381/CVolI). PhotocopyofrefundofShareMoneyofresignedmember isplacedatP381/CVolI). Photocopyoftheminutesofthemanagingcommittee meeting(resolutionNo.9)inwhichtheresignationwas approved,isplacedatP380/C(VolI). 5. Resignationsafter1.7.86 6. Enrolmentsafter1.7.86 : : Nil Nil

TheSocietyproducedoriginalrecordsforverification, whichwereexaminedandverifiedaccordingly.Allthe enrolmentsarefoundinorderandinaccordancewiththe provisionsofDelhiCooperativeSocietiesAct&Rules. NoResidenceproofisrequiredasalltheenrolmentswere madepriorto01.05.1985(refernotificationofSpecial Secretary(cooperation)No.F.47/Legal/Policy/Coop/ 92/23052316dated5.12.2001. 7. TransferCases&JointMembership: Since registrationofthesociety,therearenocasesofTransfer ofmembership&JointMembership.

PresentStrengthofthesociety: Promotermembers 56 Deletedatthetimeofregistration 06 Numberofmembersenrolledpriorto30.06.86 71 Numberofmembersresignedpriorto1.7.86 01 Numberofmembersenrolledpriorto1.7.86 Nil Total'existingmembers'priorto1.7.86 120 (56+71=1277) Numberofmembersresignedafterto1.7.86 Numberofmembersenrolledafterto1.7.86 PresentStrength 120 Nil Nil

TheSecretaryoftheSocietyhasfiledanaffidavitinrespectof abovementionedenrolmentsalongwithafinallistof120 presentmembersforapprovalandonwardsubmissiontoDDA forallotmentofland(seeP291/CtoP303(VolI).

CC No. 45/2010

Page 80 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Inthisregard,itissubmittedthatsincethemembershipstrength oftheSocietypriortofreezedatei.e.30.6.86was120(50+70), hencethefreezestrengthofthesocietymaybetreatedas120. Thedetailsofthese120membersaregivenasunder: Sl.No. M.No. Member'sName 1 1 Sh.SurenderKumarMaheshwary .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... 120 127 M.K.Singh TheSecretaryoftheSocietyhasalsofiledanAffidavit statingthat: a) Thesocietyisreadytotakeresponsibility,ifanymember whohadresigned,filesanycase/claimbeforeanycourt oflaw.(seeP319VolI) b) Thereisnocourtcasependinginanycourtoflaw againsttheSociety.SeeP321/C(VolI) c) Thereisnoinspectionu/s54andinquiryu/s55&59 pendingagainstthesociety.SeeP320/C(VolI) d) TheGeneralBodyMembersoftheSocietyintheir meetingheldon28.12.2003(resolutionno.4)havealso soughtcondonationforthelapses/irregularitiesoccurred duetolackofknowledgetoruntheSociety.(SeeP322 /CtoP324/C(VolI) Audit: TheaccountsoftheSocietyhavebeenauditedbythe DepartmentalAuditorupto31.03.2003.(seeP01/CtoP 240/C(VolII) Election : TheelectionoftheManagingCommitteeofthe SocietywasheldintheGeneralBodyMeetingdated28.12.2003 andfollowingManagingCommitteehasbeenElected: S.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. M.S.No. 122 123 121 124 NameoftheM.C. Designation Member Sh.ArunKumarPresident Smt.RakshaDevi VicePresident Sh.DeepakKumar Secretary Sh.RajenderKumarSingh Treasurer

CC No. 45/2010

Page 81 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.


5. 125 Smt.VishakhaSingh Member

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Thesocietyhassubmittedthefollowingdocumentsin connectionwithelectionoftheSociety: i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) MinutesoftheManagingCommitteeMeetingheldon 23.11.2003(photocopiesareplacedatP318/C(VolI) AcopyoftheAgendaNoticedated24.11.2003was issuedtoallthemembersfortheGBMofthesociety heldon28.12.2003isplacedat(seep317/C(VolI). ServiceproofoftheAgendaNoticeissuedtoallthemembers ofthesocietydated24.11.2003isplacedatP312/CtoP 316/C(VolI). PhotocopyoftheNominationformsofthecandidatesare placedatP305/CtoP309/C(VolI). PhotoCopiesofminutesofGeneralBodydated 28.12.2003placedatP310/Ctoc CopyofminutesofMCdated29.12.2003placedatP 304/CVolI) TheSocietyhasproduced/submittedalltherelevantdocuments pertainingtotheverificationoffinallistof120membersfor onwardstransmissiontoDDAforallotmentoflandandthesame hasbeenexaminedandgotverifiedaccordingly. Inviewofabovestatedfactswemayrequestthecompetent authoritytoconsiderthefollowing: 1. Toapprovethefinallistof120membersforonward transmissiontoDDAforallotmentofland. Submittedforapprovalplease. Sd/ DealingClerk 19.3.04 JR(East) 19.3.04 RCS Sd/ RameshChandra 22.3.04 DA Sd/ NarayanDiwakar(RCS) 19.3.04 JR(E) AR(E) Sd/ AR(East) 19.3.04

CC No. 45/2010

Page 82 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Thereafter,anotesheetwrittenbyanotherdealingclerkSmt. Sunita Nagpal (PW85) on 22.03.2004 which was approved by AR(E).Thesameisreproducedasunder:


Asapprovedbycompetentauthoritylist maybesenttoDDAforallotmentofland. Fairletterisaddedforsignaturepl. Sd/ DealingAssistant 22.03.04 AR(E) RameshChandra 22.3.04 DA

Thereafter,theRCSreceivedanapplicationExt.PW85/A1(placedatpage 353/CD8dt.29.3.2004)whichisreproducedasunder: No.152(H) THERANGMAHALCOOPERATIVEGROUPHOUSEINGSOCIETYLTD. 147G,PocketA2,MayurViharPhaseIII,Delhi110096


Dated:29.03.2004 To, TheAsst.Registrar(East) CooperativeSocieties Govt.ofNCTofDelhi ParliamentStreet NewDelhi110001 Sub.: Sir, ThisistoinformyouthattheManagingCommitteeoftheSocietyhasapprovedthe followingNewNameoftheSociety&alsoadoptedtheNewModelByeLawsof CooperativeGroupHousingSocietyasperDCSAct&Rules.Ithasalsobeenapproved bytheSpecialGeneralBodymembersmeetingheldon27.03.2004. OLDNAMEOFTHESOCIETY THERANGMAHALCGHSLTD. NEWNAMEOFTHESOCIETY 1. THESILVERVIEWAPARTMENTSCGHSLTD. 2. THEHILLVIEWAPARTMENTSCGHSLTD. 3. THESKYBLUEAPARTMENTSCGHSLTD. RequesttochangetheNameoftheSociety&approvetheNew ModelByeLawsoftheSociety.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 83 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.


Kindlyapprovethesame&oblige. Thankingyou, YoursSincerely, 5493/E 29/03/04sd/ (DEEPAKKUMAR) SECRETARY 29.3.04 DA

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012


sd/ RameshChandra

Encl.:1.CopyofManagingCommitteeMeetingdated04.03.2004. 2. CopyofAgendaNoticedated05.03.2004 3. CopyofUPC(ServiceProof)dated05.03.2004 4. CopyofSpecialGeneralBodyMeetingdated27.03.2004 5. ThreecopiesofamendedModelByeLawsofCooperativeGroupHousing Society(inoriginal)

Onthisapplication,SunitaNagpalwroteanoteinhandwhich isreproducedasunder:
MaykindlyseethePUCrecd.From thesecy.Ofthesocietyregardingchange ofthenameofthesociety.Thesociety hascalledtheGBMdtd.270304and changethenameofthesocietyfrom RangMahalCGHSLtd.toTheSilver ViewApartmentsCGHSLtd. Theabovenamewas unanimouslyapprovedbytheManaging Committeeintheirmeetingheldon 040304(seeatpage362/C.Theagenda noticedtd.5.03.04,seeatpage361(c)was senttoallmembersthroughUPC dtd.5.03.04tocallSpecialGBM andGBMhasapprovedthe abovenameunanimouslyintheir meetingdtd.27.03.04seeatpage354/C. TheGBMembershavealso approvedandadoptedtheModel ByelawsofCoop.GHousingSociety unanimouslyinitsmeetingheldon 27.03.04asperDCSactand rules.ThreecopiesofModel ByeLawsofCoop.GroupHousingSociety inoriginalforapprovalseepage324/cto353/c.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 84 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.


Inviewofabove,wemay sentthisfiletoworthyRCSfor approvalpl. Submittedpl.
Sd/ 29.03.04 Maykindlysee forapproval Sd/ RameshChandra 29.03 JR(E) Maypleaseapprovethe changeofnameandadoptionof modelbyelawsasproposedabove. Sd/ J.S.Sindhu RCS 29.3.4 Sd/ NarayanDiwakar 29/3/04 Sd/ Sd/ RameshChandra J.S.Sindhu 31.3.04 DAJR(E) AR(E) AR(E)

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

SunitaNagpal

Thereafter,SunitaNagpalwroteanothernotedated31.03.2004 asunder:
Asapprovedbycompetentauthority Fairletterisaddedforsignpl. Sd/ SunitaNagpal 31.03.04 DA Sd/ RameshChandra 31/3

Beforediscussingtheaforesaidnotesheets,thesubmissionsof the public servants who are the Dealing Clerk, Assistant Registrar (East),Jt.Registrar(East),RegistrarCooperativeSocieties,Auditor, AssistantRegistrar(Audits)&Inspector haveto beconsidered. It wouldbeappropriatetodecidesomequestionsoflawcommontoall the accused persons. One of the main and most important
CC No. 45/2010 Page 85 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

submission on behalf of all these public servants is that they had done the work in routine manner and have relied upon the documentsfurnishedbythesocietyandtheyhadnoknowledgethat thesaiddocumentswereforged. Itis,therefore,arguedthatthey hadactedinroutinemannerwithouthavinganyknowledgeofthe forgeryorwithouthavinganyintentiontoabusetheofficialposition. Inviewofthesecommonsubmissions,thecourtisfacedwiththe questionastowhetherthemensreainformofintentorknowledge is a necessary ingredient of Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of CorruptionAct. It is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that till recently, no judgmenthadthrownanylightonthisaspect.Therefore,whenthis question arose before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. JusticeS.Muralidharvidehisorderdated24.09.2009referredthis issuetoalargerBench. Accordingly,thisissuewasconsideredby Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P . MittalinCRL.A.482/2002,CRL.A.509/2002andCRL.A.484/2002 i.e.RunuGhosh, T.Rama RaoandSukhram Vs CBI videjudgment dated 21.12.2011. I reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the judgmentasunder:
73. Having regard to the previous history of the statute, the amendmentstothe1947Act,itsavowedobjectsandthedistinctivestructure whichParliamentadoptedconsciously,underthe1988Act,despitebeingaware ofthepreexistinglaw,aswellasthedecisionsoftheCourt theconclusion which this Court draws is that mens rea is inessential to convict an accusedfortheoffenceunderSection13(1)(d)(iii).Itwouldbesufficient

CC No. 45/2010

Page 86 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

if the prosecution proves that the public servant obtains by his act, pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, to another, without public interest.Theinclusionofpublicinterest,intheopinionoftheCourt,tipsthe scale in favour of a construction which does not require proof of mens rea. There can be many acts of a public servant, which result in pecuniary advantage,orobtainingofavaluablethingtosomeoneelse;typicallythesemay relatetopaymentofroyalty,grantoflicenseorconcessions,issuanceofpermits, authorizations,etc.Yet,suchgrants,concessions,orotherformsofadvantages tothirdpartieswouldnotcriminalizethepublicservantsactions,solongasthey have an element of public interest. They (acts of the public servant) are outlawed,andbecomepunishable,iftheyarewithoutpublicinterest. ..................... 75.Itwouldbeprofitabletoemphasizethepublicservantsarean entirelydifferentclass,andtheleveloftrustreposedinthembythesocietyis reflectedinthehighstandardsofbehaviourandrectituteexpectedofthem,both inthedischargeoftheirduties,andotherwise.Inthecaseofministerswhoare members of the council of Ministers (the Cabinet) in the Union and State Governments, as well as holders of other constitutional offices there is a requirementthatbeforetheirappointment,eachofthemhastosubscribetoan oathofofficeandscerecyaccordingtotheformsetoutintheSchedule,tothe ConstitutionofIndiabywhichholdersofsuchofficesarerequiredtotakeoath that he or she would discharge her or his duties in accordance with the Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill will. This requirementisaconstantremindertotheholderofthatofficethatsheorheisa trusteeandcustodianofpublicinterest,andalldecisionstakeninthatcapacity aretobebasedonthatfactoralone.Holdersofotherpublicoffices,underthe State(acompendiousterm)areequallyboundbysuchacondition.Toensure thattheyareaffordedtheamuletprotectionandimmunity,theConstitutionhas mandatedsomesafeguards(inthecaseofmembersofaserviceorholdersof office under a State or the Union, the protection from arbitrary loss of employment,underArticle311,andtheprotectionofstatusaccordedbyvirtue of rules or enactments made, pursuant to Article 309 of the Constitution of India). Thereisanaddedlayerofimmunityintheformofrequirementof sanctionundersection197orothersimilarprovisions,toprotectpublicservants fromneedlessharassment.However,whenthepublicservant Crl.A.Nos.482/02,509/02&536/02Page55actsinamanner thatisdevoidofpublicinterest,notonlywouldtheactionbecomesuspect,then, having regard to the nature of his action, and the heightened degree of blameworthiness, he is said to have transgressed the bounds of protection affordedtohisdecisions,andisthenexposedtoprosecution. 77.Thecourt,asaconsequencehastodeterminetheobjective criteria by which acts (of public servants) without public interest, are to be

CC No. 45/2010

Page 87 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

judged, if mens rea (to obtain pecuniary advantage or valuable thing to another)isnotanecessaryingredient.Thisexerciseisessentialbecauseinthe absenceofmensrea(whichhasbeenruledout)thecourthastosaywhatacts resulting in someone obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing are withoutpublicinterest. Obviouslythemerefactthatathirdpartyobtains pecuniary advantage, or a valuable thing, is insufficient; a supplier of equipmenttopublicservantsoroffices,atravelagentwhomakesbookingsfora publicagency,abusinessmanorcorporategroupgrantedlicensesorclearances, by departments or agencies of the Government, would all stand to benefit. Manyofthesedecisionsareinfact,andallare,expectedtobeinpublicinterest. Therefore, the kind of behaviour which amounts to an act resulting in someoneobtaining pecuniaryadvantageorvaluablethingwithout public interestneedstobespeltout.

Sh.VijayAggarwal,adv.foraccusedJ.S.Sindhu(A7)argues that Hon'ble Delhi High Court had proceeded on a wrong presumptionthatthereisnojudgementonthisaspecttilldate.He has referred to J. Jayalalitha Vs State (MANU/TN/1423/2001) decidedon4.12.2001. Ld.CounselforJ.S.Sindhu(A7)hasread theentirejudgementandIreproducedtherelevantportionsofthe sameasunder: ...........The contention of the prosecution that mere exercise of power to confer pecuniary advantage to another person even without any dishonesty, can attractthepenalprovisionsofthePrevention ofCorruptionAct,cannotbeaccepted,since if such a contention is accepted, any order passed by a public servant, which confers pecuniary advantage, can be prosecuted underthesaidAct. Section13(1)(d)ofthe PreventionofCorruptionAct,1988relatesto theoffenceofcriminalmisconduct,whether it is under Clause (i) or (ii) or (iii) and
CC No. 45/2010 Page 88 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

therefore, the offence recognized under all the three clauses is only an offence of criminalmisconduct.Inmyview,allclauses in Section 13(1)(d) of the Act require mensreaanditisanessentialingredient for the offence. The judgment of the SupremeCourtinM.NarayananNambiarv. State of Kerala (AIR 1963 SC 116), which wasquotedwithapprovalbytheApexCourt in Major S. K. Kale v. State of Maharashtra (MANU/SC/0139/1976:(1977)2SCC394), shows that in order to come within the mischiefoftheSection,theabuseofposition mustnecessarilybedishonestonthepartof theaccused. Ifthewordscorrupt,illegal meansorabusearenotreadintoSection 13(1)(d)(iii) of the said Act, innocent personswillbeharassedinthecourseof performanceoftheirofficialduties. Thejudgmentsreferredtoaboveshow that what is sought to be punished under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of CorruptionAct,1988,isnotmeremisconduct but criminal misconduct and for criminal misconduct, the element of mens rea is essentialandifthereisnomensrea,theact doesnotbyitselfbecomepunishable,except incertaincases,likeSection304AIPCasit provides punishment for rash and negligent actcommittedwithoutmensrea. IhavealreadyextractedSection13(1) (d)(iii) of the Prevention of Crruption Act, 1988, and in that, the words, without any public interest (emphasis supplied) are found. The words, without any public
CC No. 45/2010 Page 89 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

interestusedinthesaidSectionshowthat for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(iii), the prosecution must establish that the interest shown for obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, was private interestandeveniftheactservesonepublic interestandifthesaidonepublicinterestis against another public interest, a person cannotbeprosecuted,sincetheSectionstates emphatically that the act shall be done withoutanypublicinterest.Theword'any'is thereforetobeunderstoodthatthereshould beazeropublicinterest. Theword'any'is defined in Judicial Dictionary of words and Phrases(FifthEditionbyJohnS.James)asa word which excludes limitation or qualification. Therefore,theword'any'used Section 13(1)(d)(iii) is absolute. The trial Judgehasalsoconcededinhisjudgmentthat tourisminvolvespublicinterest,butwenton toholdthatitcannotoverrideanotherpublic interest,i.e.Ecologicalsystem. Therefore,it isnotacasewherewecanfitinthewords withoutanypublicinterest, Tomakeout an offence of criminal misconduct, two requirementsarenecessaryand theyare, (1) the absence of any public interest whatsoever,and(2)theknowledgeofthe accusedthathisactiswithoutanypublic interest. The first requirement is the objectiveabsence,asafact,ofanypublic interestandthesecondrequirementflows fromthelegalmaximregardingmensrea. If the accused acted bona fide without any publicinterest,believingthatheisactingin
CC No. 45/2010 Page 90 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

the public interest, he is not guilty of the offenceofcriminalmisconduct. Regarding Jayalalitha judgement, I would say that when a judgementofourownHighCourtontheissueofSection13(1)(d) (iii)ofPreventionofCorruptionActisbeforethiscourt,thesameis binding upon this court. Moreover, a careful perusal of this judgement would show that this judgement is not contrary to the dicta of our own High Court in Runu Ghosh case, rather it supplements the same. The purport of this judgement of Hon'ble HighCourtisthattheelementofmensreaisapplicabletoSection 13(1)(d)(iii)ofPreventionofCorruptionActonlytotheextentthat thepublicservantshouldalsohavethe knowledge thathisactis withoutanypublicinterest. Thisobservationhasbeenadmittedby Hon'bleHighCourtinRunuGhoshcasebutindifferentwords. In RunuGhoshcaseinpara79Hon'bleHighCourthasobservedthat however it is only those facts done with complete and manifest disregardto the norms,andmanifestly injurious topublicinterest which were avoidable, but for the public servant overlooking or disregardingprecautionsandnotheedingthesafeguardsheorshe was accepted and which resulted in pecuniary advantage to another........... Toputitindifferentwords,thejudgementmeans thattheifthepublicservantknewthathisactofoverlookingor disregardingtheprecautionswouldbeinjurioustopublicinterest,he
CC No. 45/2010 Page 91 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

would be covered under the mischief of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of PreventionofCorruptionAct1988.Theknowledgeoftheinjuryto public interest, however, has to be deduced from the note sheets becausenormallynootherevidencewouldbeavailableagainstsuch publicservants.Theconjointreadingofboththejudgementswould lead to the conclusion that when an issue affecting public service comesbeforeapublicservant,itisnaturalthatsuchpublicperson wouldknowthatanydisregardofthenormswouldharmthepublic interest.Thisknowledgeofpublicinteresthastobegatheredfrom thefactsofthecase. Forexampleinthepresentcaseallotmentof land/plottothesocietywouldbeanactinpublicinterestbutifland isgrantedtoafakesociety,itwouldbeadversetothepublicinterest. InthepresentcasetheRCSofficialswereundertheobligationsto verifyandcertifythememberssothatlandisallottedtoaproper society. NeedlesstosaythatlandisextremelyexpensiveinNCTof Delhi, therefore the matter before RCS officials was of utmost importance. The importance of this issue has been specified by Hon'bleHighCourtofDelhiinKaverijudgementandIreproducethe relevantportionofthesameasunder: ItisopentotheRegistrartofixatime limitwithinwhichthedefects,ifany,mustbe removed by the society so as to enable the Registrartograntapproval.Ifthedefectsare notremovedwithinthestipulatedtime,then the society can have no grievance if the
CC No. 45/2010 Page 92 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

approval is not accorded. But once the approval is accorded the same must relate backtothedateofthefilingofthelist.What is the effect of approval? The effect of approval is that the Registrar recognises the correctness of the list as filed by the society. Imaypointitoutthatinthechargesframedbythiscourt,it hasbeenspecificallymentionedthatthesepublicservantshadacted againstthepublicinterestwithaviewtoobtainpecuniaryadvantage totheotheraccusedpersons. Inthe'RunuGhoshcase',ithasalso beendecidedthatsincetheoffencesofcorruptionaredoneunderthe cloakofofficialdutiesandinaverycleverandshroudedmanner,the only evidence available is note sheets against them and the court would be fully justified to draw appropriate inferences from such notesheets. Thiscourthastocarefullyperusethenotesheetsto considerastowhethertherehasbeenanyabuseofpowers,asper Section13(1)(d)(ii)orwhetherthepublicservanthasactedwithout any public interest to obtain pecuniary advantage to any party, bringingthecaseunderClause(iii)ofSection13(1)(d). CaselawcitedbyaccusedNarayanDiwakar(A8) AccusedNarayanDiwakar(A8)hasreferredtoUnionofIndia Vs.MajorJ.s.Khanna1971SPPL(LF)6096SC whereinitwas heldbyHn'bleSupremeCourtthatifapublicservanthadnotbeen carefulorwasgrosslynegligent,hisactionwouldnotbesaidtohave
CC No. 45/2010 Page 93 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

beenactuatedwithcriminalintent. Ihaveperusedthiscaselaw. Thepublicservant,inthesaid case,wasfacingtrialunderSection5ofPreventionofCorruptionAct 1947,whereasthepresentaccusedi.e.NarayanDiwkarisfacingtrial undersection13(1)(d)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct1988,clauses ofwhichhavebeeninterpretedbyHon'bleHighCourtofDelhiin 'RunuGhosh'casediscussedabove.FurtherIwouldsaythatthefacts mentioned in this authority would not be applicable because the actionofthepublicservantwasactuatedbyanemergencycausedby ChinaWarintheyear1962andHon'blesupremeCourtclearlyheld that it was, however, possible that the goods might have been requiredimmediatelyspeciallyinanemergencyliketheonewhich was then prevailing and officer might find it difficult, if not impossible,togothroughthe.........,possibleanddesirableinpeace time.ThereforeHon'bleSupremeCourtacquittedthepublicservant in the said case. However in the present case, there was no emergencytoactspeedilyignoringofsafeguards. 1976SPPL(LE) 8169SCMajorS.K.KaleyVs.StateofMaharashtrahasalsobeen referredto.Inthiscasealsothepublicservanthadactedduringthe Chineseattackin1962,whenanemergencywasdeclaredandthe Armyrequiredcertainengineeringtoolstobesuppliedimmediately. Fortheaforesaidreasonstheseauthoritiesarealsonotapplicableto thefactsinhand.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 94 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to K. R. Purshothaman Vs. State of Kerala (2005) 12 Supreme Court cases631. Inpara21ofthesaidjudgement,ithasbeenheldthat forconvictingapersonundertheprovisionofSection13(1)(d)of PreventionofCorruptionAct1988,theremustbeevidenceonrecord thataccused hadobtained forhimselforforanyotherperson,in valuablethingorpecuniaryadvantage. ItisarguedbyLd.Counsel foraccusedNarayanDiwakar(A8)thatnopecuniaryadvantagehad beenobtainedbyaccusedNarayanDiwakar(A8)orbyanypublic servantinthiscase.ItisarguedbyDr.SushilKumarGupta,adv.that the Runu Ghosh judgement in Hon'ble High court of Delhi is in contraventionofaforesaidofHon'bleSupremeCourt. Itisfurther arguedthatHon'bleHighCourtofDelhiinitsjudgementhadnot referredtothisjudgementofHon'bleSupremeCourt.Itistherefore arguedthatthiscourtwouldbejustifiedinignoringthejudgementof Hon'bleHighCourtinRunuGhoshcase. I have perused the aforesaid judgement of Hon'ble Supreme CourtandIamoftheopinionthatLd.DefenceCounselhsnotread the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in proper perspective. Therecannotbeanyscopeofanydisagreementonthepointaslaid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement that obtainingpecuniaryadvantageforhimselforanyotherpersonsis themainingredientofSection13(1)(d)onPreventionofCorruption

CC No. 45/2010

Page 95 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Act1988.Itisalsotruethatprosecutionhsbeenunabletoproveany evidence to show that if any public servant had obtained any pecuniaryadvantageforhimselforforanyotherperson.Butitmust bekeptinmindthatthechargeagainstthepublicservantsinthis caseisunderSection15readwithSection13(1)(d)ofPreventionof CorruptionActi.e.anattempttoobtainthepecuniaryadvantagefor himselforforsomeotherperson.Sinceitisanoffenceofattempt onlythereforethereisnoquestionofthesepublicservantshaving actuallyobtainedanypecuniaryadvantagetothemselvesortothe personsoperatingthefakesociety. FurtherHon'bleSupremeCourt hasnotinterpretedSection13(1)(d)(iii),ashasbeendoneinRunu GhoshcasebyHon'bleHighCourtofDelhi.Thereforeitcannotbe saidthattheratiodecidedinRunuGhoshisincontradictiontothe aforesaidjudgementofHon'bleSupremeCourt. AccusedNarayan Diwakar(A8)hasreferredto2009Crl.L.J.3450whereinHon'ble SupremeCourtheldthatinabsenceofproofofdemandorrequest fromthepublicservantforavalubalethingorpecuniaryadvantage, offenceunderSection13(1)(d)cannotbeheldtobeestablished.It isarguedbyLd.Counselthatthereisnoevidencethatanyofthe public servants demanded or requested for a valuable thing or pecuniaryadvantage.Perusalofthejudgementwouldshowthatthe publicservanthaddemandedasumofRs.25/fordeliveryofthe driving license. On the complaint of the complainant the public

CC No. 45/2010

Page 96 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

servantwascaughtredhandedintraplaidbythepolice.However theprosecutiondidnotexaminethecomplainantduringtrial.Inthe saidjudgementSection13(1)(d)wasreadinreferencetoSection7 ofthePreventionofCorruptionActandsinceprosecutioncouldnot proveanydemandbythepublicservantofapecuniaryadvantage,in absenceofsuchprooftheappellantwasacquitted. AccusedNarayanDiwakar(A8)hasreferred 1971SPPLSTPL (LE) 9633 SC, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that word abuseofpositionincludestheelementofdishonestyintheactof thepublicservant.IfullyagreewiththesubmissionsofLd.Defence counselbutwouldhesitingtoaddthatinRunuGhoshcaseHon'ble HighCourtofDelhihasalsotakenthesameviewonthepointof abuse of official position. However Runu Ghosh case further interprets 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act and holds thatmensreaisrequiredfor13(1)(d)(i)and(ii)ofPreventionof CorruptionActbutisnotanessentialingredientof13(1)(d)(iii)of PreventionofCorruptionAct. Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to 1979 STPL (LE)9597SC.ImaypointoutthatthisisacaseunderSection5(1) (d)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct1947.Inthiscasetheallegation wasthatacontractorhadexecutedtheworkandhisbillscontained the number of labourers engaged and amount pertaining to their wages at the sanctioned rate. The witness was brought by

CC No. 45/2010

Page 97 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

prosecutiontoprovethatthenumberoflabourers,showntohave beenengagedoneachdate,wasnotcorrect.Furthertheworkwas done in contravention of the General Financial Rules and it was alleged that inflated bills were presented and said amount was received. I have considered this authority. Hon'ble Supreme Court clearlyheldthattherewasnoproofoffalsityofanyentriesmade inthedocument.Hencetheconvictionsweresetasideandaccused personswereacquitted.Hon'bleSupremeCourtinthiscasehasnot settledanylaw,ratherthejudgementisbaseduponappreciationof facts.Thiscaselawisnotapplicabletothefactsofthiscasebecause inthiscasethereisclearcutproofofforgeryofdocuments. Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to 2002 STPL (LE)31062SC.InthiscaseHon'bleSupremeCourtheldthatmere acceptanceofmoneywithouttheirbeinganyotherevidencewould notbesufficienttoconvictaccusedunderSection13(1)(d). This caselawisnotapplicablebecausethecaseinhandisnotacaseof acceptance of any money. I may point out that in this case also Section13(1)(d)hasbeendiscussedwithreferencetoSection7of PreventionofCorruptionAct. Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to 2003 STPL (LE) 32047 SC. Perusal of this judgement would show that the concernedMinisterofPowerandEnergy,Karnatakaapproachedthe

CC No. 45/2010

Page 98 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

appellants seeking to help out during the crises of scarcity and electricity in their State. Such emergent circumstances are not appearinginthecaseinhand.HoweverIwouldpointoutthepara 18ofthejudgement,whereinHon'bleSupremeCourtwhilereferring theshorterOxfordDictionaryopinedthatthewordobtainedmeans tosecureorgainmoneyastheresultofrequestoreffort. Itwas also held that prosecution must prove that accused had the necessarymentalstateordegreeoffaultattherelevanttime.It wasalsoheldthatonemustturntodefinitionofparticularcrimes toascertaintheprecisemensrearequiredforspecificoffences.I amoftheopinionthatHon'bleHighCourtofDelhiinRunuGhosh hasdealtwiththeaspectofmensreaindetailed inreferenceto Section13(1)(d)(iii)ofP .C.Act. AccusedNarayanDiwakar(A8)hasreferredto1987Crl.L.J. 1061onthepointastowhatisreasonablebelief.Itwasheldthat
whetherornottheofficialconcernedhadseizedthe articlesinthereasonablebeliefthatthegoodswere smuggledgoods,isnotaquestiononwhichthecourt cansitinappeal..........Thiscourthadadministered cautiontothecourtsnottositinappealinregardto thisquestion and has observed that if prima facie therearegroundstojustifythebelief,thecourt havetoaccepttheofficertobelieveregardlessof the fact whether the court of its own might or might not have entertained the same belief...... Whetherornottheofficerconcernedhadentertained reasonable belief under the circumstances is not a matter which can be placed under legal microscope,withanoverindulgenteyewhichseeks noevilanywherewithintherangeofitseyesite.The circumstances have to be viewed from the

CC No. 45/2010

Page 99 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

experienced eye of the officer, who is well equipped to entertain the suspicious circumstances andtoformareasonablebeliefinthelightofsaid circumstances.

ItisarguedbyLd.CounselforaccusedNarayanDiwakar(A8) thatbeingRCShavingtheassistanceoflargenumberofsubordinates actedonareasonablebeliefthatthenote/proposalpresentedtohim contained the true and correct facts and that in such reasonable belief accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has approved the recommendationsofthesubordinates.HereIwouldliketoadvertto thefactsofthecaselawcitedbytheaccused. Theabovequoted observationwerepassedbyHon'bleMr.JusticeM.P .ThakkarandMr. JusticeS.Natrajanwhiledealingwiththefactswhereinapassenger washavingawaistchainmadeofpuregoldquotedwithmercuryso astogiveitanappearanceofbeingmadeofsilver.Itwasseizedby the Custom Department on a reasonable belief that it was a smuggled. Itwasheldinthisjudgementthatwhencustomofficer hadtestifiedthathehadseizedthesameinthe reasonablebelief that the same was an article made of smuggled gold, in such circumstancestheburdenofproofshiftsonthepersonfromwhom sucharticlewasseizedtoshowthatitwasnotsmuggledgoldinview ofSection123ofCustomAct.ThereforeHon'bleHighheldthatthe circumstanceshavetobeseenfromtheexperiencedeyeoftheoffice, who is well equipped interpret the circumstances and to form
CC No. 45/2010 Page 100 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

reasonablebelief.Thepurportofthiscaselawisthatwhenaparty claimsgoodfaith,theburdenshiftsontheoppositepartytoprove thebadfaith.Therefore,itwillhavetobeconsideredbythiscourt as to whether accused Narayan Diwakar had a reasonable belief aboutthecorrectnessoftherecordssubmittedtotheRCS.However ifthecircumstancesareprovedbytheprosecution,whichshowhis involvement in the conspiracy with persons operating the fake society,thepleaofreasonstobelieve,andgoodfaithwouldnot beavailabletohim. Accused NarayanDiwkar (A8)has referred to A. S.Krishan andAnr.Vs.StateofKerala(MANU/SC/0233/2004)whichdefine thewordknowledgeandreasontobelieve. Ld.CounselforaccusedNarayanDiwakar(A8)hasreferredto UnionofIndiaVs.ChhajuRam(A2003)11SCC584,Regional Manager Vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey 1976 (3) SCC 334 and Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs. UPPSC (2003) SCC 584 and submits that the observations of the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble SupremeCourtsshouldbereadintherelevantcontextandevenone additionalfactcanmakeaworldofdifferencebetweenconclusions in two cases. It is therefore submitted that Runu ghosh is not applicabletothefactsofthiscase.Iagreewithdefencesubmission that the facts of Runu Ghosh case and this case are altogether different,butprincipleoflawaslaiddownbyHon'bleHighCourtin

CC No. 45/2010

Page 101 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

RunuGhoshcasewouldbeapplicableandbindingonallthecourts subordinatetoit. Ld.CounselforaccusedNarayanDiwakar(A8)hasreferredto StateofMadhyaPradeshVsSheetlaSahay&Ors.2009VIIIAd (SC)630,C.P .ThakurVsCBI(2009)(110)DRJ1HighCourtof Delhi and R. Balakrishan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1996 Supremecourt901 inwhichitwasconsistentlyheldthatsanction under Section 197 CrPC was a sine qua non for prosecuting the accused persons under IPC offences. This aspect would be consideredbymeatalaterstage. AccusedNarayanDiwakar(A8)hasfiledacopyoftheorder dated 3.7.2012 passed by Ld. Special Judge in RC 16(E)/2005/EOW1/CBI/N. Delhi. It is submitted that this case pertained to New Hind CGHS society and Ld. Special Judge whil discussingtheroleofNarayanDiwkar,theRCS,observedthathis conductinnotcallingtheoriginalfilefromNorthZonecouldatbest betakenasnegligentactorderelictionofdutyonhispart.Iamof theopinionthatthefactsofthesaidcaseareclearlydistinguishable from the facts of this case and therefore discharge of Narayan Diwakarinthesaidcasewillhavenobearinguponthiscase. CaselawcitedbyaccusedJ.S.Sindhu(A7) Onthepointofconspiracyaccusedhasreferredtofollowing authorities:

CC No. 45/2010

Page 102 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

K.R.PurshothamanVs.StateofKerala2005(12)SCC631. NavjotSandhuVsStateofNCT2005SCC(Crl.)1715. SudhdeoJhaUptalVsTheStateofBiharAIR1957SC466. RitaHandaVsCBI2008(3)JCC248. ShreekatiahRamayyaMunipalliVsStateofBombay1955AIR (SC)287. 6. AmrikSinghVsStateofPepsuAIR1955SC309. 7. Kantongen Kemi OCHFORVALTNING Vs State through CBI 2004[1]JCC218. 8. AnilKr.BoseVs.StateofBiar1974[4]SCC616. 9. ShreyaJhaVsCBI2007JCC{3}2318. 10.State (through) CBI Vs Someshwar & Ors. 120 (2005) DLT 324. 11.A.SubairVsStateofKerala2009Crl.L.J.3450. I would only hold that the law of conspiracy is now well definedandforthesakeofbrevityIamnotinclinedtodiscussthe same.SufficeittosaythatthecaselawcitedbyLd.DefenceCounsel statethewellestablishedprincipleoflawonconspiracy. However eachcasehastobeconsideredinlightofitspeculiarcircumstances. CaselawcitedbyaccusedSriChand(A1)andMohanLal(A11) Sh. R. P Shukla, adv. for accused Sri Chand has referred to . 2011(3)JCC1687ofDelhiHighCourt and (2005)11Supreme Court cases 600 on the point of conspiracy and circumstantial evidence. The question of conspiracy would be considered while discussingtheroleofeachaccused. HoweverIwouldsaythatthe aforesaidcaselawlasedowntheprinciplegoverninglawofevidence pertainingtoconspiracyandcircumstantialevidence.
CC No. 45/2010 Page 103 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Sh. R. P Shukla, adv. has referred to a judgement dated . 6.7.2012passedbyHon'bleSupremeCourtinwritpetition(Crl.)no. 135 of 2008. In this order Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in absence of any specific direction from this court, the CBI has exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging FIR...... It is argued by Ld. DefenceCounsel thateveninthepresentcasethereisnospecific orderofHon'bleHighCourtforregistrationofanFIR.Thereforethe entireinvestigationandtrialarevitiatedandthereforetheaccused personsshouldbeacquitted. Ontheotherhand,Ld.PublicProsecutorarguesthatinorder Ex.PW90/A7 Hon'bleHighCourthaspassedaspecificdirectionto investigate all the matters of 135 societies, which includes RangmahalCGHS.Itissubmittedthataninvestigationisstartedby CBIonlyafterregistrationofFIRandwhenHon'bleHighCourthad orderedinitiationsofinvestigation,itwouldmeantheregistrationof anFIR. I have perused the aforesaid case law cited by Ld. Defence Counsel. In the said case Hon'ble Supreme Court hadorderedto conductaninquirywithrespecttoexecutionofTajHeritageProject atAgra.CBIhadregisteredthesaidcasebutapartfromthesaidcase CBIalsoregisteredaDAcase.Hon'bleSupremeCourtheldthatCBI hadgonebeyondthedirectionsoftheSupremeCourtandassuch therewasnodirectiontoregisteraDAcase,theFIRregisteredby

CC No. 45/2010

Page 104 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

CBIforDAcasewasquashed. HowevertheorderofHon'bleHigh Courtinthiscaseisveryspecifici.e.Investigationof135societiesby CBI. ItisnotindisputethatRangmahalisoneofthesesocieties. Therefore registration of an FIR and investigation of the same is perfectly as per the order of Hon'ble High Court and I find no infirmityinthesame. AccusedSriChandhasfiledacertifiedcopyofanorderdatd 30.4.2012passedbyLd.SpecialJudgeinthematterofTajCGHSin which the only evidence against Sri Chand was that he had approachedM/sVibhaon30.12.2004andpaidasumofs.21,777/ forissuanceofpublicnoticeinthenameofGoldenValleyCGHSLtd. Ld.SpecialJudgeheldthatthissolefactwasnotenoughtoconnect him to the criminal conspiracy. I am of the opinion that in the present case apart from the similar evidence, there is further evidence against Sri Chand. Therefore accused cannot claim acquittalonthegroundthathewasdischargedinanothercase.The entireevidenceconcerninghimwouldbeappreciatedfurther. CaselawcitedbyaccusedRakeshKr.Hasija(A4) Hehasfurnishedalistofcasesinwhichhewasdischargedby Ld.SpecialJudges.Itisfurthersubmittedthatinacasepertainingto KanakDurgaCGHS,CBIhadfiledclosurereport.Iamoftheopinion thateachcasehasitsownpeculiarfactsandonthebasisofonecase, acquittal cannot be sought in another case. The role of accused

CC No. 45/2010

Page 105 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Rakesh Kr. Hasija would be seen in context of the facts and circumstancesofthiscase. CaselawcitedbyaccusedAnnaWankhede(A10) Ld. Counsel for accused Anna Wankhede has referred to followingcaselaw: 1. Punjab&SindBankVsM/sKunshivProfilesCo.Pvt.Ltd.&ors. RFAApp.No.460/2007(DelhiHighCourt). 2. SurinderKaurVsSardarMangalSingh&ors.C.R.P .589/1998. D.O.D.6.3.2009(DelhiHighCourt). 3. H. Siddiqui Vs A. Ramalingam (2011)4 SCC 240 (Supreme Court) 4. M.DurgaPrasadVsStateofA.P .2003(2)ALDCri5645,2004 CriLJ242(AndhraHighCourt). 5. State (Delhi Administration) Vs Paliram 1979 AIR 14, 1979 SCR(1)931(SupremeCourt). 6. Ashok Dulichand Vs Madhavlal Dube & another (Supreme Court). 7. SayyedAhmadVs.State2010[2]JCC1416(DelhiHighCourt). 8. SurjitRaiVsPremKumarKhera(1995)110PLR140(Punjab HaryanaHighCourt) 9. RakeshKumarVsState2004[1]JCC110(DelhiHighCourt) 10.BheriNageswaraRaos.MavuriVeerabhadraRao&Ors.AIR 2006A.P .314(AndhraPradeshH.C.) 11.AlamgirVsState(NCTofDelhiAIR2003SC282(Supreme Court) 12.State of Gujrat Vs. Shah Sanjay Kumar K. Judgment dat 25.2.2000(GujratH.C.) For sake of brevity, I am not inclined to discus above stated authoritiesseparately.Butinnutshell,followingprinciplehavebeen enunciatedinthesecaselaw:
CC No. 45/2010 Page 106 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

1. Theoriginaldocumentisthebestandprimaryevidenceand secondary evidence should not be allowed unless the circumstances offer sufficient justification for reception of secondaryevidenceasperSection65ofIndianEvidenceAct. 2. Photostatcopyofadocumentcannotbereceivedinevidence unlessitisshownthatitisinpossessionofapersonagainst whomdocumentissoughttobeproved. 3. Thehandwritingofapersonwouldnotbecomparedfroma photo copy because in these days of advance technology, signaturesfromoneplacecanbeliftedandplacedonanother documentbysuperimposition. 4. The specimen hand writing must be taken in presence of a Magistrate,otherwiseitcannotbereceivedinevidence. 5. Thattheopinionofhandwritingexpertisaweakevidence. Iagreewithpointno.1and2asthesamelaydownthelawon the condition when secondary evidence becomes admissible. Howeverasregardspointno.3,IwouldsaythatthisfindinginShree SurjitRaiVsShriPremKumarKherahasbeengiveninthepeculiar facts and circumstances of the case and does not lay down any principleoflaw.ThereforeIamoftheopinionthatwherethereisno possibilityofanysuchsuperimposition,theopinionofhandwriting expertwouldbeofgreatimportance.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 107 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Asregardstheweightoftheopinionofhandwritingexpert,I wouldsaythatthereweredivergentviewsofourownHighCourton thisissuebutnowinBhupenderSinghVs.State,thefullBenchof DelhiHighCourtconsistingHon'bleChiefJusticeDeepakMishra,Mr. Justice Anil Kumar and Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2008 (vide order dated 30.09.2011) upheldtheviewtakenbythesinglejudgeofHon'bleHighCourtof DelhiinSunilKumar@SonuVs.StateofNCTofDelhi(Criminal AppealNo.446of2005decidedon25.3.2010)andrejectedtheratio ofthedecisionoftheDivisionBenchinSatyawanVs.State(Criminal AppealNo.34/2001decidedon9.7.2009).InSatyawanVsState,the DivisionBenchofHon'bleHighCourthadheldthattakingspecimen writingwithouttheorderofthecourtisnotlegalandwouldnotbe admissible in evidence against accused. In Bhupender Singh Vs. StatethefullBenchofHon'bleHighCourtofDelhiclearlyheldthat theviewexpressedinthedecisionsnamelySatyawanVsStateisnot thecorrectview. Henceitisclearthatthespecimenhandwriting canbetakenfromanaccusedbytheInvestigatingOfficerandsame wouldbeadmissibleinevidenceevenifsuchspecimenhandwriting hadbeentakenbytheInvestigatingOfficerwithoutpermissionofthe Magistrate.
Regarding the importance of opinion of hand writing expert, reliancemaybeplacedonJaipalVsStateandRajenderVsState.Iamof theopinionthatanexpert'sopinionisanevidenceinitself.Section45of
CC No. 45/2010 Page 108 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

IndianEvidenceActlaysdownthatwhenthecourthastoformanopinion astotheidentityofhandwritingorfingerimpressions,theopinionsupon thatpointofthepersonsexpertinthatsciencearerelevantfacts.Ifthe twohandwritingsmatchwitheachother,thisitselfisanevidenceasper theSection9ofIndianEvidenceActsthesameestablishestheidentityof apersonaswriterofthequestionedhandwriting.Tosayitdifferently,the matchingoftwohandwritingsisitselfasubstantialevidenceu/s9read withSection45ofIndianEvidenceActandtheopinionofthehandwriting expertis soughtonlytofacilitate the court toform an opinion on this point. Therefore,tosaythatconvictioncannotbebasedsolelyuponthe report of handwriting expert would be misleading. The appropriate interpretation of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is that court is competenttoformitsownopiniononthepointofidentityofhandwriting andforthatpurposethecourtmaycallforthereportofahandwriting expert. Therefore,therelevantfactbeforethiscourtisthematchingor nonmatchingofthehandwriting.Ifthehandwritingsmatchtherecannot be any hitch in convicting the accused even if further corroborative evidenceisnotavailable. Iquotefromthejudgmentdated05.07.2011 passedbytheDivisionBenchofHon'bleMr.JusticeS.RavindraBhattand Hon'bleMr.JusticeG.P .Mittalin JaipalVsStateCriminalAppealNo. 137/98andRajendraVsStateCriminalAppealNo.181/98asunder: ItistruethatexceptthehandwritingExpert'sreport Ext.PW4/Athereisnocorroborationthattheransom letterExt.PW12/AwasinthehandwritingofAppellant Jaipal.ThequestionwasdealtindetailbytheSupreme Courtin MurariLalv.StateofM.P .,AIR1980SC531. Thecourtobservedthathandwritingexpertisnotan
CC No. 45/2010 Page 109 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

accomplice and there is no justification for condemning his opinionevidence. ItwasheldthatiftheCourtisconvinced fromthereportofanexpertthatthequestioned handwritingwasoftheaccused,thereisnodifficultyin relyingupontheexpert'sopinionwithoutany corroboration. It is pertinent to note that Hon'ble High Court had relied upon MurariLalv.StateofM.P .,AIR1980SC531whereinHon'bleSupreme Courtheldthattherewasnoruleoflawnoranyruleofprudencethatthe evidence of handwriting expert must not be acted upon, unless substantiallycorroborated. Inviewoftheabovestatedlaw,Iamoftheopinionthatwhenacase is being pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of handwriting expert,thecourtshouldbeverycautiousandthereasonsfortheexpert opinionmustbecarefullyexamined. Incasewherereasonsforopinion areconvincingandthereisnoreliableevidencethrowingadoubtuponit, thetestimonyofhandwritingexpertmaybeaccepted. The question as to whether the photocopies of the proceedings qualify the conditions of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act would be discussedatappropriateplace.

WhethertheofficialsoftheofficeofRCSarenotpublicservants? ItisarguedbySh.S.K.Bhatnagar,adv.forA2,A3,A4&A5 that none of the officials of the office of RCS (who arrayed as accusedherein)arepublicservants. Itwasalsocontendedbyalltheotherofficialsoftheofficeof RegistrarCooperativeSocieties,includingaccusedNarayanDiwakar
CC No. 45/2010 Page 110 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

thattheofficialsoftheRegistrarCooperativeSocietiesarenotthe publicservantsundertheIndianPenalCodeandhencecannotbe charged of theoffence under theIndianPenalCode,per Stateof MaharashtraVs.LaljitRajshiShah&Ors.,AIR2000SC937. ItisalsoarguedthatSection89ofDelhiCooperativeSocieties Act,1972makesaliquidator,adeemedpublicservantundertheAct, meaning thereby, that the other officials of the office of Registrar CooperativeSocietiesareneitherthepublicservantsnorthedeemed publicservants,hencecannotbeprosecutedundertheIndianPenal Code. Theargumentoftheaccusedpersonsiswhollymisconceived. Section89onlymakesaLiquidator,adeemedpublicservant.Itdoes notsaythatotherofficials;onthepayrolloftheGovernment,are excluded from the definition of public servant or that the said officialsarenotpublicservants. TheActof1972onlyspeaksofa deemedpublicservant,whowasearliernotapublicservantunder theActbutwascreatedforthepurposesoftheActonly. Evenotherwise,inStateofM.P .Vs.Rameshwar&Ors.,2009 Crl. J. 2415 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had put to rest this controversyand in para no. 37 haspointedout that LaljitRajshi Shah's casehassincebeenoverruled,aftertheamendmentofthe PreventionofCorruptionAct,1988whereintheChairman,directors etc.ofaCooperativeSocietyweremadepublicservants.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 111 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

ItisimportanttonotethatLaljitShah'scasethemainquestion forconsiderationwasiftheManagingDirector/Director/Officialsof the Society were a public servant or not and in such context the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the Maharashtra Cooperative SocietiesAct. Section2ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988definespublic servantasapersonwhoisonthepayrolloftheCentre orState Government.ItisnotdeniedbyanyoftheofficialsoftheRegistrar Cooperative Societies that they were not on the pay roll of the Government. AccordinglyIfindnosubstanceintheargumentsofSh.S.K. Bhatnagar, adv. that the officials of RCS office are not the public servants.RathertheyarepublicservantsasdefinedinSection2of PreventionofCorruptionAct1988. Requirementofsanctionu/s197CrPC ItisarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselsthatthereisnosanction underSection197CrPCtoprosecuteaccusedRakeshKumarHasija, Prahlad Kumar Thirwani, Jitender Singh Sharma, Jasbir Singh Sindhu, though sanction under Section 19 of P C. Act has been . accorded. I may point out that since accused Narayan Diwakar, Ramesh Chandra and Faiz Mohd. had retired, there was no requirementforobtainingsanctionunderSection19ofP .C.Act.Ld. DefenceCounselsarguethatforaprosecutionunderIPC,asanction

CC No. 45/2010

Page 112 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

under Section 197 CrPC is required, irrespective of the fact as to whether the public servant is still serving or has retired. I have consideredthesubmissionsoftheaccusedpersons. Alltheaccused personshavearguedthatsincethereisnosanctionunderSection 197CrPC,thereforetheycannotbeconvictedunderanyIPCoffence including under Section 120B IPC. Almost everyone of them has referredto R.BalakrishnaPillaiVsStateofKeralaandanother AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 901 in their support. Therefore I would like to reproduce relevant paragraphs of this judgement as under:
6. The next question is whether the offence alleged against the appellant can be said to have beencommittedbyhimwhileactingorpurportingto act in the discharge of his official duty. It was contendedbythelearnedcounselfortheStatethat the charge of conspiracy would not attract Section 197oftheCodeforthesimplereasonthatitisno partofthedutyofaMinisterwhiledischarginghis officialdutiestoenterintoaCriminalconspiracy.In supportofhiscontentionheplacedstrongrelianceon thedecisionofthisCourtinHariharPrasadvStateof Bihar,1972CriLJ707:(1972)8SCC89.Hedrewour attentiontotheobservationsinparagraph74ofthe judgment where the Court, while considering the question whether the acts complained of were directly concerned with the official duties of the concerned public servants, observed that it was no duty of a public servant to enter into a criminal conspiracyandhencewantofsanctionunderSection 197oftheCodewasnobartotheprosecution.The questionwhethertheactscomplainedofhadadirect nexusorrelationwiththedischargeofofficialduties bytheconcernedpublicservantwoulddependonthe CC No. 45/2010 Page 113 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

facts of each case. There can be no general proposition that whenever there is a charge of criminalconspiracylevelledagainstapublicservant inoroutofficethebarofSection197(1)oftheCode would have no application. Such a view would render Section 197(1) of the Code specious. Therefore,thequestionwouldhavetobeexamined in the facts of each case. The observations were madebytheCourtinthespecialfactsofthatcase whichclearlyindicatedthatthecriminalconspiracy enteredintobythethreedelinquentpublicservants hadnorelationwhatsoeverwiththeirofficialduties and, therefore, the bar of Section 197(1) was not attracted.Itmustalsoberememberedthatthesaid decisionwasrenderedkeepinginviewSection197 (1),asitthenstood,butwedonotbaseourdecision onthatdistinction.Ourattentionwasnextinvitedto athreeJudgedecisioninS.B.Sahav.M.S.Kochar, (1979) 4 SCC 177 : (AIR 1979 SC 1841). The relevantobservationsrelieduponaretobefoundin paragraph17ofthejudgment.Itispointedoutthat the words 'any offence alleged to have been committedbyhimwhileactingorpurportingtoact inthedischargeofhisofficialdutyemployedSection 197(1)oftheCode,arecapableofbothanarrow andawideinterpretationbuttheirLordshipspointed out that if they were construed too narrowly, the sectionwillberenderedaltogethersterile,for,itisno partofanofficialdutytocommitandoffence,and never can be. At the same time, if they were too widelyconstrued,theywilltakeundertheirumbrella every act constituting an offence committed in the courseofthesametransactioninwhichtheofficial dutyisperformedorispurportedtobeperformed. Thenightapproach,itwaspointedout,wastosee that the meaning of this expression lies between these two extremes. While on the hand, it is not every offence committed by a public servant while engagedintheperformanceofhisofficialduty,which isentitledtotheprotection.Onlyanactconstituting anoffencedirectlyorreasonablyconnectedwithhis CC No. 45/2010 Page 114 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

officialdutywillrequiresanctionforprosecution.To put it briefly, it is the quality of the act that is importantandifitfallswithinthescopeoftheafore quotedwords,theprotectionofSection197willhave tobeextendedtotheconcernedpublicservant.This decision, therefore, points out what approach the CourtshouldadoptwhileconstruingSection197(1) oftheCodeanditsapplicationtothefactsofthecase onhand. 7. Inthe present case,theappellantischarged withhavingenteredintoacriminalconspiracywith thecoaccusedwhilefunctioningasaMinister. The Criminalconspiracyallegedisthathesoldelectricity toanindustryintheStateofKarnataka'withoutthe consent of the Government of Kerala which is an illegal act' under the provision of the electricity (Supply)Act,1948andtheKeralaElectricityBoard Rulesframedthereunder. Theallegationsisthathe inpursuance of the said alleged conspiracy abused hisofficialpositionandillegallysoldcertainunitsto theprivateindustryinBangalore(Karnataka)which profited the private industry to the tune of Rs. 19,58,630.40 or more and it is, therefore, obvious that the criminal conspiracy alleged against the appellantisthatwhilefunctioningastheMinisterfor ElectricityhewithouttheconsentoftheGovernment of Kerala supplied certain units of electricity to a privateindustryinKarnataka.Obviously,hedidthis in the discharge of his duties as a Minister. The allegationsisthatitwasanillegalactinasmuchas the consent of the Government of Kerala was not obtained before this arrangement was entered into andthesupplywaseffected. Forthatreason,itis saidthathehadcommittedanillegalityandhencehe was liable to be punished for criminal conspiracy underSection120BI.P .C.Itis,therefore,clearfrom the charge that the act alleged is directly and reasonably connected with his official duty as a Ministerandwould,therefore,attracttheprotection ofSection197(1)oftheAct. 8. Fortheabovereasons,weareunabletoaccept CC No. 45/2010 Page 115 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

theviewtakenbytheHighCourtofKeralainsofaras therequirementofsanctionunderSection197(1)of theCodeisconcerned,inrelationtothechargeof criminalconspiracy.We,therefore,allowthisappeal, set aside the decision of the High Court insofar as that charge is concerned and hold that sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code was a sine qua non. As pointed out earlier so far as the second chargeunderSection5(2)readwithSection5(1)(d) ofthePreventionofCorruptionActisconcerned,the view of the High Court remains undisturbed. The appeal is allowed accordingly and will stand so disposedof.

Accusedpersonshavealsoreferredtofollowingauthoritiesin theirsupport: (i) SankaranMoitraVsSadhnaDass&Anr.,AIR2006SC1599; (ii)PaulVargheseVsStateofKerala&Anr.,JT2007(5)SC525& (iii)AnjaniKumarVsStateofBihar,AIR2008SC1992. Iamnotinclinedtodiscussthesethreeauthoritiesbecausethe same contain the same principle of law as laid down by Hon'ble SupremeCourtinR.BalakrishnaPillaicase. Aperusalofthiscase wouldshowthatHon'bleSupremeCourthasrelieduponthecriteria, whichhadalreadybeenheldrepeatedlybyHon'bleSupremeCourt. This criteria is that while deciding the question of applicability of Section197(1)CrPC,neitherthisprovisioncanbeinterpretedtoo widelynortoonarrowlyandabalancehastobemaintainedbythe court because if this provision is construed too narrowly, the sectionwillberenderedaltogethersterile,foritisnopartofan
CC No. 45/2010 Page 116 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

officialdutytocommitanoffenceandnevercanbe.Atthesame time, if they were too widely construed, they will take under their umbrella every act constituting an offence committed in course of the same transaction in which the official duty is performed. Hon'bleSupremeCourtheldthatrightapproachis to see that the meaning of the expression lies between two extremes. Thereforethecourtwillhavetoassessthefactsandto takeadecisionastowhethertheconspiracychargeissointertwined withthedischargeoftheofficialdutythatasanctionunderSection 197wouldberequired,or,theofficialdutyisdischargedinsucha fashion that the public servant becomes active stimulator of the conspiracyinquestion.Inlatercase,thesanctionunderSection197 CrPCwouldnotberequired.Thereforetheaforesaidauthoritiescan not be applied without automatically for or against the public servant. In'DharambirKhattarVs.CBIdecidedon5.5.2009inCriminal Revision Petition No. 340 of 2008, by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,itwasobservedthat:
There is a merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the CBI that sanction under Section197CrPCisactuallynotrequiredwhenthe oftencommittedareunderthePCA. Itissubmitted that a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence underthePCAcannotbecloakedwithanyimmunity toindulgeincriminalmisconduct.Wantofsanction underSection197ofCodeofCriminalProcedureis, therefore,nobar.Themattercanbelookedatfrom CC No. 45/2010 Page 117 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

another angle as well. The petitioners have been charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy underSection120BIPC.UnderSection3ofPCA,the Special Judge is empowered to try not only any offence punishable under this Code but under Section 3(1)(d) any conspiracy to commit or attempttocommitoranyabetmentoftheoffences specifiedinclause(I). UnderSection40IPC,ithasbeenmentioned thatinChapterVAandinSections109,110IPCthe wordoffencedenotesathingpunishableunderthis Code,orunderanyspecialorlocallawashereinafter defined. Under Section41 IPC,aspeciallaw has been defined as a law applicable to a particular subject. Therefore,intermsofSection40and41 IPC,thePCAwouldbeaSpecialLaw. Theoffence under Section 120B in Chapter VA IPC would therefore also become punishable under the PCA whichisaspecialenactmentforthatpurpose.Once the sanction under Section 19 PCA has been obtained, there is no need to obtain a separate sanctionunderSection197CrPCforprosecutingthe petitionersfortheoffenceunderSection120BIPC.

Thus,theHon'bleHighCourtinitsorderdated5.5.2009has categoricallyobservedtheoffenceunderSection120BinchapterVA IPC would also become punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and hence once sanction under Section 19 of PreventionofCorruptionActhasbeenobtained,nosanctionunder Section197CrPCwouldberequired. Similaristhelawsettledin'KaushalKumarVs.CBI,2009(1) LRC56,Delhi. TheaforesaidlegalpropositionhasbeenreiteratedbyHon'ble
CC No. 45/2010 Page 118 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Mr.JusticeM.L.MehtainC.K.JafferShariefVs.State(Through CBI)2012IVAD(DELHI)214,whereinitwasheldthatifthereisa sanctionunderSection19ofP .C.Act,theabsenceofsanctionunder Section197CrPCwouldnotcometotherescueofanaccusedevenif thepublicservanthasbeenchargedforIPCoffences. ThereforeA2,A4,A5andA6cannotclaimanybenefitonthe ground that there is no sanction under Section 197 CrPC as the sanctionunderSection19ofP .C.Actstandsprovedagainstthem. RegardingA2,A3andA8,Iwouldsaythattheaforesaidcaselaw citedbymeclearlyshowsthatanoffenceofaconspiracyisclearly beyondthepurviewofdischargeofofficialduties. Thereforeitistobeseenastowhethertheprosecutionisable toproveitschargeagainsttheseaccusedpersonsunderSection120B IPC.Imaypointoutthatbeinginconspiracywiththepersonswho havecommittedtheforgeriesofvariousrecordsofRangmahalCGHS would be altogether a different act, which is not connected with performanceofofficialduties.Inthiscasetherecordsofthesociety havebeenforgedbytheprivatepersonandpresentedintheofficeof RegistrarCooperativeSocieties.IftheRCSofficialswerehobnobbing withtheseoffenders,bynostretchofimagination,theycanclaim protectionunderSection197CrPCbecauseinthatcase theirrole wouldgobeyondtheofficialact.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 119 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

SriChand(A1) Sh. R. P Shukla, Adv. submits that there are only two . prosecutionwitnesses,whohavebeenexaminedbytheprosecution against him. It is submitted that both the witnesses are highly unreliable.Thereisnoevidencetocorroboratetheirtestimonies. Here it is necessary to discuss the evidence of these two witnessesi.e.PW82Sh.NareshSaxena,andPW83Sh.NeerajKumar. PW82Sh.NareshSaxenahadtestifiedthathehadbeendoingthe businessofadvertisementinthenameandstyleofM/sV .A.Agency since2001atC28,AcharyaNiketan,MayurVihar,PhaseI,Delhi91. HetestifiedthatheistheproprietorofM/sV .A.Agencyandtheheis runninganotherfirmbythenameofVibhaAdds,whichisbeingrun by him but the proprietor of the same is his wife Smt. Rashmi Saxena. This firm is also being operated from C28, Acharya Niketan,MayurVihar,PhaseI,Delhi91.HetestifiedthatM/sV .A. AgencyisdoingadvertisementforNewspapersotherthenHindustan Times,whereas,theVibhaAddsisquickbookingCenterofHindustan timesNewspaper.Hetestifiedthathehadproducedthedocuments mentionedintheseizurememodated13.9.2005toInspectorSh.C. S. Prakash Narayan pertaining to advertisement given in Times of IndiaNewspaperinrespecttoSilverViewApartmentsCGHSLtd.He testifiedthatthisadvertisementwaspublishedintheTimesofIndia onaskingofaccusedSriChand.Healsoprovedcertifiedtruecopyof

CC No. 45/2010

Page 120 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

notice Ex.PW82/A pertainingtoSilverViewApartmentsCGHSLtd. no.152.Healsoprovedthecertifiedtruecopyofthebill/cashmemo having invoice no.52 dated 4.12005 issued in the name of Silver ViewApartmentsCGHSLtd.Healsoprovedthecertifiedcopyofthe billcumreceiptdated27.12.2004issuedbyTimesofIndiaGroupof Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd and receipt of payment of Rs, 22,848/,whichwasgivenafterdeductionofthecommissionofRs. 4032/. He proved the certified true copy of release order dated 27.12.2004,whichwassenttoTimesofIndiaregardingpublishingof publicnoticeinrespectofSilverViewApartmentsCGHSLtd. He testified that payment for publishing of public notice in the Newspaper was given by accused Sri Chand. He proved his statement under Section 164 CrPC, which is Ex.PW82/F. He testified that the accused, present in the court, seemed to be Sri Chand,whohadcontacthimforpublishingtheadvertisementinthe Newspaper. Ld. Defence Counsel submits that first of all this accused is shackyastotheidentityofaccusedSriChand.Secondlythereceipt was not issued in the name of Sri Chand rather in the name of society.ThereforeeventhereceiptdoesnotconnectSriChandwith the conspiracy. Ld. Defence Counsel further argues that in cross examination,thiswitnesstestifiesthatSriChanddidnotgivehim anyrequestinwritingnorhegavethecontentsinwritingratherhe

CC No. 45/2010

Page 121 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

gave him a already written paper containing contents of the advertisement. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that the testimony of PW82isvagueandweak. Itissubmittedthatonthebasisofsuch weaktestimony,itwouldbehighlyunjustifiedtoreadthistestimony ofPW82againstaccusedSrichand. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that the witnesseshadidentifiedtheaccusedSriChandcategoricallyoutof manyaccusedpersonspresentinthecourt. IwouldrefertothetestimonyofPW82here.Hetestifiedthat thepersonpresentinthecourtseemstobelikeSriChand,whohad contactedhimforpublishinginthesaidnewspaper. Thisanswer hasnotcomeinreplytoanyleadingquestionbytheprosecution. Ratherhehasidentifiedhimastheperson,whohadcontactedhim for publishing the advertisement. The court is not always to go literalmeaningratherthecourtshouldunderstandastowhatthe witnesswantstosay.ThewitnessesnormallytestifyinHindiandits translationintoEnglishshouldnotbereadinawaytodefeatthe spirit of ocular testimony. I may add here that it is nowhere suggestedthataccusedSriChandhadnevermethimorthepersons, who had given the advertisement was some other person than accusedSriChand.ThereforeIamoftheopinionthattheidentityof accused Sri Chand as the person who contacted PW82 and gave advertisementstandsproved. Incrossexaminationhehastestified

CC No. 45/2010

Page 122 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

thataccusedSriChandhadgiventheadvertisementinTimesofIndia in respect of silver View Apartment CGHS Ltd. This testimony is corroboratedbythefactthateventhebill/cashmemoEx.PW82/Cis issuedinthenameofSilverViewApartmentCGHSLtd. ItispertinenttonotethatlistoffakemembersofRangmahal CGHSwasapprovedbyRCSon19.03.2004andthereafternameof thesocietywaschangedtoSilverViewApartmentCGHSLtd.byRCS attherequestofsocietyandthereafterthelistwassenttoDDAwith arecommendationforallotmentofland. However,DDAreturned theselistsofall135societiesaskingforverificationofthemembers. Pursuanttothissituation,accusedSriChandissuedadvertisementto all the members in Times of India, copy of which is Ex.PW82/B whichisreproducedasunder: NOTICE SILVERVIEWAPARTMENT CGHSLIMITED 147G,PocketA2,Mayur Vihar,PhaseIII,Delhi96 (REGN.No.152) ThisisinComplianceofthe
PressAdvertisementbythe RegistrarCooperative Societies,Delhion18/12/ 2004intheLeading Newspaperwerequestallthe memberofthesocietyto contactthesocietyoffice within7daysfromthedate ofpublishofthis advertisementtofurnishthe informationdesiredbythe RCSOfficeforforwarding

CC No. 45/2010

Page 123 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.


thelistofmemberstoDDA forallotmentofLand President/Secretary

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

It is necessary to mention here that accused Sri Chand summonedarecordofthisevidenceinhisdefence,but,whenone Manish Shukla, Dy. Manager (Advertising Department), Times of Indiaappearedwiththerecord,on30.04.2012inthecourt,accused SriChanddroppedthiswitness. Theseproceedingsarewrittenin theordersheetdt.30.04.2012.Ld.PublicProsecutorarguesthatan adverseinferencemaybedrawnfordeliberatewithholdingofthis witnessbyaccusedSriChandthatthisadvertisementwasgivenin thenewspaperbynoneotherpersonthanSriChand. Thereisalso anotherreasonastowhyadvertisementwasgivenbySriChandin Newspaper. Imaypointoutthattheaffidavitsofall120members werepreparedinonedayi.e.on29.12.2003. Alltheseaffidavits wereinfactfakeaffidavits. Ifallthesememberswererealandso activetohavepurchasedthestamppaperson29.12.2003andhad alsofiledtheiraffidavitsonthatveryday,itmeantthattheywere closelyconnectedeachotherandwerehighlyactiveintheaffairsof thesociety,theofficebearerofthissocietywouldnothavefacedany difficulty in informing all these members to furnish their identity proofstoRCSthroughtheofficebearersofthesociety.Butsinceall thesememberswerefakethereforetheonlyoptionavailabletothese fakeoperatorswastopublishanadvertisementintheNewspaper.
CC No. 45/2010 Page 124 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Sh.R.P .Shukla,adv.hasdrawnmyattentiontoanorderofLd. SpecialJudgeofRohiniwhereinhewaspleasedtodischargeaccused SriChandonthisevidence. IhaveperusedthisorderandIamoftheopinionthatinthe saidcaseLd.SpecialJudgedidnotconsiderthisevidencesufficient enoughtoconnectwiththeconspiracyofforgingandcreatingnew society. However in the present case further evidence is forthcoming. PW83 Sh. Neeraj Kumar is a Chartered Accountant. He testifiedthataspertheinstructionsofaccusedSriChand,hehad prepared the balance sheet, income expenditure, receipt payments andotherstatementspertainingtoRangmahalCGHS. Hetestified thattherequisitedetailsinthisrespectwereprovidedbyhim. He provedthebalancesheetsEx.PW83/AandEx.PW83/B.Hetestified thathehadchargedRs.60006500/fromSushilKumarSharma,the employeeofSriChand. Ld.DefenceCounselhasstronglyassailedthisevidence.Sh.R. P .Shukla,adv.hasdrawnmyattentiontothebalancesheetsandthe auditcharges.Itissubmittedthatthisiscontrarytohistestimonyin crossexaminationwherehestatesthatheusuallychargesRs.200/ peryear.Ld.DefenceCounselhasfurtherdrawnmyattentiontothe cross examination of this witness wherein he has admitted that accusedSriChandhasnotcomehimselffordeliveryandcollecting

CC No. 45/2010

Page 125 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

the documents and the payments but he had sent Sushil Kumar Sharmaforthispurpose.HetestifiedthatSriChandhasaskedhim telephonicallytohandoverthedocumentstoSushilKumarSharma. Itisarguedthatprosecutionhasnotcollectedanytelephonicrecords of Sri Chand and PW83 to show that there was any telephonic communication between the two during that time. Further this evidence only connects accused Sushil Kumar Sharma and not accusedSriChand. I have considered the facts. As per the testimony of PW83, SushilKumarSharma,employeeofSriChand,hadbroughtthecash account documents to him. He specifically testified that Sushil KumarSharmawassentbySriChand.Incrossexaminationhehas testified that accused Sri Chand had asked him telephonically to handovertoSushilKumarSharmathedocumentsetc. Itmustnot beforgottenthatinnormally,theactivitiesofthebusinessmanand professionalsgoinsimilarfashion. Peoplessendtheirservantsor employeesfordeliveryofdocumentsandpaymentoffee.Similarly theprofessionalsactontelephoniccommunicationsoftheirclients. Theperson,whoisactivelyincontactwithanotherperson,doesnot havetomakeanyspecialeffortstoidentifythevoiceoftheperson callinghim ontelephone. Furthersuch aprofessionalwouldalso acquainted with the employees of the businessman due to their frequent visits by such employees. Therefore it would be highly

CC No. 45/2010

Page 126 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

impracticaltoacceptthedefencesubmissionsthatsomeotherperson couldhavemadeacallinthenameofSriChand.Imayfurtherpoint outthatsinceexactdateofsuchtransactioncannotberemembered bythewitness,itisnotpossibleforInvestigatingAgencytotraceout thetelephoniccallsbetweenSriChandandPW83asitwouldbea difficultsituationliketracinganeedleinthehaystack. PW83isa truthfulwitness.Hehasbeenabletotestifysobecausethebalance sheetswerepreparedbyhimattheinstanceofSriChand. These balancesheetsformorethan30yearswerepreparedbyhiminthe year2003attheinstanceofSriChand.AccusedSriChandhadgiven theadvertisement Ex.PW82/B ofSilverViewApartments(thenew nameofRangmahalCGHS)intheyear2004asprovedbyPW82Sh. NareshSaxena. Thisistheperiodinwhichalltheforgeriesofthe affidavitsoffakemembers,fakeproceedingsetc.weredoneandthe listoffakemembersofthesocietywasapprovedandthenameofthe societywaschangedbytheofficialsofRCS. Thisprovesthatnot onlytherecordsofthesocietywereinpossessionofSriChandbuthe wascontinuouslyoperatingthisfakesocietyandwasactiveatevery stageofforgeries,approvalofthefakelistandchangeofthenameof thesociety. ThisevidenceenoughtoprovethatitwasSriChand,whohad created and was managing this fake society. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that if Neeraj Kumar has prepared fake balance

CC No. 45/2010

Page 127 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

sheets why he has not been arrayed as an accused. I am of the opinionthatincrossexaminationnosuggestionhasbeengivento him by any accused that he had any intention to cheat anyone, furtherhehastestifiedthathehadproducedthebalancesheetson the basis of records produced before him. Therefore I find no evidenceagainsthimthatthiswitnesshadactedincollusionwiththe otheraccusedpersonsmalafidely. HenceIfindnosubstanceinthe defencesubmissionsinthisregard. Sh.R.P .Shukla,adv.hasdrawnmyattentiontothebalance sheetsEx.PW83/Aupto31.3.2003.Itissubmittedthatthisbalance sheet shows the accounting charges payable Rs.24,750/. Ld. Counselhastakenmethroughthebalancesheetsofpreviousyear, whichshowsthatthiswitnesswaschargingRs.750/foreachyear. ThereforeEx.PW83/Ashowstheaccountingchargespayablefor33 yearstobeRs.24,750/. ThisiscontrarytothetestimonyofPW83 whereinhehasstatedthathehadchargedRs.6500/inthepresent case. IhaveconsideredthesubmissionsofLd.DefenceCounsel.Itis pertinenttonotethatthisaspectwasnotputtothewitnessincross examinationandthewitnesswasnotgivenanopportunitytoexplain thisfact.FurtherthebalancesheetEx.PW83/Ashowstheamountof Rs.24,750/asaccountingcharges payable. Itdoesnotstatethat thisamountwasactuallypaidtoPW83.PW83hastestifiedthatasto

CC No. 45/2010

Page 128 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

whatamountwasactuallypaidtohim. Thereforeinviewofthese circumstances, I am not inclined to give any importance to this defenceargument. HoweverImaypointthatinthisbalancesheet theauditfeepayableisshowntobeRs.9900/.Thiscorrespondsto thecopyofthereceiptEx.PW5/A1(infileD11,Volume1),which hasbeenissuedbyAssistantRegistrar(Audit)asatokenofreceiptof Rs.9900/havingreceivedfromRangmahalCooperativeSocietyLtd. Hence,thechargeu/s120BIPCstandsprovedagainstthisaccused. SushilKumarSharma(A9) ProsecutionhasdrawnmyattentiontothetestimonyofPW83 Neeraj Kumar, who has testified that Sushil Kumar Sharma, the employeeofSriChand,hadgonetoPW83NeerajKumarandgotthe fakebalancesheetsprepared. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentiontothetestimony ofPW87thehandwritingexpert. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawn myattentiontothespecimenwritingofSushilKumarSharma,which arefromS680toS683andS752toS785.Ld.PublicProsecutor hasdrawnmyattentiontotheexaminationinchiefofthiswitness dated5.11.2011relevanttothisaccusedasunder: I further examined the Q1371 (alreadyexhibitedasEx.PW5/A)andQ3048 (already exhibited as Ex.PW12/DA) of the aforesaid question writings were compared with standard writings S680 to S683 ((Ex.PW87/A66) and S781 to S783
CC No. 45/2010 Page 129 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

(already exhibited as Ex.PW75/B) of Sushil KumarSharma. Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that the accused stands fully connectedwiththepresentforgeryandconspiracyetc. Ontheotherhand,itisarguedbyLd.CounselforSushilKumar Sharma thatthe hand writing expert'sreport should notbe relied upon unless corroborated. It is further argued that even if it is presumedthathehasdonesomeforgery,thereisnoevidencethathe hasnotdonesoforthepurposeofcheating.Itisfurtherarguedthat there is no evidence that he presented forged documents in the society nor there is any documents to show that Sushil Kuimar Sharmahadinanymannerbenefitedfromtheforgeryetc. Ihavealreadydiscussedinearlierportionofthisjudgmentthat thereisnolaw,whichrequiredcorroborationforconvictingaperson onthebasisofreportofhandwritingexpert.Howeverinsuchacase thecourthastobeverycautiousandcloselyandminutelyexamine the reasons given by such hand writing expert. I reproduce the reasonsgivenbytheexpertinsupportofhisopinion: Myopinionthatthepersonwhowrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and markedS680toS683andS781toS783also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q1371 and Q3048 is based on the cumulative consideration of various similarities occurring between the
CC No. 45/2010 Page 130 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

questionedandthestandardwritingsbothin generalwritinghabitsandindividualwriting characteristics. The general writing habits such as skill, movement, size and proportion of characters, alignment. Similarities have also been observed in the individualwritingcharacteristicsintheform and formation & their terminations and combinations.Someofthemaremannerof execution of 'R' along with the nature of eyelet in the middle part ; ticked commencement of letter 'A' along with the inwardfinishof'A',natureandlocationofthe horizontalstrokein'A';natureoftheretrace in'P'alongwiththeshapeoftheovalpart; nature of the retrace in the initial and terminal part of 'N' ; peculiar manner of writing'b'asfigure'6';mannerofwriting'G' along with the nature of the eyelet in the terminalcurvedpart;mannerofwriting'V'. Similaritiesarealsoobservedintheformand formation of various words like 'RANG MAHAL', 'SOCIETY', 'MAYUR VIHAR', 'PHASE','Registration','Auditor'. Similarities areagainobservedinthemannerofwriting variousnumeralssuchaspeculiarmovement in the combination of zeros along with the angularityatthebaseandtheeyeletinthe ovalpart,mannerofwriting'3','9','7','/' Inshort,therearenobasicdifferences in the writing habits of the questioned and the standard writings. The aforesaid similarities in the writing habits are significantandsufficientandtheircollective consideration leads me to the opinion of
CC No. 45/2010 Page 131 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

commonauthorship. I have perused the standard writing and the question hand writingscarefullyandIfullyagreewiththereasoninggivenbythe handwritingexpertasdiscussedabove. Iamthereforeleftinno doubt that the above stated question hand writings have been writtenbyaccusedSushilKumarSharma. Nowletmeseewhatis thequestionhandwritingQ1371,whichisaportionencircledinred pencil on the documents Ex.PW5/A (D11, Volume1). The documentsisreproducedasunder:
OFFICEOFTHEREGISTRAR:COOPERATIVESOCIETIES:GOVT.OFNCT OFDELHI:OLDCOURTSBUILDINGPARLIAMENTSTREET:NEWDELHI110001
Price Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty only)
S. No. 2549

Dateofissue29/12/03 (Validwithin30daysfromdateofissue)
(IntriplicateOptioncumappointmentletterforconductingstatutoryauditfor20022003/concurrentaudit for20032004includingpendingaudit,(notpriorto19992000) (Tobefilledinblockletters) Nameofthesociety AddressoftheSocietywithTel.No. 3. RegistrationNo.&Date 4. Zone 5. Yearuptowhichtheaudithasbeencompleted andnameofCharteredAccountant/AUDITOR 6. Yearwiseturnoversincelastauditupto3132003 7. i)Incasetheauditispendingpriorto3132002. reasonsfornotconductingtheAudit ii)whetheranyChartedAccountantwasappointed byDepartment?Ifyes,name&address. 8. i)Name&AddressoftheChartedAccountantopted. ii)CategoryofChartedAccountant. iii)PanelNo.ofthecharteredAccountant. 9. StatusoftheSociety: whetherunderliquidation? Ifyes,nameoftheliquidator. 10. Number&DateoflastAuditreportSubmitted Declaration: 1. 2. THERANGMAHALCOOP .G/HSOCIETYLTD. 147G,POCKETA2,MAYURVIHAR PHASEIII,DELHI110096 Pincode110096 152(H)Dt.31031973 EAST Thisisthefirstauditsinceregistration Below3,00,000/=(ThreeLacs) NotapproachedbytheRCSofficerauditor No No NA NA Yes/No NA 371

Q1

CC No. 45/2010

Page 132 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

I/WeDEEPAKKUMARdoherebycertifyanddeclarethattheabovementionedactsarecorrecttothebestof my/ourknowledgeandbelief. Ecl.:8PagesSignatureofSecy./Pres. SocietywithSeal AcceptanceCertificatebytheCA/Auditor I/WeP .K.THIRWANIdoherebygivemy/ourconsentforconductingtheauditofyourabovementionedsociety. OurconsentissubjecttotheapprovalbytheofficeofRegistrarCooperativeSociety,Delhi. I/Wecertifythatmy/ourfirmdoesnotsufferfromanydisqualificationmentionedinSection226of theCompaniesAct,1956. Place Date AuthorizedSignatory Name&addressofthefirmwith SEAL APPROVALOFREGISTRARCOOPERATIVESOCEITIES NO.(DepltAR/Audit2003/430 Dated28\1\04 Optionexercisedbythesocietyhasbeenapprovedfortheyear197374to200203andproperlyrecorded Date28|1|04 Asstt.Registrar(Audit) ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTRECEIPT S.No................. ReceivedtheoptioncumappointmentformfromtheCoop.SocietyLtd. On approvedFormmaybecollectedon SignatureofReceiptclerk Date: INPUBLICINTERSTBY:DELHICOOPERATIVEHOUSINGFINANCECORPORATIONLTD.

The auctioncumappointment letter reproduced above bears theparticularsofthesocietyandtheseparticularshavebeenfilledin portion Q1371 by accused Sushil Kumar Sharma. It bears the signaturesofoneD.Kumar(i.e.DeepakKumar)astheSecretaryof thesociety. BelowitistheacceptanceofaccusedP .K.Thirwanifor conducting the audit of the society and below it Sh. J.S. Sharma Registrar (Audit) had approved the audit for the year 197374 to 20022003.ThefactthattheparticularsofRangmahalSocietyhave beenfiledbyaccusedSushilKumarSharmaandbelowitthereare signaturesofDeepakKumarwhoispurportedlytheSecretaryofthis societyprovesthateitherSushilKumarhimselfisDeepakKumaror

CC No. 45/2010

Page 133 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

heknowsverywellastowhothisDeepakKumaris? Thisaccused hasrefrainedtodisclosetheidentityofDeepakKumarduringthe entire trial. This proves his criminal intentions for filling up the particularsofthesocietyatQ1371.Insuchcircumstances,evenifit is presumed that he himself is not Deepak Kumar, still it stands provedthathewasnotonlyacquaintedwiththisperson,but,alsohe wasfullyinvolvedinoperationandcreatingthefakesociety.PW83 has testified that accused Sri Chand had sent him with the documentsandthefeeofthissocietyforpreparingbalancesheetfor 33years. Therefore,itstandsprovedthatthisaccusedwasfullyin leaguewithaccusedSriChand. These circumstances are further proved by the affidavit of DeepakKumar,thesocalledSecretaryofthesociety. Thisaffidavit Ext.PW12/DAwasfiledintheofficeofRCSbythepersonpurporting tobeDeepakKumarandisavailableinD9atpageno.304/C.On thebackofthisaffidavit,theparticularsofthepersonwhopurchased thisaffidavithavebeenwritten,whichasperGEQDreport,inthe handwritingofaccusedSushilKumar.Itispertinenttonotethatthis SushilKumarisnotastampvendor,but,handwritingonthestampof the stamp vendor vide which the name of Deepak Kumar, his parentageandaddressarewrittenatQ3048,thesamehavetallied with the specimen handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar Sharma. AccusedSushilKumarSharmahadfailedtogiveanyexplanationas

CC No. 45/2010

Page 134 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

tohowthename,parentageandaddressofDeepakKumar,afake Secretary of the fake society are present in his own handwriting despite the fact that he is not a stamp vendor. Normally, these particulars on the back of the affidavit should have been in the handwriting of the concerned stamp vendor. Therefore, these particulars in the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar doubly provedtheprosecutioncasethathewasinleaguewiththeperson who was impersonating as Deepak Kumar, the Secretary of the society. Asperinvestigation,nopersonwiththenameofDeepak Kumar was found at the address 1005, Gali No. 3, Vishwas Park, Shahdara,Delhi. ImayrefertothereportofthePostmanonthe letterD127onwhichitiswrittenbythePostmanNosuchnumber '1005'existsinVishwasPark. TheInvestigatingOfficerhasproved thisletteralongwiththeotherletterswhicharecollectivelyexhibited asExt.PW90/A6.Theabovediscussedevidencehasthereforefirmly provedtheroleofaccusedSushilKumarasoneoftheoperatorsof thisfakesociety. However,sincetheabovestatedquestionedwritingswouldnot fall in the definition of forgeries, therefore, I am not inclined to convicthimunderthesubstantialoffencesu/s420/511IPCandu/s 468IPC,but,Iconvicthimu/s120BIPCr/wSection420/468/471 IPC also read with Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of CorruptionAct1988.
CC No. 45/2010 Page 135 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

ANNAWANKHEDE(A10) Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the membership numbers given on the application for membership (placedinD9)alongwiththedatewrittenonthetopcornerofthe applications. It is argued that as per the GEQD report, this handwriting matches with the handwriting of accused Anna Wankhede. Ld.PublicProsecutorsubmitsthatthesepersonshave appeared before the court and have denied having made these applications. I have perused all these applications. For the purpose of convenience, I may take only one application which is Ext.PW87/A45(placedatpage288/CofD9)purportedlypertainto one member namely Surender Kumar Maheshwari. On the top corner,membershipnumberiswrittenM1andbelowitadateis written Dt. 16.4.71, which are Q3049 and Q3047A. As per GEQD report, these numerals and the alphabets match with the handwritingofaccusedAnnaWankhede.Itispertinenttonotethat these numerals and alphabets, which are the photocopy of the originaldocuments,areverylessinnumber. Ihavealsoseenthe specimen handwriting. Of course, the science ofhandwriting had developedtosuchanextentthatthehandwritingonthephotocopy canalsobeidentified. Although,Idonotfindanyinfirmityinthe opinionoftheexpertonthispointbutstillasamatterofabundant
CC No. 45/2010 Page 136 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

caution, it would be proper for the court to compare the handwritingswhicharenotscantyasappearingontheupsidecorner ofthisapplication.HenceIamnotinclinedtotakeinconsideration these hand writings on the application for of the members. Therefore, I straightway come to the affidavit Ext.PW66/57 purportedtobeswornbyRaginiBenandtheaffidavit Ext.PW60/B whichareplacedatpageno.'s56/Cand91/CinthefileD9.These affidavitshavebeenfiledbythefakesocietyintheofficeofRegistrar forthepurposeofgettingthelistofmembersapproved. PW60AjayKumarMaheshwariwasexaminedbyprosecution. HetestifiedthatRajKumariMaheshwariisthesisterinlaw(bhabhi). HehastestifiedthathealongwithRajKumarihadbeenallotedFlat No.C02intheoriginalRangmahalSocietyandthathissisterinlaw Smt. Raj Kumari did not file the affidavit Ext.PW60/B and the signatures at points A do not belong to her. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that Smt. Raj Kumari was not produced by the prosecutiontoidentifyhersignatures.Iamoftheopinionthatitwas notrequiredbecauseiftheflathasalreadybeenallotedtoherinthe year 1993, as testified by PW60, there was no reason that Raj Kumariwouldfilesuchanaffidavitintheyear2004.Imaypointout thatthisaffidavitshowsthatitwasattestedbyOathCommissioner but,PW66SudhirMittal,Adv.,theOathCommissionerhastestified thathehadnotattestedtheaffidavitonpage1/Cto120/CinD9.
CC No. 45/2010 Page 137 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

(which includes the affidavits Ext.PW66/57 and Ext.PW60/B). ThereforethesefakeaffidavitswiththefakesignaturesofRaginiBen MehtaandRajKumarihavingbeenforgedbyAnnaWankhede. Similarly the signatures of Smt. Raj Kumari on affidavit Ext.PW60/B at points A i.e. Q1191 & Q1192 and signatures of RaginiBeninExt.PW66/57Q1260&Q1261havetalliedwiththe specimen handwriting of Anna Wankhede as per GEQD report. I reproducethereasoningoftheGEQDreportEx.PW87/A1whichis asunder: ReasonsforopinionasembodiedinPara3:
Myopinionthatthepersonswhowrotetheblueenclosedwritings stamped and marked S739 to S743 and S748 to S751 also wrote the red enclosedwritingssimilarlystampedandmarkedQ1191,Q1192,Q1260,Q1261 aswellasthewritingsthephotostaticreproductionsofwhicharemarkedQ3049 to Q3060, Q3062 to Q3081, Q3084, Q3086, Q3087, Q3089, Q3091, Q3092, Q3094,Q3096,Q3098,Q3100,Q3102,Q3104,Q3106,Q3107,Q3109,Q3111, Q3113,Q3115,Q3117,Q3118,Q3121,Q3123toQ3126,Q3128,Q3129,Q3131 to Q3134, Q3136, Q3138, Q3140 Q3141, Q3143, Q3145 to Q3149, Q3151,, Q3152, Q3151A, Q3153A, Q3154, Q3155, Q3155A, Q3156, Q3156A, Q3158, Q3160,Q3161,Q3163andQ3166isbasedonthecumulativeconsiderationof varioussimilaritiesoccurringbetweenthequestionedandthestandardwritings bothingeneralwritinghabitsandindividualwritingcharacteristics.Thegeneral writing habits such as skill, movement, size and proportion of characters, alignment. Similarities have also been observed in the individual writing characteristicsintheformandformation,theirterminationsandcombinations. Someofthemaremannerofexecutionof'ja',thecurvatureintheinitialpart alongwiththerelativelocationoftheverticalpartwithreferencetothecurved part ; manner of execution of letter 'ku' along with the location of the commencement of the curved part, the shape of the curved part, location of termination, the peculiar manner of writing the vowel sign 'vukar' ; habit of writing'ma'insingleoperation,theoverallappearanceofletter'ma'asEnglish letter 'n' along with the angularity at the upper curved part ; manner of executionofletter'Ra',theshapeofthecurvedpartofletter'ra';natureofthe vowelsign'ekar'inthenamereading'RajKumari';natureoftheeyeletinthe

CC No. 45/2010

Page 138 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

initialcurvedpartofletter'na'alongwiththelocationofthecommencement; peculiarmannerofwritingletter'ba'alongwiththelocationofthevowelsign 'ekar';mannerofexecutionofletter'gi''ra'inthenamereading'RaginiBane'. Manner of execution of letter 'M' along with the nature of the compressed eyelet / retrace in the initial part, relative location of the two angular parts, nature of the bifurcation in the middle part along with the respectednumeralsinthequestionedwritingsaresimilarlyfoundinthestandard writings. Inshort,therearenobasicdifferencesinthewritinghabitsofthe questionedandthestandardwritings. Theaforesaidsimilaritiesinthewriting habitsaresignificantandsufficientandtheircollectiveconsiderationleadsmeto theopinionofcommonauthorship.

I have seen the specimen handwritings and the questioned documents.IfullyagreewiththisreasoningofGEQDreport.Perusal

ofthespecimenhandwritingwouldshowanunmistakablesimilarity inthehandwritingofQ1191&Q1192andQ1260&Q1261with thespecimenhandwritingsS739toS743andS748toS751 of AnnaWankhede. IwouldrefertothetestimonyofPW72AshwiniKumar. HetestifiedthathewasworkingasSubAgentwithSh.P .R.Bhatiafor sellingthestamppaperstill2009.Hefurthertestifiedthatwhenhe remainedwithhim,thestampbearingthenameofP .R.Bhatiawas usedtobeaffixedonthebackofthestamppapershavinglicense number262.Hetestifiedthatthestamppapersduringtheyear2003 were purchased from him by accused Anna Wankhede, a representativeofRangmahalCGHSthroughoneSh.RaviRobinson,a typist. Onseeingtheaffidavitsplacedatpageno.1/Cto120/Cin

CC No. 45/2010

Page 139 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

fileD9whichincludestheaffidavitsofRajKumariExt.PW60/Band RaginiBenMehtaExt.PW66/57, Imaypointoutthattheenvelope Ext.PW45/C(D79)sentattheaddressofRaginiBenasappearingin thisaffidavithasreturnedwiththereportNosuchnumber.Thisis enoughtoshowthattheaddressofRaginiBenontheaffidavitisa fakeaddress. PW72statedthatalltheaffidavitsbearthestampof Sh.P .R.BhatiaStampAgent,LicenseNo.262,ParliamentStreetand thesameweregiventoSh.AnnaWankhedeon 29.12.2003. The prosecution witnesses have testifiedthat eithernosuchperson, in whosenametheaffidavitisswornexists,orifsuchpersonexistshe hastestifiedthathehasnotswornsuchaffidavits.Outofthese120 affidavits, the signatures on two affidavits have been forged by accusedAnnaWankhede.PW73RaviRobinsonisatypistwhohad typedtheparticularsintheaffidavitsintheblankspaceofpara1,2, and 3 of the affidavits. He has testified that all the aforesaid affidavitswerebroughtbyaccusedAnnaWankhede.Inthismanner, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had forgedthesignaturesofRaginiBenMehtaandRajKumarionthe aforesaidaffidavits. Itstandsprovedthatthese120affidavitswere purchased by accused Anna Wankhede. Further, the relevant portionswerealsogottypedbyaccusedAnnaWankhede. Finally, these affidavits were presented in the office of the RCS for the purposeofgettingthelistofmembersapproved. Needlesstosay

CC No. 45/2010

Page 140 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

thatnotonlythiswasfake/duplicatesocietyasthelandhadalready beenallotedtotheactualsocietybutalsotheentirelistofmembers was a fake list as the affidavits of all the 120 members are fake affidavits. AccusedAnnaWankhededoesnotexplainastowhyhe waspurchasingandgettingtypedsuchalargenumberofaffidavits ononesingledayi.e.29.12.2003whichisappearingonthestampof thebacksideoftheseaffidavits. Theonlyconclusionthatcanbe drawn is that this accused was one of those managing the fake societyandwasfullyinvolvedincreatingafakesocietywithfake members. Accordingly, accused stands convicted in substantial offenceu/s468IPCandoffenceofconspiracyi.e.u/s120BIPCr/w Section420/468/471IPCr/w13(1)(d)ofPreventionofCorruption Act1988. MOHANLAL(A11) Ld.PublicProsecutorarguesthattheaddressofthefake societywasshowntobeFlat No. 147G,PocketA2,MayurVihar PhaseIII,NewDelhi. Itissubmittedthatonthisaddressaccused MohanLalusedtoresidefrom1997to2002.PW1Sh.RamNaresh PrasadSingh,theownerofthisflathastestifiedthatnosocietyinthe nameandstyleofSilverViewApartmentsorRangmahalCGHShad worked in the said flat. He further stated that Mohan Lal never remained in this flat as tenant after the year 2002. Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that he has forged the proceedings of the
CC No. 45/2010 Page 141 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

proceedingregister(Ext.PW87/A41)atpage344/C&345/Cinfile D8 and the proceedings Ext.PW87/A42 dt. 20.08.1995 placed at page117/CinD8andpageno.351/Cdt.20.08.1995infileD9.I may point out that the Ext.PW87/A42 and the copy of the proceedings placed in D80, mentioned above are the copy of the sameproceedingsdt.20.08.1995. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawn myattentiontothetwocopiesoftheByeLawsoftheCGHSwhich are Ext.PW85/A6 and Ext.PW85/A7 placed in D8. Ld. Public ProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentionthatExt.PW85/A6containsthe ByeLawsoftheduplicatesociety. InthisByeLaws,Ext.PW59/Cis thelistofmembers.AttheendofthislistofmembersatQ221the certificate to the fact certified that all the above members have signedinmypresenceandtheyarewellknowntomeandsimilar certificate at the end of the Bye Laws Ext.PW85/A7 at Q310 (Ext.PW87/A21) are in the handwriting of accused Mohan Lal. Similarly,onthefirstpageofthesetwosetsofByeLaws,theaddress ofthesocietyi.e. 147G,PocketA2,MayurViharPhaseIII,Delhi has been written by accused Mohan Lal. Ld. Public Prosecutor submitsthatitisthesameaddressatwhichaccusedMohanLalhad livedasatenantduringtheperiod1997to2002. ItisarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselthatthehandwriting expert'sreportonaphotocopywouldbehighlyunsafe. Idisagree withhissubmissions. Onthispoint,accusedMohanLalhadcross
CC No. 45/2010 Page 142 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

examined PW87. The expert witness admitted that the the photocopy of a handwriting varies according to the quality of the photostat machine. Depending upon the quality of the photostat copy,opinioncanbegivenonsuchdocumentorphotocopyofthe handwriting/signaturesincasethequalityofphotostatcopyisgood. Hestatedthatthequalityofthephotostatcopywasofhissubjective satisfaction.Ihavealsoseenthephotostatcopiesoftheproceeding register. Thephotocopiesarenotonlyinverygoodconditionbut alsonearlyasgoodinqualityastheoriginal.Further,handwritingis notsparseasinthecaseofaccusedAnnaWankhedewhichIhad declined to take in to account while dealing his role. All these proceedingsheetshavebeenwrittenindetail.Therefore,Iamofthe opinionthatthesephotocopiesaregoodenoughforahandwriting expert togivehisexperts'opinion. AsperGEQDreport(page2) Ext.PW87/A7,thepersonwhohadwroteS467toS486andS701 toS721alsowrotethewritings,thephotostaticreproductionsofit areredencircledandaremarkedasQ3016toQ3018,Q3019Ato Q3032. Similarly, portion Q36 on page 352/C in file D8 (Ext.PW87/A22)alsomatcheswiththespecimenhandwritingS467 to S468 and S701 to S721. Before discussing import of these documents, I would like to reproduce the reasoning given by the expertinhisopinionasunder: ReasonsforopinionasembodiedinPara2:
CC No. 45/2010 Page 143 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

My opinion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stampedandmarkedS467toS486andS701toS721alsowrotethe writingsthePhotostaticreproductionsofwhichareredenclosedand markedQ3016toQ3018,Q3019AandQ3032isbasedonthe cumulativeconsiderationofvarioussimilaritiesoccurringbetweenthe questionedandthestandardwritingsbothingeneralwritinghabitsand individualwritingcharacteristics.Thegeneralwritinghabitssuchas skill,movement,sizeandproportionofcharacters,alignment. Similaritieshavealsobeenobservedintheindividualwriting characteristics in the form and formation & their terminations and combinations. Some of them aremanner of combining 'e' with 'e', natureofthetcrossintheletter't',shapeoftheshoulderpartsof'm'in theword'meeting';mannerofcombining'a'with'd'andthedistance between'n'and'e'intheword'adjourned';peculiarmannerofwriting 'the'without'e';mannerofwriting'f'withoutupperloopasappearing intheword'of';habitofcombiningidotwiththesucceedingletters like'e'intheword'Society';idotwith'd'intheword'President','vide'; mannerofwriting'view','Hill';natureoftheloopintheverticalpartof 'p', ticked commencement of 'A' along with the manner of writing horizontalstrokeintheword'Apartment';mannerofthewriting'Idd' alongwiththemannerofcombiningtcrosswiththeovalpartof'd'; tickedcommencementof'M',natureoftheloopinthe'd'asappearing intheword'managing'similaritiesareagainobservedinthemannerof executionofvariouslettersinthewords'Rangmahal','Cooperative', 'Group','ShriArunKumar','Smt.RakhaDevi'etc.,similaritiesareagain observedinthemannerofthewritingnumerals'9','7','2','3'etc. In short, there are no basic differences inthe writing habits of the questionedandthestandardwritings.Theaforesaidsimilaritiesinthe writinghabitsaresignificantandsufficientandtheircollective considerationleadsmetotheopinionofcommonauthorship.

Now, I reproduce the reasoning ofinterse comparison in respectofQ51,Q221,Q226,Q310andQ36whichhavebeen compared with S467 to S486. I may point out that the above questioned writings are the handwriting in which the address is writtenontheByeLawsExt.PW85/A6andExt.PW85/A7andthe certificateattheendoftheseByeLawsiswritten.Thehandwriting inS467toS486,admittedlyarethatofMohanLal. Therelevant
CC No. 45/2010 Page 144 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

portionisreproducedasunder: ReasonsforopinionasembodiedinPara4:
Interse.................................................................................characters. Similaritiesarealsobeenobservedintheformandformationof variouscharacters,theirterminationsandcombinations.Someof themaremannerofexecutionofthebucklepartof'k';habitof combining'c'withtheverticalpartofthe'k',theformationofthe loop/retraceintheverticalpart;shapeoftheovalpartofthe'p'along withthenatureoftheretraceintheverticalpart;habitofcombining'e' and't';thenatureoftheloopintheverticalpartof't';locationofthet cross;natureoftheretraceintheinitialpartof'A'alongwiththe inwardterminationoftheterminalpart,natureofthehookinthe horizontalstroke;shapeoftheshoulderpartsalongwiththenatureof theretraceintheinitialpartof'M';shapeoftheovalpartof'a';nature oftheloopintheletter'y';mannerofexecutionof'V';therotundityin thecurvedpartof'G';habitofcombiningidotwiththesucceeding letter'h';simplifiedmannerofwriting's'.Similaritiesareagain observedintheformationofletters'h','D','r','u','W','S','s','R','H','B','f', 'F','m','n';combinationofvariouslettersinthewordslike'Kumar', 'Devi','the','of','Cooperative','to','chair','committee'etc.,andfigures like'1','4','7','2','9','6'. Inshort,therearenobasicdifferencesinthewritinghabitsofthe questionedandthestandardwritings.DuringmyexaminationI specificallysearchedforthedifferencesbutdidnotfindany.The aforesaidsimilaritiesinthewritinghabitsaresignificantandsufficient andtheircollectiveconsiderationleadsmetotheopinionofcommon authorship.

I have also perused the specimen handwriting and the questionedhandwritingsaswellasthereasonsgivenbytheexpert andIhavenohesitationinholdingthattheopinioniscorrectand thesehandwritingshavebeenwrittenbyaccusedMohanLal.Imay point out here that fairness of the handwriting expert is reflected fromthefactthatalthoughthesignaturesofDeepakKumar,afake Secretaryareavailableonnumerousdocumentsbuthishandwriting
CC No. 45/2010 Page 145 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

hasnotmatchedwithanyoftheaccusedpersons. Haditmatched, thisidentityofthepersonactingasDeepakKumarwouldhavebeen established. NowItakeuptheimportoftheaforesaiddocuments.The fact that the proceeding sheets of fake Rangmahal society were writtenbyaccusedMohanLalitselfisaproofthathewasinvolvedin theconspiracyofcreatingthisfakesociety.Alotofargumentshave beenmadeastowherearetheoriginalsoftheseregistersinwhich proceedings have been written. I would say that it has to be in possession of those who were managing the society and these personsareSriChand,AnnaWankhede,SushilKumarandMohan Lal. SpecialonusisuponaccusedMohanLalbecauseitishewho has written the proceedings, especially, when his previous rented addresshasbeenusedastheregisteredofficeofthesociety. Since the original proceedings are in their possession and they being accused cannot be compelled to produce the same, and only photocopiesoftheproceedingsattestedbythepersonimpersonating asDeepakKumar,thesecretaryofthesociety,areavailabletothe prosecution, the condition of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act stands fulfilled. I may now take to the import of the proceeding sheets so forged by accused Mohan Lal. The proceeding sheet Ext.PW87/A42dt.20.08.1995showthatmeetingofthemanaging committee of Rangmahal CGHS was held on 20.08.1995 at 81,
CC No. 45/2010 Page 146 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

SunderNagar,NewDelhiundertheChairmanshipofArunKumar. Vide these proceedings, the managing committee has resolved unanimouslytoshifttheofficeaddressfrom81,SunderNagar,New Delhito 147G, PocketA2,Mayur ViharPhaseIII, Delhi92. The photocopy of proceeding sheet is attested by Deepak Kumar and bearsastampofRangmahalCGHS.Itispertinenttonotethatinfact thelandhadalreadybeenallottedtothesocietyintheyear1977in Pitam Pura and flats were allotted to the members on 23.1.93 by drawoflotsandthereforethereisnoquestionthatintheyear1995 whenthisnotesheetwaswritten,theregisteredofficeofthissociety wouldbepresentat81,SunderNagar,NewDelhi.Interestingly,the notesheetwhichiswritteninthehandofMohanLalgivesthenew address of Mayur Vihar on whichhe usedtoreside from1997 to 2002,asperthetestimonyofPW1. Thisfactprovesthefollowing things:First,accusedMohanLalhaswrittentheseproceedingsante dated.ItisclearfromthefactthathedidnotresideatMayurVihar prior to the year 1997 whereas the note sheet shows the date as 20.08.1995.Secondly,thisnotesheetmentionsnameofArunKumar andDeepakKumar,thefakePresidentandSecretaryofthesociety. Therefore, it is clear that by writing these proceedings, forged documentsofproceedingshasbeenprepared.Thirdly,itprovesthat hewasinactivecollusionwiththepersonwhowasrepresentingto beasDeepakKumarincapacityoftheSecretaryofthesociety.

CC No. 45/2010

Page 147 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

The other proceeding sheet Ext.PW87/A41 shows the proceedings of 27.03.2004. In this proceedings, it has been mentioned that the President had informed the General Body Members that the RCS has approved the list of 120 members for allotmentoflandfromDDAwhichhasbeenintimatedtothesociety videletterno.F47/152/H/East/2371dt.22.03.2004. Itisfurther mentioned that in proceedings of meeting dt. 04.03.2004 Ext.PW87/A22,itwasproposedtocallaGeneralBodyMeetingfor discussingthechangeofnameandforthispurpose theGBMwas calledfor27.03.2004 fromRangmahalCGHStoanyofthethree proposednamesnamely1)TheSilverViewApartmentsCGHSLtd.; 2) The Hill View Apartments CGHS Ltd. & 3) The Sky Blue Apartments CGHS Ltd. Vide proceedings dt. 27.03.2004 (Ext.PW87/A41),theGBMhasalsoresolvedunanimouslytotype theModelByeLawsofCGHSandchangeofname.Imaypointout thatontheByeLawsalsothecertificateattheendhasbeenwritten in the hand of accused Mohan Lal and it has been signed by the President Arun Kumar, SecretaryDeepakKumarand the Treasurer R.K.Singh.Therefore,theseproceedingsheetsprovedthataccused MohanLalwasinvolvedintheoperationofthisfakesocietyright frominitiatingthechangeofaddressofthesocietyuptothechange ofthenameofthesociety.Therefore,acogentevidencehasbeenled by the prosecution that not only Mohan Lal has forged the

CC No. 45/2010

Page 148 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

proceedingsheets,but,also,bywritingacertificateattheendofthe ByeLawsthatallthemembershavesignedinhispresencewhoare wellknowntohim,heaidedinforgeryofthepartoftheByeLaws Ext.PW59/Ci.e. alist of 120 members alongwiththeirsignatures. PW74Sh.GunveerKumarJainhastestifiedthatheandhisfamily members i.e. Member no. 4 Vijender Kumar Jain, Member no. 5 DevenderKumarJain,MemberNo.6SukhbirKumarJainhadnot signedthe said list. Since, 50 members had already been alloted land, who have no reason to attend the meeting of society and remaining 70 members are fake members, therefore, all the signaturesinthecolumnofsignaturesofmembersarfakeandby writingthiscertificateaccusedMohanLalhascreatedapartofthe false document. Accordingly, I hold accused Mohan Lal guilty of forgery u/s 468 IPC and he is also in conspiracy with the other accusedpersonsforcommittingtheoffencesofforgeryandcheating andthereforeguiltyu/s120IPCreadwithotherprovisionsoflaw. Commonsubmissionsmadebythepublicservantsi.e.A2,A3, A4,A5,A6,A7andA8 SomesubmissionshavebeenmadebyLd.DefenceCounsels, whicharecommontoallthepublicservantsfacingtrialherein.Itis arguedbyLd.Defence Counsels fortheaforesaidaccusedpersons thatsincenolandhadbeenallottedtothesociety,thereforethereis no loss to the Government. I agree with this submission of Ld.
CC No. 45/2010 Page 149 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Defence Counsels. But this fact is of no help to these accused personsbecauseitisnotacaseofcommittingactualoffenceunder Section13(1)(d). Ratherthesepublicservantshavebeenaccused for ofattemptto commit the aforesaidoffence. Had this attempt beensuccessful,onlythenthefactofnolosstotheGovernment wouldhavebeenrelevant.ItisarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselsthat thereisnoblotonserviceofanyoftheseaccusedpersons.Iagree thatnoevidencecontrarytothissubmissionhasbeenfiledbythe prosecution. Howeverinacriminaltrialsuchafactwouldnotbe relevant. It is argued that CBI had not even recommended any departmentalinquiryagainsttheseaccusedpersonsdespitethefact tahtaspertheirinvestigationtheseaccusedpersonswerefoundto beindulgingincriminalmisconduct. Itisarguedbythemthathad theseaccusedpersonsbeenguilty,CBImusthaveproceededagainst themdepartmentally.IdisagreewiththissubmissionandIamofthe opinion that whether or not any departmental inquiry has been recommendedagainstthesepublicservantsisnotatallrelevantto the trial, where the court's job is focused only on the evidence produced. Itisarguedthatnorecoveryofanyincriminatingdocumenthas been effected from the possession of the accused. Ld. Public Prosecutor admits this fact but submits that inference of the involvement of these public servants in this conspiracy and the

CC No. 45/2010

Page 150 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

criminal misconduct by them has to be seen from the relevant notingsandthedocuments. ItisarguedbyLd.DefenceCounsels thatinthechargesheetthereismentionofonedealingclerkSh. SushilKumarSharma.Tomyminditisasomeclericalmistakeand doesnotgototherootofthecase. ItisarguedthatInvestigating OfficerdidnotsearchfortheDeepakKumar,theSecretaryofthe society,norsearchedtheaddresswrittenbyhimintheapplications movedbyhim.Ld.Counselsfordefencehavedrawnmyattentionto the affidavit Ex.PW12/DA (at page no. 304/C of D9) of Deepak KumarS/oSh.AnandKumar,whichshowshisaddressas1005,Gali No.3, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi32. It is argued by Ld. DefencecounselsthattheInvestigatingOfficerhasdefaultedinhis duty to personally search Deepak Kumar at the Vishwas Nagar address. ThereforeitispresumedthatDeepakKumarissomereal person. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attentiontotheregisteredenvelope(D127)throughwhichanotice wassentbytheInvestigatingOfficertosaidDeepakKumaratthe Vishwas Nagar address and submits that as per the report dated 15.2.2006ofthepostman,nosuchnumberi.e.1005existsatthe givenaddress.ItisthereforesubmittedbyLd.PublicProsecutorthat whennosuchnumberexistsattheaddresshowcantheInvestigating Officersearchthisplacewhensuchanaddressdoesnotexit. Sh. S.K. Bhatnagar, Adv. argues that the report of a postman on the

CC No. 45/2010

Page 151 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

envelopeisnotsufficienttoprovethatnosuchpersonresidesatthe givenaddress.ItisarguedthattheInvestigatingOfficershouldhave gonetothespotwithaviewtoverifyastowhetherthesaidaddress existsornot.Sh.S.K.Bhatnagar,Ld.DefenceCounselhasreferred toM.DurgaPrasadVs.StateofA.P .2004Crl.L.J.242inwhich Hon'bleSingleJudgeofAndhraHighCourtdidnotfavourtheeffort of prosecution to rely on the evidence of postmen to prove the factumoffictitiouspersonsandthosepersonsdonotexit. Hon'ble Judgewasoftheopinionthattheprosecutionoughttohaveadduced positive evidence to prove that these persons are not at all in existence by examining of authorities of municipality/Gram Panchayatetc. IdisagreewiththeLd.DefenceCounsel.Thecaselawcitedby himinthisregardisalsonotapplicabletothepresentfactsofthe case. Theperusaloftheaforesaidauthoritywouldshowthatthe prosecutionledtheevidenceofpostmenandtherebyseekingtodraw aninferencethat lettersweredeliveredtofictitiouspersons. On theotherhandinthepresentcasetheletterssentat1005,Vishwas Nagar returnedbackwiththe report ofpostman that thisaddress doesnotexist. ThereforewhereasHon'bleHighCourtwasofthe opinionthatsomemoreevidencewasrequiredtoprovethedelivery of letter to fictitious persons, the case in hand is a case of undeliveredletterreceivedbackbyCBI.Thisdifferenceappearsto

CC No. 45/2010

Page 152 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

beminorbuttakestoaltogetherdifferentinference. Ifaletteris delivered,itmeanssomepersonhadreceivedthesameandtherefore suchreceiveroftheletteractuallyexists. Thereforeprosecutionin thatcasewasunderanobligationtoproveastowhowasthesaid receiver. Inabsenceofthistypeofevidence,itwasnotpossibleto holdthatthereceiveroftheletterwasafictitiousperson. Howeverheretheletterreturnedundeliveredwiththereport thatnosuchaddressexists. Thisreportontheundeliveredletter receivedbackbyCBIismadeinregulardischargeoftheofficialduty bythepostmanandthesamehastobepresumedtobetrueinview ofillustrationftoSection114ofIndianEvidenceAct,1872.The accusedpersonswereatlibertytorebutthispresumptionthatsuch addressactuallyexitsandoneDeepakKumaractuallyresidesatthis address. None of the accused persons has preferred to bring any materialonrecordtoshowtheexistenceofsuchaddressorthefact thatDeepakKumareverresidedatthisaddress. Howeverallthe accusedpersonsfailedinthisregardandthereforeIreachonlyone conclusion i.e. Deepak Kumar purporting to be the Secretary of RangmahalCGHSisafictitiouspersonandhisaddress1005,Gali No.3,VishwasNagar,Delhi32isafakeaddress. Iwouldaddthat sameisthecaseinrespectofallthe70newlyenrolledmembersat whoseaddressestheCBIhadsentthenoticesthroughspeedpost.All theseenvelopeshavereturnedundeliveredeitheronthegroundthat

CC No. 45/2010

Page 153 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

nosuchpersonexistsoronthegroundthatnosuchaddressexists. Thisissufficienttoprovethatallthesemembersarefakemembers.I mayfurtherpointoutthatevenCBIhadsentthenoticestothe50 promotermembersattheaddressgivenintheaffidavits(placedin D9). All these notices also returned back. Reason was simple. Someofthemwerefakemembersintroducebytheaccusedpersons operatingthefakesocietyandremaininghadshiftedtheirresidences totheplotwhichwasallottedtotheoriginalsociety.Thereforethe only inferenceof thissituationis that iftheplot were allottedby DDAtothisfakesociety,thebuilderswouldhavebuilttheflatsand wouldhavesoldthemtotheneedypersonsaspermarketrateby showingthefakeresignationsofthefakemembersandintroducing newunsuspectingpublicpersons. Theabovementionedinferencewillhavetobekeptinmind while dealing the role of the public servants while discussing the questionofconspiracyandabuseofpowersetc. JitenderSinghSharma(A6) The file D8 in the office of RCS started when Sh. Jitender Singh Sharma (A6) wrote a letter dated 31.12.2003 to Assistant Registrar(East). Sh.RameshChandra(A2)wasAR(East)atthat time.ThisletterisEx.PW85/A14andisplacedatpageno.69/Cin D8.Iwouldliketoreproducethesaidletterasunder:

CC No. 45/2010

Page 154 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

No.F.1./RCS/AUDIT/MISC/2003/150Dated31.12.03 To THEASSTT.REGISTRAR(EAST) OFFICEOFTHER.C.S. SANSADMARG,NEWDELHI01 SUB:REGRDINGAUDITOFTHERANGMAHALCOOP .G/HSOCIETY LTD.(Regn.No.152(H)dated31.3.1973. SIR A letter has been received from sh. Deepak Kumar Hon, secretaryoftheRangmahalcoop.G/HSocietyLtd.Inwhichhehas requestedfortheauditofthesocietysinceregistrationto31.3.2003. As the audit of the society is pending since registration, it Is, therefore,requestedtoconfirmthepresentstatusfothesocietyfrom yourrecordsattheearliest,sothatfurtheractioninthisregardwill betakenaccordingly. (J.S.SHARMA) ASSTT.REGISTRAR(AUDIT) Theperusalof thisletter would show thatJ. S.Sharma has mentioned that audit of the society is pending since registration. Nothing in this letter shows that he made any effort to trace the audits of the society conducted from the date of registration. It appearsfromthisletterthatJ.S.Sharmahadignoredthefactthat theaudithadbeenconductedinthissocietyi.e.RangmahalCGHS. Although he has stated that a letter was received from Deepak

CC No. 45/2010

Page 155 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Kumar,HonourSecretaryofRangmahalCGHSbutinfactnosuch letter is available in the records of audit branch. Accused J. S. SharmahadtriedtoexplainthatalltherecordswereseizedbyCBI and this letter should be in possession of CBI. Prosecution has proved the seizure memo Ex.PW81/A (D2), which mentions the threefileswiththeirpage numbersvide seizurememo Ex.PW2/A (D7) the audit report for the period 1.7.1970 to 31.3.2003 from page1to240wasseizedfromauditbranch.AccusedJ.S.Sharma hasnotbeenabletopointoutanysuchletteronthesaidrecord. Thereforeitisclearthatifthisletterexists,itshouldbeintheaudit branchandnotwiththeCBI.AccusedJ.S.Sharmadidnotleadany evidencetoprovethatanysuchletterhadexisted.ItisarguedbyLd. CounselforaccusedJ.S.Sharmathatlotofrecordsisnottraceable intheauditbranchandthereforeeventhesaidletterisnotavailable thereandnowaftersomanyyearsitisnotpossibletotraceoutthis letter. Iamoftheopinionthatifletterhasbeenreceivedandthe sameisnottraceableduetosomereason,itsentrymustbetherein someregister.Butthisaccusedhasbeenunabletoshowanythingto thiseffect.ImaypointoutthatthefirstletterwrittenbysaidDeepak KumarisEx.PW85/A8(atpageno.322/CofD8)andthisletteris dated29.12.2003.ItwasreceivedbyAccusedNarayanDiwakaron 29.12.2003itself,whereastheletter Ex.PW85/A14 writtenbythis accused to AR East is dated 31.12.2003. From this fact two

CC No. 45/2010

Page 156 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

inferencescanbedrawn.Firstthatthereweretwoletterswrittenby DeepakKumar,onebeing Ex.PW85/A8 andanotherletterwritten byDeepakKumarpriorintimetoAR(East)byAR(Audit).Second, thatnosuchseparateletteraddresstoAR(Audit)exists.Asalready discussed,thefirstinferencecannotbeaccepted.Intheletterdated 29.12.2003 Ex.PW82/A2 in which it is specially written that uptodateaccountsofthesocietyarereadyforitsaudit. Since thereisnoseparatelettertoARAudit,thereforeitisclearthatA6in hisletterEx.PW85/A14isreferringtotherequestofDeepakKumar, whichhemadeintheletter Ex.PW85/A8. Itrequirestobenoted specificallythattheletterEx.PW85/A8writtenbyDeepakKumaris addressedtotheAssistantRegistrar(East)andisdated29.12.2003, whereastheletterwrittenbyA6toAR(East)isdated31.12.2003.It ispertinenttonotethatalthoughthisletterisaddressedtoAR(East) butitwasactuallyreceivedbyNarayanDiwakar(A8).Thefactthat ARAuditi.e.A6isactingonthisletterwhichisstillnotreceivedby him, is one circumstance which points out that there was a conspiracy between A6 and the persons, who fraudulently representedhimselfasDeepakKumar,theSecretaryofthesociety. That is the reason that without receiving the aforesaid letter, A6 proceededonhisown. IrefertothetestimonyofPW68Sh.JatinderPalSingh,the CharteredAccountantinthefirmM/sJ.S.Johar&Associatesand

CC No. 45/2010

Page 157 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

thatthisfirmwasappointedasauditorforconductingtheauditof Rangmahal CGHS vide letter Ex.PW68/A and that this firm had conductedtheauditofRangmahalCGHSvideauditor'sreportdated 31.10.1991fortheperiodupto31.3.1991. Furtherprosecutionhas proved a copy of letter issued by A6 as AR Audit to the President/Secretary of Rangmahal CGHS plot no.13 opposite SaraswatiVihar,PitamPura.ThisletterEx.PW90/A15isplacedat page101offileno.13.ThecopyofthisletterismarkedtoM/sH.L. Madan&Company. Thisletterisplacedinfileno.13atpageno. 101 and the file was seized from the actual Rangmahal Society, whichissituatedatplotno.13oppositeSaraswatiViharvideseizure memoEx.PW90/A4fromAjayKumarMaheshwari,theSecretaryof thesociety.AperusalofthisseizurememowouldshowthatCBIhad seized the audit reports in respect of Rangmahal CGHS from 31.3.1987to31.3.1992apartfromtheotherdocumentsnamelythe DDA letter dated 23.4.1990 for draw of plots and the letter Ex.PW90/A15aswellasoneletteratpage100,whichiswrittenby M/s H. L. Madan & Company to the Rangmahal CGHS dated 20.2.2002.Ld.DefenceCounselhasobjectedtothesedocumentson thegroundthatthisletterwasneverissuedbyJ.s.Sharmaandthat Ex.PW90/A15isnottheoriginalletterwrittentothesocietyrather itisthephotocopyofthesame. On the other hand Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my

CC No. 45/2010

Page 158 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

attentiontotheoriginalletterdated20.2.2002writtenbyM/sH.L. Madan&CompanytothePresidentRangmahalCGHSinwhichithas beeninformedtothePresidentthattheirfirmhasbeenappointedas auditorsofthesocietytoconductauditfortheperiodupto200001. He enclosed the copy of appointment letter and he requested the presidentofthesocietyastowhentheauditcantakeplace. Ld. PublicProsecutorsubmitsthatthecopyoftheletterwassenttothe societybySh.H.L.Madan&Companyandithascomeinordinary post to the society and therefore it is available on the file of the society.Itisarguedthatfromthisletteronethingisveryclearthat theauditbranchofRCSwashavingtheproperrecordsofRangmahal CooperativeCGHSuptotheyear2002whenthisletterwaswritten byA6andalsohadtherecordthatnowthissocietyissituatedon theplotallottedtoitbyDDAi.e.ofplotno.13oppositeSaraswati Vihar,PitamPura.Ld.PublicProsecutorvehementlyarguedthatthis alsoprovesthattheofficeofRCSaswellasitsauditbranchwere havingcomplete record oftheallotment oflandtothissociety at leastupto19.2.2002andthisprovesthatlateronthisrecordwas destroyedbytheRCSofficialtocreateafakeandduplicatesociety. Ihaveconsideredthesubmissionsofboththeparties. Iwill takethequestionastowhetherD141i.e.Letterdated19.2.2002 writtenbyARAudittothePresidentofRangmahalCGHSwithits copytoM/sH.L.Madan&Companystandsprovedornot.Ireferto

CC No. 45/2010

Page 159 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

illustration'f'toSection114ofIndianEvidenceAct.Theentirefile was seized by the Investigating Officer from the office of actual Rangmahalsociety.Thisfilecontainsthisphotocopyofletteralong withletterofM/sH.L.Madan&Co. Thephotocopyoftheletter dated19.2.2002writtenbyARAudittoPresidentRangmahalwas sent by H. L. Madan & Company along with their letter dated 20.2.2002.Thisishowthephotocopyoftheletterhadreachedto thesociety. Theperusalofthisfilewouldshowthattherecordsof auditor's report, balance sheets and correspondence have been maintained regularly by the office of the Rangmahal CGHs in the regularcourseofbusiness.Thereforeitcannotbeendisbelievedthat thesocietyhadreceivedthecopyoftheletterthroughH.L.Madan& Companytoit.Ld.DefenceCounselhastakenthedefencethatthis letterwasnotsignedbyJ.S.Sharma.Ontheotherhand,Ld.Public Prosecutor argues that the signatures on this photo copy matches withthesignaturesofthisaccusedavailableonjudicialfileaswellas otheradmitteddocumentsprovedinthecourtandoneisleftinno doubt that it has been issued by accused J. S. Sharma. I have perusedthisletterandIwouldonlysaythatphotocopyofthisletter hascomeinordinarycourseofbusinesstotheofficeofRangmahal CGHS.Thereisnoreasontobelievethatanyonewouldhaveforged it.Thecontentsofthislettermakesitclearthatithasbeenissuedby ARAudit.ItisnotdisputedthatJ.S.SharmawasARAuditatthat

CC No. 45/2010

Page 160 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

time.ThereforeitisclearthatthisletterprovesthatA6aswellas theauditbranchwasintheknowledgeofthefactthatplotno.13, PitamPurawasallotedtoRangmahalCGHSandthatiswhythecopy oftheletterisavailableontherecordsofRangmahalCGHS. The factofavailabilityoftheletter Ex.PW90/A15 intherecordsofthe societyprovesbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthefactofallotmentof land was in the knowledge of A6 and audit records of actual RanmahalCGHSwereavailableintheauditbranch. Insuchcircumstanceletmetakeuptherecordofauditseized byCBIfromtheauditbranchofRCS.CBIhadseizedthecomplete recordandIhavealreadydiscussedthatnoseparateletterofDeepak KumaraskingforauditisavailableonD11(collectivelyexhibitedas Ex.PW2/A1) and D12 (collectively exhibited as Ex.PW87/A39). Furtherintheletterdated31.12.2003Ex.PW85/A14writtentoAR (East), it is not written as to whether any effort to trace out the previousauditwasmade,northereisanynotingtothateffectinthe file D11. For sake of argument, it is presumed that A6 was not having any knowledge that Rangmahal CGHS had already been allottedlandandauditwasbeingconductedforpreviousyears,still A6hadtoexplainalot.Unfortunatelyheisunabletoexplainanyof circumstances. Ireferto Ex.PW5/A (D11). OnthisproformaA6 vide his order dated 28.1.2004 under the heading approval of RegistrarCooperativeSocieties,AR(East)hadapprovedauditfor

CC No. 45/2010

Page 161 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

theyear197374to200203i.e.for30years.A6hasbeenunableto showthatastowhereintheapprovaloftheregistrarfororderingfor auditformorethanthreeyears. ImayaddthatRule84(1)ofthe DelhiCooperativeSocietiesRules1973 Anauditorcanundertake theauditofthesocietyforamaximumperiodofthreeyears. ThepurportofRule84(4)isthatregistrarcanorderauditforthe audit of previous years even for more than three years. A6 has arguedthatsaidapprovalwasindeedtakenandhehaspointedout thesignaturesofRCSatpoint'C'ofEx.PW87/A17beneaththenote sheet Ex.PW87/A30 alreadyreproducedbyme. Ihavereadthis notesheetanditdoesnotcontainanyorderorapprovalpermitting theauditfor33yearsforthissociety.Atthecostofrepetition,Iam reproducingtherelevantnotesheetasunder:
AsdiscussedwithworthyJRCSreg.StatusofRangmahalCooperative GroupHousingSocietyLtd.TheSecretaryofthesocietyhasappliedforaudit branchsinceregistrationofthesociety.(seeatFlagB)Asperrecordavailablethe auditofthesocietyispendingsinceregistrationandnolistwassenttoDDAfor allotmentoflandtilldateandthereisnoliquidationorderinthefile.Asperrecord availablethestatusofthesocietyisnonfunctioned.Asstt.Registrar(Audit)has requestedandaskedforstatusofthesociety.Ifagreedwemayinformto AR(Audit)accordinglyandSh.FaizMohamadmaybeappointedasinspectorfor conductingtheinspectionU/s54forpresentrunningconditionofthesociety.Both lettersareaddedforSignatureplease.

'A'

ThisnotesheetwasapprovedbyRegistrarbutnowhereinthis notesheet,thereisanymentionofapprovalforconductingauditfor morethanthreeyears. IwillagainreverttheletterEx.PW85/A14byA6toAR(East) inwhichitisspecificallywrittenthatauditofthesocietyispending


CC No. 45/2010 Page 162 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

since registration. A6 has been unable to explain as to how he reachedthisconclusion.Hissubmissionsthathesimplybelievedthe versionofDeepakKumarisnotacceptablebecausethefactthatthe societyiscomingsuddenlyafterabout30yearsitselfisacauseof serioussuspicion. Furtherinthenormalofficialcourseofbusiness on such application the dealing clerk would have written a note aboutthestatusofthesocietyandstatusofauditofthesociety.This facthasbeentestifiedbyDW1Sh.VijayKumar,theHeadClerkof audit branch. In cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor he testifiedthattheroleofdealingassistantisthathewillmovethe applicationforverificationoftheworkingofthesocietybyAR(East) andifsocietyisfoundfunctional,dealingassistantwillproposeto permittheauditofthesocietyforallthependingyears.Innutshell the dealing clerk of audit branch will make proper notings for verificationofstatusofthesocietyandstatusofaudit. Theentire auditrecordsofRangmahalCGHSinD11andD12doesnotshow anynotingofdealingclerkinthisregardnorthereisanydirectionof A6tothateffect.Ihavealreadydiscussedthathewrotetheletterto AR(East)evenwhenthisletterneverreachedhim.Imaypointout thattheletterofDeepakKumarreachedAR(East)on10.2.2004as reflectedfromhissignaturesatpointAonthisletterEx.PW85/A8. The arguments of A6 is that he was not in conspiracy with the persons,whowereoperatingthefakesocietyandthathenevermet

CC No. 45/2010

Page 163 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

DeepakKumar.Ontheotherhand,Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawn my attention to the option letter Ex.PW5/A, which bears the signatures of Deepak Kumar, P K. Thirwani as well as A6. It is . arguedbyLd.DefenceCounselforA6thattheofficebearersofthe societypresentthisletterintheofficeanditcomesinroutinecourse toARauditbuthedoesnotmeettheofficebearersofthesocietyin person.Evenifthisargumentsisaccepted,A6willhavetoexplainas howheproceededtowriteaslettertoAR(East).Duringtrialhedid notsummonanyrecordfromtheofficeofauditbranchaskingforthe production of any such application of Deepak Kumar. These circumstances have only one explanation that J. S. Sharma was activelyconspiringwiththepersonsmanagingthesociety.Therefore insteadofaskingthestatusofthesocietyandstatusofauditfromthe dealingclerkofhisownbranch,heisraisingaqueryfromAR(East). Ihavealreadydiscussedthattheauditofthesocietyfortheprevious yearsweredonebyaCharteredAccountantandphotocopyofletter issued from RCS office is available in the file of the original RangmahalCGHSattheaddressoftheplot,whichwasallottedtoit byDDA. HadA6orderedforverificationofthestatusofauditand statusofsocietyfromhisowndealingassistant,thereportofdealing assistant would have definitely come revealing the proper facts. Hence prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the recordsofauditofRangmahalCGHSwereverymuchavailablein

CC No. 45/2010

Page 164 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

auditbranchandA6hadtheknowledgeofthesameandhewas acting in collusion with the operators of fake society in this conspiracybyabusinghisofficialpositionsdeliberatelywithholding theactualauditofthesocietytowhichthelandhadbeenallotted. PrahladKumarThirwani(A5) ItisarguedbySh.S.K.Bhatnagar,adv.thatA5hadvisitedthe registeredofficeofthesocietyi.e.147G,PocketA2,MayurVihar.It issubmittedthatA5preparedhisreportasperthedocumentsshown byDeepakKumar,theSecretaryofthesocietyandA5hadnoreason to believe that all the balance sheets are fake and forged. It is submittedthatA5hadalsonoreasontobelievethattheperson,he met,wasnotDeepakKumar. Ontheotherhand,Ld.PublicProsecutorsubmitsthatevidence hasbeenbroughtonrecordtoprovethatnoDeepakKumarresides atthisaddressnoritisinevidencethatofficeofsocietywasever situatedatthisaddress. It is argued by Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv. that Investigating Officernevervisitedthisplace.MoreoverPW1hasstatedthatheis theownerofFlatNo.147G,Pocket8,MayurVihar.Itisarguedthat sincethisaddressisdifferencethantheaddresswhereP .K.Thirwani (A5)hadvisited,thereforetheprosecutioncasemustfail. Onthe other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that it is typographical mistakeinsteadofPocketA2,thetypisthadwrittenPocket8due

CC No. 45/2010

Page 165 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

tophoneticsimilarity.Ihaveconsideredthesubmissions.Whenthis fact was brought to the notice of court a further question under Section313CrPCwasputwiththecorrectaddress.Withaviewto seeastowhatisthecorrectaddressofthiswitness,Ihaveseenthe list of witnesses attached to the charge sheet. At serial no.3, the nameofPW1RamNareshPrasadiswrittenandhisaddresshasbeen writtenas147G,PocketA2,MayurVicar,NewDelhi. Similarlyin hisstatementunderSection161CrPCalso,hisaddressiswrittenas 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII. PW1 has specifically testifiedthataccusedMohanLalwashistenantduringtheperiod 1997to2002.thisfactisnotdeniedbyaccusedMohanLalincross examination.IhavealreadydiscussedtheroleofaccusedMohanLal andtheaddressofthesocietyinhishandwritingonthebyelaws alsoshowtheaddressofFlatNo.147G,PocketA2,MayurVihar, PhaseIIIEx.PW85/A6.ThereforeIamconvincedthatthemistake inthetestimonyofPW1isonaccountofphoneticsimilarityofA2 and eight. Had PW1 not been the owner of 147G/A2, Mayur vihar, the defence would not have spared the prosecution by producing the actual resident of 147G, A2, Mayur Vihar in their defence.Ireferto1999IAD(Delhi853MohkamSinghVsState ofNCTofDelhi whereinHon'bleHighCourttooknoteofthefact thattypographicalerrorsandaccidentalerrorsitappearbutthesame cannot take away the substance of the evidence. In such

CC No. 45/2010

Page 166 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

circumstances,IamoftheopinionthatPW1istheownerof147G, A2,MayurViharandhehastestifiedthatnosocietyhaseverworked onthisaddress. ThereforethestandoftheaccusedP .K.Thirwani that he visited the said place for the purpose of audit is a false defence. As per Rule 84(5) of DCS Rules 1973 the audit of a cooperativesocietyshallbeconductedintheregisteredofficeofthe society,unlesstheregistrardirectsotherwise. Sincethedefenceof accusedstandsfalsifiedandDeepakKumarwhomhestatestohave met is found to be non existence person, not only it becomes a clearcutcaseofabuseofhisofficialpositionbyhimbutalsoitproves thathewasinconspiracywiththepersonwhowereimpersonating asPresident,SecretaryandTreasurer.Thisfactisrevealedfromthe briefsummaryofthesocietyplacedinD11andD12,whichshow thesignaturesofPresident,Secretary,Treasurerofthefakesociety andtheAuditor(i.e.A5). Aperusalofthisbriefsummaryofthe society would show that it has column of names of managing committeememberspresentduringauditperiodandinthiscolumn nameofArunKumarasPresident,DeepakKumarasSecretaryand Rajender Kumar Singh as Treasurer have been written and at the lowerportionofthedocumentthesignaturesofPresident,Secretary, TreasureraswellasofA5arepresent.Thisprovesthatafakeaudit wascreatedinconspiracywiththepersons,whowereimpersonating as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society. I would add

CC No. 45/2010

Page 167 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

herethatduringinvestigationnosuchpersonnamelyArunKumar, Deepak Kumar and Rajender Kumar Singh were found. I have already discussed the question of Deepak Kumar of being a fake person.OntheenvelopeD130addressedtoRajenderKumarSingh, itisstatedthatnosuchpersonresidesatthegivenaddress.Whereas ontheenvelopeD126addressedtoArunKumar,itiswrittenthat despite going several times at this address, he could not meet addressee. Inhistestimonytheconcernedpostmani.e.PW51has statedthatnosuch person residesat thataddress. Imayfurther pointoutthattheaddressontheaforesaidenvelopesarethesame, which arewrittenintheaffidavit Ex.PW66/6 ofArunKumarand Ex.PW66/02ofRajenderKumarSingh,whichareplacedinD9. ProsecutionhasexaminedPW78Sh.SurenderKumarAbrol,an AccountsOfficerinDelhiStateCooperativeBankLtd.,DaryaGanj. He testified that an account was being maintain in the name of Rangmahal CGHS having registration no. 152(H) and the said society maintained this account upto 1991. He proved letter Ex.PW78/A writtenbyManagerDaryaGanjSmt.ShikhaVermato theInvestigatingOfficerofthiscaseshowingthestatusofaccountof thissociety.Alongwiththisletteracopyofstatementofaccountwas alsosent.Aspertheletterandstatementofaccount,anamountof Rs.50/stoodinthenameofRangmahalCGHSason31.12.1991and thereafter there was no transaction in this account. In the brief

CC No. 45/2010

Page 168 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

summaryofthesocietyhehadwrittennilinthecolumnofdetails of bank A/c. It is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that when a societyisregisteredonlywhenanaccountisopenedbysuchsociety. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentiontoRule6(1)ofDCS Rules1973andformno.1relevanttothisRule.Aperusalofthis formno.1wouldshowthatpointno.12thereisacolumnamount depositedintheseDelhiStatesCooperativeBankLtd. Imaypoint outthatformno.1isaproformaforapplicationforregistrationof cooperativesocieties.Inotherwords,theopeningofanaccountin DelhiStateCooperativeBankisaprerequisiteforregistrationofthe society.ThereforeitisclearthatactualRangmahalCGHSmusthave openedsuchanaccountbeforeitsregistrationintheyear1973. I havealreadydiscussedthatPW78hasprovedthatinfactsuchan accountexisted. Hadauditoraskedfortheparticularsofsuchan account from the operators of the fake society i.e. fake President, SecretaryandTreasurer,suchoperators/managersofthisfakesociety wouldhavebeencaughtonwrongfoot. ButA5despitebeingan auditor,whohasexperienceofauditingoflargenumberofsociety doesnotaskforparticularsofsuchaccountandratherinthecolumn ofdetailsofthebankA/chewritesnil.Thisitselfshowsthatthe element of mens rea of this accused that he was out to help the accusedpersonsintheirillegaldesigns.Iamoftheopinionthathe is not only guilty of his official position to obtain the pecuniary

CC No. 45/2010

Page 169 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

advantage to the persons operating the fake society but was also activelyinconspiracywiththem. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that had P K. Thirwani . beeninconspiracywiththeoperatorsofthefakesociety,hewould not have raised any objections in the audit. I have perused the objections/suggestionsandIreproducethesameasunder:
1. AuditoftheSocietyshouldbegotdoneeveryyear. 2. AGM/Election of the society should be held every yearinaccordancewithAct,Rules&Byelaws. 3. M.C.Meetingshouldbeheldonceineverymonth. 4. Approvalofresigned/newenrolledmembersshould betakenfromtheRCSoffice. 5. Share allotment register should be completed and sharecertificatesbeissuedtoallthemembersofthe society. 6. Cashretentionlimitshouldbefixed. 7. Financialpositionshouldbeimprovedtoavoidlosses tothesociety. 8. Compliancereportasperproforma16mustbesend totheRCSoffice.

Aperusalofabovewouldshowthatthesearenotobjections rather these are innocuous suggestions. Had A5 not acted in collusionwiththepersonsdealingwiththefakesocietyandhadin honest discharge of his official duties actually visited the said premises i.e. 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi, the fakesocietywouldnothavebeensuccessfulingettingtheauditof morethan30yearsaccountsofthesociety.ItisarguedbySh.S.K. Bhatnagar,adv.thatauditisnotapreconditionforapprovalofthe listofthemembersforthepurposeofallotmentofland.Idisagree

CC No. 45/2010

Page 170 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

tothissubmission. Imaypointoutthatbeforesendingthelistof membersofsocietytoDDA,itistherequirementthatthesocietyis workingaspernorms. Regularauditisessentialforthatpurpose. Sh.S.K.Bhatnagar,adv.arguesthatA5hadneversuspectedthatthe persons who met him were impersonators and that A5 had no knowledgeofforgeriesetc. IdisagreewiththissubmissionofLd.DefenceCounsel.When itstandsprovedthattheauditreportpreparedbyP .K.Thirwaniisa falsereportbecausetheofficeofRanmahalCGHSneverexistedon theaforesaidaddressofMayurVihar,whereA6hasstatedtohave visited,itleadstoonlyoneconclusionthathedidsoashewasmixed withthepersonsoperatingthefakesocietyandwereimpersonating asArunKumar,DeepakKumarandRajinderKumarSinghthefake President,SecretaryandTreasurerofthesociety.ThereforewhenA5 hadindulgedinfraudulentaudit,hehasaidedinsendingoflistof fraudulentmembersofthesocietytoDDAforallotmentoflandand thus he fully abused his official position in an attempt to obtain pecuniaryadvantagetothempursuanttotheconspiracyinquestion. FAIZMOHD.(A3) AccusedFaizMohd.wasappointedasInspectorvideorder dated 21.01.2004 of RCS and vide letter dt. 27.01.2004 of Sh. RameshChandra,AR(East).ThisletterismarkedasExt.PW85/A13. OnecopyofthisletterwasgiventoaccusedFaizMohd.andsecond

CC No. 45/2010

Page 171 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

copy was sent to the President/Secretary, Rangmahal CGHS, 81 Sunder Nagar, Delhi. As per the report of accused, Faiz Mohd. Ext.PW85/A10, he had visited at 81 Sunder Nagar, Delhi on 31.01.2004,however,hewasinformedfromtherethatofficeofthe society had been shifted from 81 Sunder Nagar, Delhi to 147G PocketA2,MayurVihar,PhaseIII,Delhi.Itisfurtherwrittenbyhim thathevisitedattheofficeaddressofthesocietyi.e.147GPocket A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi on 01.02.2004 where he met Deepak Kumar, Secretary of the society. He wrote that Deepak Kumar provided relevant record of the society and informed that thereare120membersexistinginthesocietyandthatlisthasnotyet beenapprovedbytheRCSforallotmentofland. I have already discussed the testimony of PW1. The objections of this accused to the testimony of PW1 are same, as raisedbyA5.IhavealreadydiscussedthatwhatactuallyPW1has testifiedisthatheisaresidentof147GPocketA2,MayurVihar, PhaseIII,Delhi,but,duetophoneticsimilarity,itwastypedas147 GPocket8,MayurVihar,PhaseIII,Delhi. Ihavealreadydiscussed thatnosocietyexistedonthisaddress,rather,thisaddresswasused byaccusedMohanLalbecausefrom1977to2002hehadbeena tenantatthisplace. Sinceitstandsprovedthatthesocietynever workedatthisplace,thedefenceofthisaccusedthathehadactually visited this place stands falsified. This false defence leads to an
CC No. 45/2010 Page 172 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

inference that accused Faiz Mohd. not only abused his official position, but, also that he did so in conspiracy with the persons dealingwiththefakesociety. ACCUSEDRAMESHCHANDRA(A2)&ACCUSEDRAKESH KUMARHASIJA(A4) AccusedRakeshKumarHasijaisadealingclerkwhowrote thenotesheetdt.13.01.2004whichIhavealreadyreproduced.Itis writteninthisnotesheetthatAsperrecordavailabletheauditof thesocietyispendingsinceregistrationandthatnolistwassentto DDA for allotment of land and that status of the society is non functional.HealsoproposedthatAR(Audit)beinformedaboutthe status of the society and accused Faiz Mohd. be appointed as Inspectorforconductinginspectionu/s54ofDCSActforthepresent runningconditionofthesociety. AccusedRameshChandra(A2), AR(East)recommendedthatAR(Audit)beinformedaccordinglyand inspectionforthestatusofthesocietymaybeproved. ItisarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselthatwhenaletterof AR(Audit)whichwasPUCinthiscasewasreceived,onlyafewnote sheetsandcorrespondencewereavailableinthisfileD8andfrom thesenotingsandcorrespondenceitwasnotpossibletomakeoutas towhetherthesocietywasactuallyworkingoritsauditwasbeing conductedregularlyorthelistofmembersforallotmenthadalready beensentorthelandwasallotedtothesociety.ItisarguedbyLd.
CC No. 45/2010 Page 173 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

DefenceCounselthatinthesecircumstances,DealingAssistanti.e. A4preparedthisnoteandAR(E)i.e.A4alsowrotehisnotingin routinemannerandingoodfaiththatthesocietywasnonfunctional. On theother hand, Ld. PublicProsecutor arguesthat these public servantshadremovedtherelevantnotesheetsandcorrespondence fromthisfilewithaviewtohelptheoperatorsofthefakesocietyfor gettingtheallotmentofland. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmy attentiontoaletterdt.26.05.1975(Ext.PW52/G1)writtenbyone Sh. S.P Jain, Treasurer of Rangmahal CGHS to AR(Cooperative . GroupHousingSociety). Ld.PublicProsecutorhasalsodrawnmy attentiontoanotherletterdt.27.05.1975regardingtheinspectionof the society. Another letter dt. 06.09.1975 is addressed by Dharamprakash Garg, Secretary toAR vide which the copy of the minutesofmeetingsheldbythesocietyinMay,1975weresentto theofficeofRCS. Similarly,otherlettershavebeenshownbyLd. PublicProsecutortoprovethatthesocietywasactuallyinteracting withRCSevenaftertheyear1973butthenotesheetsaftertheyear 1973arenotavailable. Itisarguedthatasanormalworkingofa DealingClerk,heshouldhavemadeanoteregardingthemissingof note sheets after the year 1973 or he should have noted that althoughthecorrespondenceisbeingmadebythesocietywiththe officeofRCS,but,therelevantnotesheetsarenotbeingwritten.Itis arguedthatinfactthenotesheetswerebeingwrittenproperlybut

CC No. 45/2010

Page 174 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

theRCSofficialsinconspiracywiththeoperatorsofthefakesociety had removed those note sheets and correspondence showing allotmentofland.Ld.PublicProsecutorsubmitsthatwhenthereis correspondenceonfileD8uptotheyear1975,thetwofoldoptions were available to the RCS officials namely : (1) they could have issued notice to DDA to inform as to whether the land has been allotedtothesocietyornot;(2)theycouldhaveaskedinformation fromtheCentralNewDelhiZoneinwhichtheaddress81,Sunder Nagar,NewDelhiwhichistheinitialofficialaddressofthesocietyis situated. ItisarguedbyLd.PublicProsecutorthatitisverystrange thatthefileofCentralNewDelhiZoneisbeingtakenupbytheEast Zone. There is nothing on record to show how this file (D8) travelled from Central New Delhi Zone to East Zone. Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that in most of the cases involving the society scam,thebuildersmafiahadadoptedthemethodofchangingthe society's particulars to East Zone where accused Ramesh Chandra waspostedasARandthereafterincollusionwithRameshChandra andhigherofficials,theywereabletogettheentirefileprocessed. Inthiscasealso,thishappened. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentiontothelast notingavailableonthisfilewhichisDiaryno.1873andwrittenon 27.08.1973.Itreadsasunder:
CC No. 45/2010 Page 175 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.


PrastutPatraSamitikevarsh197273 kelekhanirikshankebaremeinhai. LekhaNirikshaknesamitikalekha nirikshankarnemeinkuchekkamiyun kavivrandiyahai. Yadisehmathotoinkamiyun kodurkarnekeliyesamitike nirikshakkopatralikhkarbhejdiyajave. SwachPatrahastakhsarhetuprastuthai.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

ThisnotecanbetranslatedinEnglishasunder:
ThePUCisinrespectoftheauditofthesocietyfortheyear197273.The auditorwhileauditingthesocietyhasmentionedafewdeficiencies. Ifagree,alettermaybewrittentothesocietyandtheauditorforremoving thedeficiencies. Thefairletterisreadyforthesignaturesplease.

Aperusalofthisnotesheetitselfshowsthatauditforthe year197273hadbeendonebytheauditor. Therefore,itisclear thattheDealingAssistantRakeshKumarHasijahaswrittenawrong factinthisnotesheetthatAsperrecordavailable,theauditofthe societyispendingsinceregistration. Instead,Iwouldliketoadd herethatwhenthisnotesheetwaswritten,itwasnotabulkyfile becausethenotesheetsarefrompageno.1to8andthedocuments and correspondence are from page 1 to 68 of correspondence portion. The bulk of the documents placed in this file in year 20032004wasnotavailableonthisfileatthattime. Therefore,it
CC No. 45/2010 Page 176 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

cannotsaidthatduetobulkoffile,theDealingAssistantmighthave beenlostinthevolumeofthefile.Theverylastnotingsavailableon file speaks clearly that audit for the year 197273 had been conducted. Thisfactmusthavebeennotedbythedealingclerkin normalcourseofofficialduty. ThesameisthecasewithAR(East).Inviewofthemissing notesheets,eitherheshouldhaveaskedfortracingofthenotesheets or he could have requested the Central/New Delhi zone as to whether any portion of the file is available with them. Infact, RameshChandrahasnotbeenabletoconvincethiscourtastohow thefileoftheCentral/NewDelhizonehasreachedtheEastZone.It is pertinent to note that there was nothing in the note sheets availabletoDealingAssistantandAR(East)toshowthechangeof address. This fact came to their knowledge only when letter of Deepak Kumar Ext.PW85/A8 reached Ramesh Chandra on 10.02.2004.Therefore,theDealingAssistantandAssistantRegistrar (East)couldhaveknowntheaddressofthissocietyas81,Sunder Nagar,Delhi.ImaypointoutthatDW2R.K.Mudgilwasexamined as defence witness by accused Ramesh Chandra and in cross examinationbyLd.PublicProsecutorheadmittedthatSunderNagar issituatedinthejurisdictionofCentral/NewDelhizone.Therefore, thisevidenceisenoughtoprovethatinnowaythefileofRangmahal CGHScouldbeavailableinEastZoneoverwhichRameshChandra
CC No. 45/2010 Page 177 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

andRakeshHasijahadjurisdiction.Iwouldrefertotheevidenceof Ms.SunitaNagpal(PW85). SheisalsoadealingassistantinEast Zone duringtherelevant time. Although, this witness hasturned hostile but in cross examination she testified that she had not handedoverthedocumentsofthesocietytoRakeshKumarHasijaas shewasnotknowingthewhereaboutsofthesocietybut whenthe documents of the said society were handed over to her by RameshChandrathethenAR(East),onlythen,shecametoknow aboutthepossessionofthesedocuments. Thisevidenceproves thataccusedRameshChandrawasinactivepossessionofthisfile.I mayaddherethatwhenRameshChandrapassedformalorderafter approval from RCS, appointing Faiz Mohd. u/s 54 of DCS Act as inspectingofficertofindoutthefactualpositionofthesocietyandto verifytherecords,hesentonecopyofthisordertoRangmahalCGHS withtheaddress81,SunderNagar,Delhi.Fromallthisevidence,it isclearthatthefilebelongedtoCentral/NewDelhiZonewhereasit wastakenupbyRakeshKumarHasijaandRameshChandrawithout anyjurisdiction.Noexplanationhasgivenfromtheirsideastowhy thefileofthissocietywhichshouldhavebeenlyinginCentral/New Delhi Zone has reached East Zone. I may further add that this conductshouldbeseeninviewofthesubsequentfactsthattheydid not inform AR(Audit) that audit of the year 197273 has already been conducted. They did not even wrote in the noting that the

CC No. 45/2010

Page 178 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

furthernotesheetsarenotavailablenoraskedtheAR(Audit)toget searchedfromhisownbranchastowhethertheauditforfurther years has been conducted or not. As regarding the question of allotmentoflandandsendingoflist,theyshouldhaveraisedquery fromtheCentral/NewDelhiZoneinformingthemaboutthemissing notesheetsandmakingaqueryiftheyhaveanyrecordregardingthe sendingoflistandallotmentofland.Further,theycouldhavealso seenaletterormadeaqueryfromthePolicyBranchaboutthisfact aswellasmadetheenquiryfromtheDDA. I agree that the officials sometimes act very rashly and evenblundersarecommittedduringdischargeofofficialdutiesbut whentheofficialsareexperiencedpersons,theyacquireaneyefor details.Inthiscase,noneoftheofficialsisanewentrantinservice. However,atthesametimeoverallcircumstancesofacasewouldalso speakloudlyastowhetheritisapurecaseofnegligentworkingora caseofdishonesty.Wrongnotingonthefileofanotherzonemeans thattheyhadsomehowgotthesaidfile,inexecutionofaconspiracy. Thisiscoupledwiththefactthattheauditoftheyear197273and missingofsubsequentnotesheetshasnotbeenhighlighted.Iwould add further that when JR(East) wrote a note Pl. Spk. (Please Speak),theDealingClerkreproducedthesamenotesheetexceptthe firstlineinnotingdt.20.01.2004andthesamewasrecommendedby Ramesh Chandra. Thefirst lineof thisnotesheet dt.20.01.2004
CC No. 45/2010 Page 179 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

reflectsthatJR(East)haddiscussedthestatusofRangmahalCGHS, but,thereafter,neithertheDealingClerknorRameshChandrahave writtenastowhyandhowtheyconfirmedthestatusofRangmahal CGHS as non functional. Instead, the previous note sheet dt. 13.01.2004wasreproducedverbatim. Thisisaclearcutchainof abuse of official position and conspiracy of Dealing Clerk and AR(East) with the operators of the fake society. True, that no evidencehasbeenbroughtonrecordtoshowthatRameshChandra hadpersonallymetDeepakKumar,but,thedetailednotesheetdt. 19.03.2004 typed by the Dealing Clerk bears the signatures of DeepakKumarandattheendofthisnotesheet,itiswrittenthat societyhasproduced/submittedallrelevantdocumentspertainingto the verification of official list of 120 members for onward transmissiontoDDAforallotmentoflandandthesamehasbeen examined and got verified and that in view of this fact, a recommendationwasmadetoapprovethelistof120membersfor onwardtransmissiontoDDAforallotmentofland.Whilepreparing this note sheet, no objection was raised as to how the society suddenlywokeupafter30years.Noquerywasraisedastowhythe societyhadnotinformedthechangeofaddresstotheRCS. Imay pointoutthatsocietysubmittedthecopyofresolutiondt.20.08.1995 Ext.PW87/A42 resolving the shifting of office address from 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar,

CC No. 45/2010

Page 180 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

PhaseIII,Delhi92. Itisnowhereaskedastowhythisintimation wasnotsenttothesocietyintheyear1995.Imaypointoutthatas per Section 84 of DCS Act, 1972, the Cooperative Society must inform to the Registrar about the change of the address of the cooperativesocietywithin 30days. Similarly,atpage 340/C, the documents dt. 16.09.1976, 15.07.1977 and 19.07.1978 are the copies of proceedings of society submitted to RCS in respect of introducing new members. I have already discussed that 70 new fake members were introduced by the persons operating the fake society.NeitherDealingClerknorRameshChandraAR(E)raisedany objectionastowhytheofficeofRCSwasnotinformedbysociety abouttheinclusionofthenewmembers.ImaypointoutthatPW77 V .K.Bansalhastestifiedthattheenrollmentofanynewmembercan be done by way of resolution of the society to that effect and it shouldbeconveyedtotheofficeofRCSafteritsenrollment. The intimationfromtimetotimeregardingenrollmentofnewmembers is required because the RCS is able to authenticate the list of memberstobesenttoDDAforallotmentofland. Neitheraccused RakeshKumarHasijanorRameshChandraraisedanyobjectionasto whythesocietydidnotintimatetheRCSabouttheenrollmentof newmembers.Allthesecircumstancesareenoughtoprovethatthe DealingClerkandtheAR(E)hasnotonlyhandinglovewitheach otheraswellaswiththepersonswhowereoperatingthefakesociety

CC No. 45/2010

Page 181 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

butalsoaclearproofofabuseofpowers. JasbirSinghSindhu(A7) It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel for A7 that there is no sanctionunderSection197CrPCandthesanctionunderSection19 ofPreventionofCorruptionActisnotproved.Ld.DefenceCounsel hasdrawnmyattentiontothetestimonyofPW91sh.RajnishTingal. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that this witness was Under SecretaryintheMinistryofHomeAffairsduringtherelevantperiod andhetestifiedthataninvestigationreportalongwithstatementsof witnesses and documents was received from CBI for according sanction for prosecution of A7. He testified that the file was processesinMHAandwastobeputthroughproperchannelbefore competent authority for according sanction for prosecution. He testified that sanctioning authorityin this matterwasPresident of India.Thefilereceivedbackfromthecompetentauthority,whohad accordedsanctionforprosecutionagainstthisaccused. Hefurther testified that Ministry of Home Affairs of Union of India was delegated with the powers on behalf of President of India for accordingsanctionintheinstantmatter.Thesamewasaccordedby Minister of Home Affairs and he being competent authority to convey the sanction for prosecution to CBI had conveyed the sameaccordingly.Ld.DefenceCounselhasdrawnmyattentionto thecrossexaminationandsubmitsthatthiswitnesshasnotbrought
CC No. 45/2010 Page 182 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

thefileinwhichtheDirector,JointSecretary,AdditionalSecretary andHomeMinisterhadputtheirnotings.Ld.DefenceCounselhas drawnmyattentionthatalthoughthesanctioningauthoritywasthe PresidentofIndiabutthiswitnesshadtestifiedthatthefilehadnot come to President of India. Ld. Defence counsel argues that the witness had admitted that he was not the person to accord sanction to prosecute rather he is only authorize to convey sanctiontoCBI.ItisfurtherarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselthaton thesanctionorderEx.PW91/A,thesignaturesofHomeMinisterare notpresent.HealsoadmittedthatfilewasnotsenttothePresident andPresidentofIndiahadnotexamineanydocumentsentbyCBI. Ld.DefenceCounselhasdrawnmyattentiontothetestimonyofthis witnesswherehestatesthathehaddictatedtheorderofsanctionon thebasisofrecord.Insuchcircumstances,itisarguedthatalthough PW91wasonlycompetenttoconveysanction,itissurprisingthathe himselfdictatedtheorderofsanction. Itisfurtherarguedthatthe prosecutionhasnowhereprovedthatthePresidentofIndiaorthe Minister of Home Affairs had applied their minds on the grant of sanction. It is further argued that the file in which the various officers had put their notings has also not been brought by the prosecutiontoprovetheapplicationofmindontheirbehalf. Itis argued that the sanction order specifically mentions that President..........hascarefullyexaminethematerial.Itissubmitted

CC No. 45/2010

Page 183 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

thatthereisnoevidencetoprovethatthePresidentofIndiahad delegatedpowerstoaccordsanctiontoprosecuteapublicservantto theHomeMinsiter.Itisthereforearguedthatprosecutionhasbeen unabletoproveastowhowasthecompetentauthoritytoaccord sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Further prosecution has been unable to prove that the competent authorityhadappliedmindonthequestionofaccordingsanction. Ld. Public Prosecutor had referred to the notification of Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the 3rd November 1958 (as amendeddated24.5.1974)S.O.2297inwhichitisnotifiedthatvide order dated 25.10.1958 the President of India in the exercise of powersconferbyClauseIIofArticle77oftheConstitutionispleased tomaketheauthentication(orderandotherinstructions)Rules1958 vide which the orders made in the name of President shall be authenticated by the signatures of a Secretary, Sub Secretary, Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary to the Government of India. Ld. Public has referred to J. S. Sathyanarayana Vs State (2005) 5 KANTL.J.17whereinanauthorizedGovernmentofficerissuedthe GovernmentorderunderthenameofHon'bleGovernorKarnataka, butunderhissignaturesastheconcernedUnderSecretary. Itwas heldtobeavalidsanction. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasalsoreferredtoPullanjeUrsVsState

CC No. 45/2010

Page 184 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

ofKarnataka2003Crl.L.J.1148. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasalso referredtostate,CBIHyderabadVsEdwinDevasahayam2007Crl. L. J. 3536 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the sanctionorderssignedbySecretarywasprovedbyaJointDirector, RailwayBoardandthesamewasheldtobevalid. Ihaveconsideredthesubmissions.Iamoftheopinionthatthe sanctioning authority is the President of India. The witness has testified that Minister of Home Affairs of Union of India was delegatedwiththepowersonbehalfofPresidentofIndia. Healso testifies that after receiving the investigation report, the file was processes in MHA and was put though proper channel before the competentauthorityforaccordingsanction.Incrossexaminationhe disclosed that channel of submissions is through Director, Joint Secretary,AdditionalSecretaryandHomeMinister. Itisarguedby Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, adv. for this accused that prosecution should haveproducedandexaminedHomeMinistertoprovetheapplication ofmind. Idisagreewiththissubmission. Iamoftheopinionthat forprovingtheapplicationofmind,thecourthastoseethereasons given in the sanction order. I have perusedthe sanction order, it mentionsthefactsaswellasthereasonsastowhythesanctionhas been accorded. Therefore, the sanction does not suffer from non applicationofmind.IreferStateofRajasthanVsTaraChandAIR 1973SupremeCourt2131inwhichitwasheldbyHon'bleSupreme

CC No. 45/2010

Page 185 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Court that fact of according sanction can be proved by a subordinateofficerandifthesanctionorderisaspeakingorder, thenthematterendsthere.Otherwiseevidenceshouldbeadduced toprovethatthesanctioningauthorityhasprovedmaterialbefore according sanction. In the present case also the sanctioning authorityhadaccordedthesanction,whichisaspeakingorder. It mentionsthefactsandthereasonsforaccordingsanction.Hence,it cannot be said that there is non application of mind. Since the sanction order is a speaking order, there is no need for the prosecutiontoadducefurtherevidenceonthispoint.Regardingthe questionofcompetencyoftheauthority. Itakenoteofnotification andjudgementsreferredtoLd.PublicProsecutorandIamofthe opinionthatPW91wascompetenttoconveyandtoprovetheorder onbehalfofPresidentofIndia. ItisfurtherarguedbyLd.PublicProsecutorthatatthetimeof investigationaccusedJ.S.SindhuwasnotpostedasJointRegistrar CooperativeSocieties.Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattention to AbhayChautalaVs.CBI2011IIIAD(Crl.)(SC)389 inwhich Hon'bleSupremeCourtrelieduponthedecisionof PrakashSingh BadalVs.StateofPunjabandheldthatwhereapublicservanthad abused an entirely difference office than the one which he was holdingonthedateonwhichcognizancewastaken,therewasno necessityofsanctionunderSection19ofPreventionofCorruption

CC No. 45/2010

Page 186 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Act. AdmittedlyJ.S.SindhuwasnotpostedintheofficeofRCS whenthecognizancewastaken. AccordinglyIamoftheopinion thatnosanctiontoprosecutethisaccusedisrequiredunderSection 19ofthePreventionofCorruptionAct. Now coming to the facts of this case. It is argued by Ld. DefenceCounselthatA7remainedpostedintheofficeofRCSonly forsevenmonthsandhehasbeeninvolvedasaccusedonlyintwo casesofsocietyscam.Itisfurtherarguedthathehasbeencitedby CBIhasprosecutionwitnessasmanyasinsixteencasesofsociety scam. Therefore, these facts show that he was only a victim of circumstancesandthathisinnocenceisprovedfromthefactthathe raisedanobjectionbywritingplsspk. Itisarguedthatthenext notesheetdated20.1.2004wouldshowthatthisqueryonpartofA7 wasinrespectofstatusofRangmahalCGHS.Itisarguedthatdue tothisreasonthefileremainedstalledforaboutaweek.Itisargued thathadA7beingthepartofconspiracy,itwouldhavebeensmooth sailingwithoutanyobjectionorqueryonthepartofA7.Itisargued that even in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court Dr. Subramanyam Vs. A. Raja (in SLP (Crl.) no. 1688 of 2012 decidedon24.8.2012) itwasheldbyHon'bleSupremeCourtthat criminalconspiracycannotbepresumedonthemerefactthatthere were official discussions between the officers. It was held that suspicion,howeverstrong,cannottakeplaceonlegalproofandthe

CC No. 45/2010

Page 187 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

meetingbetweenP .ChidambaramandA.Rajawouldnotbyitselfbe sufficienttoinfertheexistenceofacriminalconspiracy. IhaveconsideredthiscaselawandIamoftheopinionthat eachcasehastobedecidedonitsownmerits. Alotofarguments have been addressed on the point of the query of this accused regardingthestatusofsociety. Onbeingspecificallyaskedbythis court during the final arguments as to how a question about the statusofthesocietyaroseinthemindofA7,itwasarguedbyLd. DefenceCounselthatitwasjustbywayofcautionthatsuchaquery wasraised.Idisagreewithhissubmission.Whilediscussingtherole of accused Rakesh Kumar Hasija and Ramesh Chandra, I have reproducedthelastnotesheetinwhichithasbeenstatedthataudit of thesocietywas conductedintheyear197273andthere were somedeficienciesanditwasproposedtowritealettertothesociety toremovethosedeficiencies.Thereforeitwasclearthattherewould befurthernotesheetsandcommunicationsinthisfile,whicharenot available.FurthertherearemanycorrespondencesbetweentheRCS andthesocietyuptotheyear1975regardingwhichthereisnonote sheet available. Therefore a reasonable person on seeing this situationonthefilewouldnaturallyreachtotheconclusionthatthe notesheetafter1973aremissingfromthefile.Eithersomethingis beingconcealedorsomethingisbeingremovedfromthefileorthere is something which is not on the file. This is the reason that a

CC No. 45/2010

Page 188 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

question about status of this society arose and discussed by this accusedwithhissubordinatesi.e.RakeshKumarHasijaandRamesh Chandra. Butdespitehishavingseenthecleardeficienciesinthe file, the previous note sheet dated 13.1.2004 was reproduced verbatim. ItisarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselthataccusedJ.S.Sindhu only had supervisory role. It is submitted that J. S. Sindhu was appointedunderSection3(1)ofDCSActbutLt.Governordidnot makeanydelegationpowersuponJ.S.SindhuunderSection3(2)of DCSAct. ItisarguedthattheroleofA7wasonlysupervisoryin nature and there were several branches and zones under the supervisionofJ.S.SindhuJ.R.(East). NotonlythatJ.S.Sindhu washavingaheavyworkloadandthereareonlytwojointregistrars at that time. It is further argued that Joint Registrar cannot be expectedtovisitthefieldtopersonallycrosschecktherecords. IagreethatnopowersunderSectionDCSActweredelegated to J. S. Sindhu. However presuming that he was the supervisory authorityovermanybranchesandthathewashavingaheavywork load,itmustnotbeforgottenthatafilewherelistofmembersofa societyistoberecommendedtoDDAforallotmentoflandwasnota routinematter. Asperthesubmissionsofaccused,heusedtodeal with50to60filesperdayandinsuchcircumstanceshewillhaveto havefaithinhissubordinatestaff. Ld.Counselofthisaccusedhas

CC No. 45/2010

Page 189 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

argued vehemently that only a few notesheets were available on recordfromwhichitcouldnotbemadeoutastowhatisthestatus of the society. I have already stated that there was something manifest on record, which this public servant could not ignore. Whenthisaccusedwroteplsspkonthenoteon16.1.2004,there existed definite material on record that something very important wasamissinthefile. Thisisthereasonthathefeltitnecessaryto discusstheissueofstatusofthesociety.Ihavealsodiscussedearlier whiledealingtheroleofA2andA4thatthelastnotesheetdated 27.8.1973expressivelymentionsthattheauditfortheyear197273 had been done by the auditor and the society had been asked to removethedeficiencies.Furtherthereareletters/correspondenceon the record showing the communications between society and the assistantregistraruptotheyear1975.Nopublicservantcouldhave ignoredthisfactbecauseitisaclearlypointerthatsubsequentnote sheetsaremissing.InsuchcircumstancesitisnaturalforJ.R.(East) to raise a query. However, he did not object to the noting dated 20.1.2004inwhichitiswrittenthataspertherecordavailablethe auditofsocietyispendingsinceregistration.Itisarguedonbehalf ofthisaccusedthathehadonlyapprovedportionAofthisnote sheetwherebyFaizMohd.wasproposedtobeappointedasInspector forconductinginspectionunderSection54ofthepresentrunning condition of the society. True, but he cannot wriggle out of

CC No. 45/2010

Page 190 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

mentioningofafalsefactaboutauditandthefactthatnotesheetsof thefileweremissing. Onhavingseenthefewpapersavailableon this file,it becomesmanifestthattheproceedings were continued even after the year 1973. The note sheet dated 20.1.2004 specificallymentionsthattheissueofstatusofRangmahalCGHSwas discussedbyA.R.(East).ThisisanevidencethatJ.R.(East)knew thefactofmissingportionofthisfile,otherwisethisquerywouldnot havearisen.HoweverthedealingclerkandA.R.(East)reproduced thepreviousnotesheetverbatim(exceptthefirstlineinwhichthere isamentionofdiscussionregardingstatusofthesociety).TheJ.R. (East)nowcloseshiseyesanddoesnotaskastohowA.R.(East)or dealingassistantcametotheconclusionthatlandwasnotallotted and the society was non functional, even though the file speaks volumesthatthenotesheetsafter1973aremissing. J.R.(East) couldhaveaskedforconfirmationfromDDAregardingthestatusof thesociety. Hecouldhaveproposedthephysicalidentificationand verificationofafewmembersrandomly. Thethingsdidnotstophere. Whenadetailednoteofabout twelvepageswastypedbydealingassistant,ithadasmoothsailing. Infactitwasapprovedwithagreatspeed. Thenotewastypedby dealingassistanton19.3.2004. ItwassignedbyA.R.(East),J.R. (East)(i.e.thepresentaccused)andNarayanDiwakar,theRegistrar, onthesameday.Noneofthemraisedaqueryaboutthechangeof

CC No. 45/2010

Page 191 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

addressbythesocietyon20.8.1995withoutinformingtheofficeof RCS,nooneraisedtheobjectionsastowhytheenrollmentof70 freshmemberswasnotintimatedfromtimetotimedespitethefact thatthetheyhavebeenshowntohavebeenenrolledfromtheyear 1976totheyear1978. TheargumentsthatonceFaizMohd.had giventhereportverifyingthedocumentsandthenewaddressofthe societyandtheauditorhadauditedthe33yearsrecordsdoesnot holdgoodinviewofthefactthatnooneincludingJ.R.(East)raised aqueryastohowthesocietyhadwokenupaftersuchalongperiod ofhibernation. ThereisnoexplanationwhyJ.R.(East)hadclosed hiseyestothementioningofawrongfactinrespectoftheaudit. Theonlyexplanationisthatonseeingthatthenotesheetsofthefile weremissing,J.R.(East)raisedanobjectionbutthereaftermarched alongwiththetrainoftheconspirators. Alotofargumentshave been addressed that there is no evidence of conspiracy and Ld. DefenceCounselhasreferredtoRunuGhoshcaseandChidambaram Case to buttress the point that simply on the basis of noings and meetings,aconspiracycannotbepresumed.Iamoftheopinionthat eachcasehastobeseenintheperspectiveofitsownfacts.Therole ofthisaccusedcanbeunderstoodbythefollowingparagraph(para 69) of 2000CrLJ976 ofAndhra PradeshHighCourt whichis reproducedasunder: Itistruethattheconspiracymaybea chain, where each party performs even
CC No. 45/2010 Page 192 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

without the knowledge of the other, a role that aids or abets succeeding parties in accomplishing the criminal objectives of the conspiracy. For example, in a case of smuggling, what is done int he process of procuring and distributing narcotics or smuggledgoodsforsaleindifferentpartsof theglobe? Insuchacase,thesesmugglers, middlemen, retailers are privies to a single conspiracy to smuggle and distribute narcotics. Thesesmugglersknowthatthe middlemen must sell to retailers and the retailers know that the middlemen must buyfromimporters. Thustheconspirators at one end at the chain know that the unlawfulbusinesswouldnot,andcouldnot, stopwiththeirbuyers,andthoseattheother end know that it had not begun with their settlers. The action of each has to be consideredasaspokeinthehubtherebeing a rim to bind all the spokes together in a singleconspiracy. Sh. J. S. Sindhu is situated similarly as in the above stated illustration. The same speed is visible in the processing of the applicationforchangeofnameofthesociety.Itispertinenttonote that the list was approved by the RCS on 19.3.2004 and shortly thereafteranapplicationforchangeofthenameonthebasisofa GBMmeetingon27.3.2004wasmovedandwasapprovedbyA.R. (East), J. R. (East) and the registrar on the same day i.e. on 29.3.2004. Thespeedissuchthatnoneofthemevennoticedthat
CC No. 45/2010 Page 193 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

thefreshbyelawsofthesocietywiththenewnamedoesnoteven contain the fresh name of the society in Clause1 of the byelaws (D8).Itappearsthattheoperatorsoffakesocietywereconfident that whatever would be presented, the same would be accepted approvedandwouldbeforwarded.Thedutyofaveryseniorofficer isnotjusttoforwardaproposaltohigherauthorities.Hisdutyisto thoroughly read the file and give his independent opinion on a particularnotemovedbyhissubordinate.Thepurposeofhierarchy istoguideandcontrolsubordinatesandtochecktheirwrongdoings andfurthertoassisthissuperiorbyperformingtheworkassignedto him. Itmustnotbeforgottenthatitwasnotaroutinefile. This accusedmaybedealingwithlargernumberoffileseverydaybutall thesefilesdonotpertaintoallotmentoftheland. Hewasdealing withacasewhichinvolvedpublicinterest.Thelastnotesheetdated 27.8.1973 clearly reflects that the further communications for removingthedeficienciespointedoutbytheauditormusthavebeen made between the office of RCS and thesociety. Therefore there wereallthereasonstobelievethatthesocietymightnotbenon functional as mentioned in the note sheet dated 13.1.2004 and 20.1.2004,preparedbydealingassistantandA.R.(East). Ihave already discussed that this accused closed his eyes to a wrong mentionedinthesenotesheetsasdiscussedabove.Allthishasbeen donewithaviewtoaidandabettherecommendationoflistoffake

CC No. 45/2010

Page 194 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

members of the fake society. I agree that no evidence has been broughtonrecordtoshowthatthisaccusedhadmetDeepakKumar oranyotherpersonoperatingthefakesociety.Butthereisevidence that he had discussions with Ramesh Chandra and Rakesh Kumar Hasija(i.e.A2andA4)asreflectedinthenotingdated20.1.2004.I have already held that both of them, who were A. R. (East) and dealing assistant at the relevant time were in league with the operators of the fake society. Therefore his conduct is clearly dishonestandIamconvincedthatnotonlyhehasabusedhisofficial positiontoobtainpecuniaryadvantagetothefakeoperatorsofthe society and had also acted against the public interest by recommendingfortheapprovalofthelistofmembersinquestion. The fact and circumstances clearly show that he was part of the entireconspiracy. Thoughheonlyconspiredwithhissubordinates andsuperiors,andhisrolewasonlythatofanintermediatorybut hisrolewasimportant. Hadhenotbeeninleague,hewouldhave definitelypointedoutthefactofthepossibilityofthesocietystill beingfunctionalandthefactofaudithavingbeenconductedforthe year197273. NarayanDiwakar(A8) Asdiscussedearlier,Iwouldtakeuptheissueastowhat meantasreasontobelieveinthepresentsetofcircumstances.In 1987Cr.L.J.1061,itwasheldthattheissueofreasontobelieveon
CC No. 45/2010 Page 195 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

partofapublicservanthastobeviewedfromtheanglethatapublic servant with his experience and eye for details would catch up a culpriteventhoughthereisnoconcreteevidenceavailablewithhim. Apublicservantissupposedtobeendowedwithanauthorityand experiencetoseethroughthefilesandfraudsbeingcommitted,if any. Although, the court cannot substitute its wisdom when the questionofreasontobelieveistobeascertained.However,when thereismanifestdisregardtothefactsavailableonrecord,thepublic servantwillhavetoshowastowhyhehadtobelievecertainfacts despitematerialtothecontraryLd.Counselforaccusedarguesthat whataRegistrarcouldhavedonewhenamatterhasbeenthrashed atthelevelofDealingClerk,ARandJRandwhenhehadappointed an inspecting officer to inspect the records and the status of the society.ItisarguedthatNarayanDiwakarhadactedingoodfaithin approvingthelistofmembersofRangmahalCGHSandthathenever hadanyreasontobelievethatthesociety,itsmembersandoffice bearersaswellasthedocumentsproducedbythesocietyarefake. Ld.CounselforaccusedNarayanDiwakarhasreferredto Subramaniam Swami Vs A.Raja, already referred by me and has compared his role with his role in the present case. It is further argued that interpretation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. P . Chidambaram'scasewouldoverridethejudgmentofHon'bleDelhi HighCourtinRunuGhosh'scase.IhaveperusedtheSubramaniam
CC No. 45/2010 Page 196 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Swamy'scase.Hon'bleSupremeCourthasnottouchedthequestion ofmensreainSection13(1)(d)(iii)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct. Sofarasthequestionofconspiracyisconcerned,Hon'bleSupreme Courthasheldthatthereisnoevidencetothateffectandawrong judgment or an inaccurate approach or poor management by itselfcannotbesaidtobeaproductofcriminalconspiracy. Onperusalofthefactsofthiscase,Iamoftheopinionthat entiresetofthefactsarealtogetherdifferentintwocases.Eachcase is to be seen on its own merits. However, the Principles of Law wouldnotchange. NowItakeuptheissueastowhatistheroleofaRegistrar inRCSinapprovingthelistofmembers.Ihavealreadystatedthat landinDelhiisamostpreciouscommoditybecauseofitsscarcity and its location being in the capital of India. Therefore, the hierarchy starting from the Dealing Clerk upto the Registrar is required to assess each and every matter at its own level independently.Tosaythatwhentheentirehierarchybeforehimhad approvedanote,whathehadtodowouldbeanargumentwhich defeatstheentirepurposeofbureaucratichierarchy. Inthepresent case,asocietywascomingafter30yearsofitsregistration. Inthe application, it has stated that it had changed its address. In this application, they also stated that they had introduced 70 more membersinit. Therecordshowsthatthefactsmentionedinthe
CC No. 45/2010 Page 197 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

notings are contrary to the material available on the file. The Registrar is the repository of all powers under DCS Act. The importance of the role of Registrar has been specified in 'Kaveri's judgment'byHon'bleHighCourtofDelhiwhichsaysthateffectof approvalofthelististhattheRegistrarsignifiedthecorrectnessof thelist,asfiledbythesociety.Imaypointoutthattheabovestated factswereenoughtoleadthroughaconclusionthatthereissome fraudinvolvedinthisapplication. However,apartfromit,ithasto beseenastoinwhatcircumstances,thethingshadhappened. I would refer to the 120 affidavits of the fake members placed in D9. All these affidavits have been purchased on 29.12.2003,asisclearfromthedatestampimpressiononthebackof theseaffidavits. DeepakKumarhadmovedanapplicationreceived byNarayanDiwakaron29.12.2003itselfasisclearfromthedate put by him as signature at point B on the said application Ext.PW85/A8. Theseare120affidavitsinnumberandallofthem are attested by Oath Commissioner on 01.01.2004 and thereafter werepresentedintheofficeofRCS.ThisapplicationExt.PW85/A8 dt.29.12.2003isinthreepages.Onpageno.2ofthisapplication,it isspecificallymentionedastowhatdocumentshavebeenenclosed withtheapplicationforapprovalofthefinallistofmembers.Asper the contents of page 2, these documents were filed in 2 volumes. Underheading'VolumeI',thereisheading'Enrollments'atpoint6.
CC No. 45/2010 Page 198 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Underthisheading,thereisareferenceof'originalaffidavitsof120 membersforwhichapprovalisrequired.'Ithasonlyonemeaning that although the affidavits are shown to have been attested on 01.01.2004butinfactthesaiddateisafakedate. Imaypointout that PW66 Sh. Sudhir Mittal, Adv. the Oath Commissioner whose stamp appears on these affidavits categorically denied having attestedtheseaffidavits.Therefore,thereisforgeryofattestationon theseaffidavits. Itappearsthatdate01.01.2004isshownbecause theforgererswereawarethatitwouldnotbebelievablethatstamp papers for the affidavits of as many as 120 members which were produced on 29.12.2003, would be sworn by those members and collected by the society on that very day. Therefore, a date of attestationafteraboutthethreedayswasforgedontheseaffidavits. Otherwise, there is no explanation as to when these affidavits annexedwiththeapplicationreceivedbyRCSon29.12.2003,how theystandattestedonsubsequentdatesbyOathCommissioner.Ld. PublicProsecutorsubmitsthatthisforgeryofattestationappearsto havetakenplaceintheofficeofRCS. Iagreethatthisisalsoone possibility.Thesecircumstancesareadefinitepointertothefactthat the perpetrators of fake society got a nod from the person who matteredandassoonastheygotthisnod,theystartedtheprocess withfullspeedfullynotingthatwhatevertheywouldfilewouldget throughpassingallthehierarchicallevelsoftheRCS. Itdoesnot

CC No. 45/2010

Page 199 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

need to be point out that the only person empowered to approve theselistswasSh.NarayanDiwakar(thethenRegistrar)andnoone else. Therefore,Iamnotleftinanydoubtthatthegoaheadis from no other person than accused Narayan Diwakar, the then Registrar. I reiterate that the application was filed by the fake Secretary Deepak Kumar on 29.12.2003 and just two days after AR(Audit)writesalettertoAR(East)dt.31.12.2003Ext.PW85/A14, althoughtheletterhadnotyetreachedhim.Imaypointoutthatthe letterofDeepakKumarExt.PW85/A8reachedAR(E)on10.02.2004. However, in anticipation of the said letter, a note proposing the appointment of Faiz Mohd. was written by Dealing Assistant and AR(East) forappointing of Faiz Mohd. to appointaninspectorfor conducting the inspection. Otherwise, there was no reason for appointingsuchaninspector. ImaypointoutthatAR(Audit)had only asked information regarding status of the society from the records. The work of AR(East) would have ended by simply informingastowhatwasthestatusofthesociety.Allthisconductof thepersonswhohadpresentedtheapplicationandaffidavitstothe Registrar, conduct of AR(Audit) and conduct of AR(East) and preparationoffakeauditandfakeinspectionreportbyRCSofficials supportstheinferencethattherewasasignalof'goahead'bynone otherthantheRegistrar. Though, the filewas heldup forabout oneweekon an
CC No. 45/2010 Page 200 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

inquirybyJR(E),butthereafter,therewasunbelievablespeedwith whichthelistwasapproved.Sameistrueaboutthechangeofname ofsociety.Imayaddherethatalltheseforgeriesontheaffidavitsof 120membersweredoneontheverydatei.e.29.12.2003onwhich applicationwasfiledbyDeepakKumar. Imayaddherethatinthe detailednotedt.19.03.2004atpage17,ithasbeenmentionedthat this society has also mentioned the submission of affidavits in originalbutitisnowherementionedthatthesamewerefurnishedon 19.03.2004. On the other hand, page 2 of the application Ext.PW85/A8 dt. 29.12.2003 specifically mentions that these originalaffidavitswereenclosedwiththesaidapplication. Asdiscussedabove,thecircumstancesspeakvolumesasto onwhoseinstructionsalltheRCSofficialswereactingsuperblyin unison.Sh.J.S.SindhuJR(E)hadputaquerybuthetoofellinline verysoonasIhavealreadydiscussed.Therefore,Iamoftheopinion that the act of accused Narayan Diwakar in approving the list of membersofthesocietyandforwardingittoDDAisnotonlyabuseof official position in attempt to obtain pecuniary advantage to the personsoperatingthefakesocietybutalsoIaminnodoubtthathe wasactinginconspiracywiththem.Achainwhichstartedfromthe fakeoperatorsofthefakesociety,completelyjoinsalltheaccused personsinthepresentcase.Imayaddherethatallactsheldtobe joinedaltogethertoseeastowhatactualpictureisemerging. The
CC No. 45/2010 Page 201 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

approvalofchangeofnameofsocietyhasbeendonewithaviewto avoid detection because the actual Rangmahal CGHS had already beenallotedapieceofland.EvenFaizMohd.inhisreporthadnote thatthelastelectionofthesocietywasconductedon28.12.2003i.e. onlyonedaypriortothefilingoftheapplicationbythesaidDeepak KumarbeforeRCSatthecostofreiteration.Iwouldsaythatallthe officialssubordinatetoRegistrardrawtheirpowersfromhim. No powersofDCSActhavebeendelegatedtothem. Therefore,nota leafwouldmoveintheofficeofRCS withouttheapprovalofthe Registrar. Therefore,thecircumstancesleaveshowthatitwaswith theprioragreementwithNarayanDiwakarthateverythingstarted suddenlyandwithagreatspeed. Itisacaseofbadfaithasthereistotalabuseofpowersby theRegistrarandthecircumstancesaresufficientenoughtoholdall theaccusedpersonsguiltyinabuseofpowersforabuseofofficial positionaswellasforconspiringwitheachother. OVERALLSCENARIO Ihavediscussedabovetheroleofeachaccusedseparately. Now their role has to be seen in reference to the entire web of circumstances.Thisisnecessarybecausetheroleofeachaccused,if seeninisolation,maynotconstituteanyoffencebutifseenintotality itbecomesclearthathewasanactiveparticipantinsuchoffence.In
CC No. 45/2010 Page 202 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

AjayAggarwalvsUnionofofIndia,1993AIR(SC1637)Hon'ble SupremeCourtcited1970(2)SCR760oftheconstitutionbenchof Supreme Court before whom it was contended that several acts whichconstitutetomakeanoffenceu/s120BIPCshouldbesplitup inpartsandthecriminalliabilityofanaccusedmustonlybejudged withregardtothepartplayedbyhim. Theargumentsbeforethe Hon'bleSupremeCourtwasthattheaccusedinquestionhadarole only in helping in opening of a particular account and to help another accused by keeping watch over such account. Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected this contention holding that the act ofan accusedshouldbeseeninviewoftheentireconspiracyanditcannot beseeninisolation. Inviewofabovecaselawthecourtistoseeastowhat picturefinallyemerges.Theprosecutionhasprovedthatallthe120 membersofthisalternativesocietyarefake. EvenDeepakKumar thepersonappearingbeforetheRCSofficialsandinteractingwith themisafakepersonandinfactdoesnotexist.Theaffidavitsofall the 120 members are forged affidavits. All the copies of the proceedingsofthesocietypresentedtotheofficeofRCSareforged. The address, where the office of society was shown to have been shifted,infactisafakeaddressinthesensethattheofficeofsociety neverexistedatthisaddress.TheinspectornamelyFaizMohd.gives afalsereportaboutmeetingofDeepakKumaratthisnewaddress
CC No. 45/2010 Page 203 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

and having verified the documents of the society. Auditor P K. . Thirwanipreparesfalseauditformorethan30years. Sh.Jitender SinghSharma(ARAudit)falselymentionsinhislettertoAR(East) thattilldatenoauditofthesocietyhadbeenconducted. Dealing Assistant namely Rakesh Kumar Hasija and AR (East) namely RameshChandraalsowritefalselyintheirnotesheetsthatnoaudit of the society had been conducted since the time of inception. NeitherdealingassistantnamelyRakeshKumarHasija,norAR(East) namelyRameshChandra,norJR(East)J.S.Sindhu,norNarayan Diwakar,theRegistrar,notedthatthelastnotingoftheyear1973 andthelettersofthesocietyupto1975reflectthatthesocietywas functionalatleastuptotheyear1975.Noneofthemnotedintheir officialnotingsthatthenotesheetsaftertheyear1973weremissing fromthefile. Theglaringfactisthattheofficialfileofthesociety shouldhavebeeninCentralNewDelhiZone.Howeverthefileisin handsofRameshChandraAR(East)Zone.Thisexplainsthereason astowhyintheapplicationdated29.12.2003aswellasintheante datedandforgedresolutionofthesociety,thenewaddressofthe societyhasbeenshowninMayurViharwhichfellinthejurisdiction ofRameshChandra. Itdoesnotrequireanyfertileimaginationto understand as to why the fake secretary of the fake society is appearing in response to a letter Ex.PW85/A9 addressed to such fakesocietyatafakeaddress.Itneedstobeunderstoodthataccused

CC No. 45/2010

Page 204 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

SriChand,SushilKumarSharma,AnnaWankhedeandMohanLal, whohavebeenprovedtobetheoperatorsofthefakesociety,werein possessionofalltheparticularsoforiginalRangmahalSocietyi.e.its name,registrationnumber,originalofficialaddress,namesofthe50 promoter membersetc. Due topossession ofallthisinformation, they were able to get the fake affidavit etc. prepared. But the questionisastofromwheretheseoperatorsofthefakesocietygot all theseparticulars. There isno possibilityoftheir havingit got fromtheoriginalsociety.Thereforetheonlyplacefromwherethey couldhavegotisfromtheRCSofficials.Thisprovesastohowthe RCS officials were in league with these conspirators. Sh. J. S. Sindhu, who was the Joint Registrar (East), had actually seen throughthefile. Butthereafterheconvenientlyignoredthefactof missingnotesheetsandthefactthatthesocietywasstilloperational after1973anddidnotputanoteastowhydealingassistantandAR (East) did not raise the objection as to why the society did not intimateRCSaboutchangeofaddressandastowhytheenrollment of about 70 members in the year 1976, 1977 and 1978 were not intimated to the RCS. Right from the dealing assistant upto the Registrar,noneoftheofficialsreactedtothefactastohowsuddenly aftermorethan30years,asocietyhaswokenupandhadmovedan applicationforsendingthelistofmembers.Imaypointoutthatthe RCSofficialsweresoeagerinthiscasethatalthoughtheletterdated

CC No. 45/2010

Page 205 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

29.12.2003hadnotreachedAR(East)orAR(Audit),stillAR(Audit) initiated the file asking AR (East) to inform about the status of society for the purpose of audit. Further AR (Audit) without approval from the registrar, orders for conducting audit for more than30years.ThisshowsthatAR(Audit)wasconfidentthathisact would not meet any objection from the registrar. I have already discussedthatfactofthesocietyhavingbeenauditedfortheyear 197273whichisclearlyreflectedinthelastordersheetavailableon D8.ButthedealingclerkandAR(East)madeawrongnotingthat as per available record, the audit of the society had not been conductedsinceinception.Ihavealreadydiscussedthatthisfactwas alsonotedbyJ.S.Sindhubutstillhedidnotcorrecthissubordinates onthispoint.Ihavealreadydiscussedthatthemannerinwhichthe operatorsofthefakesocietyhadsuddenlybecameactiveinforging 120affidavitsoffakememberson29.12.2003andonthatveryday, these affidavits were submitted along with the application dated 29.12.2003beforetheRegistrar,itleavesnothingtotheimagination. This proves beyond reasonable doubt that as soon as Narayan Diwakar,thethenRCS,firedtheshot,therelayracebegan.Inview oftheseoverallcircumstances,thequestionofprotectionofSection 197CrPCistobeconsidered.Thefactsmentionedbymeasabove clearlyshowthattheofficialactofthepublicservantshereisonly thetipoftheconspiratorialiceberg.Theactualconspiracyinwhich

CC No. 45/2010

Page 206 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

thesepublicservantshaveparticipatedisquitebigandbeyondthe officialbusiness. ThereforenoprotectionunderSection197CrPC wouldbeavailabletoanyoftheaccusedpersonsforthepurposeof their prosecution as well as conviction. The role of each public servantaswellastheotheraccusedpersonswouldshowthatallof themhadactedinconspiracywitheachother. Ifevenoneofthem had acted honestly, the scam would not have happened. For example,hadP .K.ThirwaniorFaizMohd.reportedthatnosociety existedatthegivenaddress,haddealingclerkRakeshKumarHasija, AR(East)RameshChandra,JR(East)J.S.Sindhuhadnotedthatthe pagesaremissingfromthefileandthattherewasevidenceonthe file to show that it was functional even after 1973 and therefore therewasneedtotakefurtherstepstoverifyastowhethertheland has been allotted to the society or not, the scam would not have happened. Imaypointoutthatthelandwasallottedtotheactual societyintheyear1977.Hadanyoftheseofficialsmadeaninquiry fromDDA,thetruepicturewouldhavecome.HadJR(East)raiseda queryastohowafileofCentralNewDelhiZonehascometothe East Zone, the conspiracy would not have been successful. The lightning speed with which the affidavits of 120 members were preparedandannexedwiththeapplicationdated29.12.2003andthe lightningspeedwithwhichtheproposalforsendinglistofmembers was recommended and approved on 19.3.2004 on which dealing

CC No. 45/2010

Page 207 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

assistant,AR(East),JR(East)andRegistrarputtheirsignatureson this note and the great speed shown by these public servants in changingthenameofthesocietyfurthershowsthatitmetnohurdle becauseallofthesepublicservantsknewthatthechangeofnameof this societywouldfacilitate inallotment oftheland. Allofthem wereawareoftheextremelyhighvalueoftheland,whichtheywere going to recommend for. It was not a routine and ordinary file. Noneofthesepublicservantshavestatedorbroughtonrecordthat theyusedtodealwithlargenumberofsuchtypeoffileseveryday. Theoverallcircumstancesexhibititatotalanddishonestfailureof entirebureaucraticmachineryintheofficeofRCS. Notonlythese publicservantshaveabusedtheirofficialpositionmakinganattempt toobtainpecuniaryadvantagefortheotheraccusedpersonsnamely SriChand,SushilKumarSharma,MohanLalandAnnaWankhede withinthedefinitionofSection13(1)(d)(ii)butalsotheiractisfully coveredunderSection13(1)(d)(iii)becausetheyattemptedtoobtain the pecuniary advantage to the aforesaid persons without public interest.Bynowitisasettledlawthataconspiratormaynotknow astowhattheotherconspiratorsaredoingbutifheaidsorabetsin anymannercommissionofthesaidcrime,hewouldbeequallyliable fortheactscommittedbytheotherconspirators.Ithasbeenargued that the RCS does not allot the land. However, it must not be forgottenthatDDAisboundbythedirectionsofHon'bleHighCourt

CC No. 45/2010

Page 208 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

toallotthelandaspertheseniorityofthesocietybythedateof registration maintained by the office of RCS. When Registrar authenticatesthelistofmembersofthesociety,theDDAhasonlyto seeitssenioritywhileallottingtheland.Therefore,authenticationof list of members by the Registrar is the most important act which leadstoallotmentoflandbyDDA.Therefore,Registrarhastotake hisindependentdecisionafterthoroughlygoingthroughthefileasto whether everything is alright or not. I have discussed that even thoughP .K.ThirwaniandFaizMohd.hadgiventheirreports,but,still thefileitselfspokevolumesaboutthefraudbeingperpetrated.His plea that he acted in routine manner cannot be accepted because higheristheauthority,thegreaterisresponsibility. Inthepresent case,allthepublicservantshaveintentionallyaidedincarryingout thepurposeoftheconspiracyhatchedbySriChand,SushilKumar Sharma,AnnaWankhedeandMohanLal. ThereforeSection120B IPCtakesintoitssweepalltheaccusedpersons. Notonlyallthese public servants abused their official positions in attempt to obtain pecuniaryadvantagetoSriChand,AnnaWankhede,MohanLaland Sushil Kumar Sharma, but, also had attempted to procure pecuniaryadvantagewithoutthepublicinterest. Thegravityof theoffenceinthepresentcasecanbeunderstoodbythesituation whichwouldhavearisen,ifthelandtothisfakesocietywouldhave been allotted by DDA. This possibility was real because in every

CC No. 45/2010

Page 209 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

GovernmentDepartmentthecorruptionhastakendeeproots. Had thelandbeenallottedtothefakesociety,theentirelandwouldhave comeinthehandsofSriChandetc.,whowouldhavesoldtheflatsat the market value and had earned immense wealth illegally to the greatdisadvantagetothepublicaswellastotheState. Accordingly, I convict all the accused persons for the offencesu/s120BIPCr/wSection420/468/471IPCandalsor/w Section13(2)r/w13(1)(d)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct1988. IfurtherconvictaccusedRameshChandra,RakeshKumar Hasija,J.S.Sharma,JasbirSinghSindhu,P .K.Thirwani,FaizMohd. andNarayanDiwakarfortheoffencesu/s13(2)r/wSection13(1) (d)r/wSection15ofthePreventionofCorruptionAct1988. IfurtherconvictaccusedAnnaWankhedeandMohanLal fortheoffencesu/s468IPC. Announcedintheopen courton29.8.2012. (VINODKUMAR) SpecialJudgeII,CBI, RohiniCourt,Delhi

CC No. 45/2010

Page 210 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

INTHECOURTOFSH.VINODKUMAR SPECIALJUDGEII(PCACT,CBI),ROHINI,DELHI IDNo.02404R0649862007 RC22(E)/2005/EOWII/DLI CCNo.45/2010(RangmahalCGHS) CBIVs 1. SriChand S/oLateSh.HariSingh R/o274A,PocketC,MayurVihar,PhaseII, Delhi. 2. RameshChandra S/oLateSh.AgyaRam R/oCD/52F,DDAFlatHariNagar,NewDelhi64. 3. FaizMohammed, S/oSh.GhulamMohammed, R/o4794,HaataKedara,PahariDharaj,NewDelhi. 4. RakeshKumarHasija S/oSh.UdhoDass, R/oFlatNo.1113,TypeII,DelhiAdmn.Flats GulabiBagh,Delhi. 5. PrahladKumarThirwani S/oLateSh.MotiRamThirwani R/o348E,Pocket2,MayurVihar,PhaseI, Delhi91. 6. JitenderSinghSharma S/oSh.NarayanSingh R/o1073/A3,WardNo.1,Mehrauli, NewDelhi30. 7. JasbirSinghSindhu S/oDr.BharatSingh R/oA315,MeeraBagh,NewDelhi. 8. NarayanDiwakar S/oLateSh.ChattiLal R/oG30,MasjidMoth,NewDelhi48. 9. SushilKumarSharma S/oSh.MadanLalSharma R/oVill.Lalsa,P .O.Dansa,TehsilRampurBushar,
CC No. 45/2010 Page 211 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

10.

11.

Distt.Shimla,HimachalPradesh. AnnaWankhede D/oLateSh.Parunji R/o148E,PocketII,MayurVihar,PhaseIII, Delhi91. MohanLal S/oLateSh.AjmeriLal R/oF228/3,AndrewsGanj,NewDelhi49.

ORDERONSENTENCE 3.9.2012 Present: Sh.A.P .Singh,Ld.P .forCBI. .P SIChanderBhanandASIOmPrakash,PairviOfficerforCBI. Alltheconvictsarepresentonbail. ConvictsSriChand(A1)andMohanLal(A11)onbailwith Sh.VijayPalSingh,adv.(AmicusCurie). ConvictsRameshChandra(A2),RakeshKr.Hasija(A4)andP . K.Thirwani(A5)onbailwithcounselSh.S.K.Bhtnagar,adv.. ConvictSushilKr.Sharma(A9)onbailwithcounselSh.S.K. Bhatnagar,adv.,Ld.AmicusCurie. Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv. is also representing convict Faiz Mohd. (A3), whose presence is exempted for today due to his sudden illness. Convict J. S. Sharma (A6) on bail with counsel Sh. S. P . Mehta,adv. ConvictJ.S.Sindhu(A7)onbailwithcounselSh.Birender Bhatt,adv. ConvictNarayanDiwakar(A8)onbailwithcounselDr.Sushil Gupta,adv. Convict Anna Wankhede (A10) on bail with counsel Sh. AbhishekPrasad,adv. Argumentsonsentenceheard.Thecircumstancesofthiscaseshow thathadtheconspiracybeensuccessful,itshugebenefitswouldhavebeen earned by convicts Sri Chand (A1), Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9), Anna
CC No. 45/2010 Page 212 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Wankhede (A10) and Mohan Lal (A11), who have been held as the operatorsofthefakesociety. Keepinginviewthisfact,Isentencetheconvictsasunder: ConvictsSriChand(A1).SushilKumarSharma(A9),AnnaWankhede (A10)andMohanLal(A11) Iawardalloftheseconvictsasentenceofrigorousimprisonmentfor threeyearsandafineinthesumofRs.1000/eachunderSection120B IPCreadwithSection420/468/471IPCandalsoreadwithSection13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In defaultofpaymentoffine,theyshallfurtherundergosimpleimprisonfor onemontheach. IfurthersentencetheconvictsAnnaWankhede(A10)andMohan Lal(A11)forrigorousimprisonmentforthreeyearsandafineinthesum ofRs.1000/eachunderSection468IPC.Indefaultofpaymentoffine, theyshallfurtherundergosimpleimprisonmentforonemontheach. Allthesentencesshallrunconcurrentlyandtheperiod,whichthey havealreadyundergoneduringtrial,wouldbesetofagainstthesentence. ConvictsRameshChandra(A2),FaizMohd.(A3),RakeshKumar Hasija(A4),P .K.Thirwani(A5),J.S.Sharma(A6),JasbirSingh Sindhu(A7)andNarayanDiwakar(A8) Consideringallfactsandcircumstances,Isentenceallofthemto rigorousimprisonmentfor oneyear andafineinthesumof Rs.1000/ eachunderSection120BIPCreadwithSection420/468/471IPCand alsoreadwithSection13(2)readwithSection13(1)(d)ofPreventionof Corruption Act1988. Indefaultofpayment of fine,theyshall further undergosimpleimprisonmentforonemontheach. Ifurtherawardasentenceofrigorousimprisonmentfor oneyear andafineinthesumofRs.1000/eachtoalltheaforesaidconvictsunder Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 15 of
CC No. 45/2010 Page 213 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.

Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

PreventionofCorruptionAct1988. Indefaultofpaymentoffine,they shallfurtherundergosimpleimprisonmentforonemonth. Allthesentencesshallrunconcurrentlyandtheperiod,ifany,which theyhavealreadyundergoneduringthetrial,wouldbesetofagainstthe sentencesawardedtothemasabove. Filebeconsignedtorecordroom. Announcedintheopen courton3.9.2012. (VinodKumar) Spl.JudgeII,CBI, RohiniCourts,Delhi

CC No. 45/2010

Page 214 / 214

Related Interests