Rangmahal CHGS Scam Delhi Judgement

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMARSPECIAL JUDGEII (PC ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI

ID No. 02404R0649862007RC 22(E)/2005/EOWII/DLICC No. 45/2010CBI Vs 1. Sri Chand

S/o Late Sh. Hari SinghR/o 274A, PocketC, Mayur Vihar, PhaseII,Delhi.

2. Ramesh ChandraS/o Late Sh. Agya RamR/o CD/52F, DDA Flat Hari Nagar, New Delhi64.

3. Faiz Mohammed,S/o Sh. Ghulam Mohammed,R/o 4794, Haata Kedara, Pahari Dharaj, New Delhi.

4. Rakesh Kumar HasijaS/o Sh. Udhoo Dass,R/o Flat No. 113, TypeII, Delhi Admn. Flats Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. O/o Executive Engineer, Irrigation & Food Control Deptt., Civil DivisionII Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

5. Prahlad Kumar ThirwaniS/o Late Sh. Moti Ram ThirwaniR/o 348E, Pocket2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi91.

6. Jitender Singh SharmaS/o Sh. Narayan SinghR/o 1073/A3, Ward No.1, Mehrauli,New Delhi30.

7. Jasbir Singh SindhuS/o Dr. Bharat SinghR/o A315, Meera Bagh, New Delhi.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 1 / 214


8. Narayan DiwakarS/o Late Sh. Chatti LalR/o G30, Masjid Moth, New Delhi48.

9. Sushil Kumar SharmaS/o Sh. Madan Lal SharmaR/o Vill. Lalsa, P.O. Dansa, Tehsil Rampur Bushar,Distt. Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

10. Anna WankhedeD/o Late Sh. ParunjiR/o 148E, PocketII, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII,Delhi91.

11. Mohan LalS/o Late Sh. Ajmeri LalR/o F228/3, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi49.

Date on which the final arguments were concluded : 22.8.2012Date of judgment : 29.8.2012

JUDGEMENT

In CWP No. 2885/90 i.e. Kaveri CGHS Vs Union of India,

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed an order dated 10.5.1991 to the

effect that original date of registration of society with RCR Office was

to be considered for establishing the seniority of the society for

allotment of land by DDA. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.

10066/2004 had passed an order Ex.PW90/A7 (D147), wherein it

was observed that there appeared to be a nexus between the builders

taking over the cooperative movement in Delhi in connivance with

the officials of Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It was observed

that land in Delhi is alloted at a predetermined rate and not on the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 2 / 214


basis of the market value of the land. These cooperative societies

were formed in order to have flats at a affordable price by middle

income group and lower income group. It was observed that its

element of profit making in view of difference of market value of

land and value on which the land is allotted to the society, which has

resulted in nexus between the builders and officials. In view of the

enormous amount of money invested and involvement of the accused

persons, nature of crime and voluminous records Hon'ble High Court

directed CBI to formulate a special investigating team to investigate

the whole matter. Preliminary enquiry in respect of the each society

in all 135 societies was conducted and in appropriate cases the

regular cases were registered including the present one i.e.

Rangmahal CGHS.

Prosecution case in brief is that during 197080 or thereafter, a

large number of Group Housing Societies were registered.

It is alleged that Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. was registered on

31.3.1973 vide Regn. No. 152 (GH) with 15 promoter members,

having its registered office at 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi on the

basis of an application dated 15.1.1973 submitted by Sh. Sumat

Prasad Jain, the then Secretary of the society and that subsequently

the membership of the society was enhanced to 50 in the next

General Body Meeting.

Investigation has further established that Sh. M. A. Hashmi, the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 3 / 214


then Asstt. Registrar in 199192, had verified and forwarded a list of

51 members of Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. vide his letter dated

8.11.1991. It is further alleged that in 1977, Rangmahal CGHS Ltd.

had been allotted 1 acre of land at Plot No. 13, Pitampura, Delhi, its

possession was taken by the society and 50 flats constructed, which

were subsequently allotted to the genuine members of Rangmahal

CGHS Ltd. through draw of lots held in the presence of DDA & RCS

officials on 23.1.1993. M. A. Hashmi, the then Assistant Registrar,

also addressed a letter dated 24.11.1992 to DDA for draw of lots of

the society. He further clarified that one member was allotted a flat

much later under the orders of the Supreme Court and, therefore,

strength of the society went upto 51. Sh. SMS Chaudhary, the then

Executive Officer, DDA had proved the allotment of a plot of 1 acre to

Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. vide his letter dated 31.3.1977 addressed to

the Secretary of the society.

The members occupied these flats and are residing there since

then. The audit of the society had also been conducted regularly till

199293.

It is alleged that in the year 2003 the builder mafia in collusion

with RCS officials hatched a conspiracy to create a duplicate

Rangmahal society with the same registration number, as it was one

of the earliest societies to be registered and therefore had the real

chances of quick allotment of land by DDA in view of the seniority

CC No. 45/2010 Page 4 / 214


criteria as laid down in Kaveri's judgement. Hence a fake secretary

of the fake society, namely Sh. Deepak Kumar, made an application

for the audit of the society in the year 2003 on the basis of which, the

matter was taken up by the RCS and the defucnt society was

activated and further at the request of Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary,

the name of the society was also changed to 'Silver View Apartments

CGHS Ltd'.

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, submitted a false inspection report on 3.2.2004 in which

he had stated to have visited the office of the society on 31.1.2004,

where he was informed that the office of the society had been shifted

from 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur

Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi96. He has further stated to have visited the

new address of the society on 1.2.2004 and met Sh. Deepak Kumar,

Secretary of the society, whereas, infact, he had neither visited the

old address nor new address and had submitted a false inspection

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


application dated 29.12.2003 was submitted by Sh. Deepak Kumar, a

socalled Secretary of the society and a nonexistent entity, requesting

the Assistant Registrar (East) for the approval of final list of 120

members for allotment of land. It was further mentioned in the said

application that the registered address of the society had been shifted

to 147G, Pkt. A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi96, vide

Management Committee Resolution dated 20.8.1995. It was further

mentioned in the letter that the society had 50 promoter members

belonging to the lower middle class, who were mostly salaried

persons, having no roof over their heads in Delhi and that the society

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

society held on 28.12.2003 and it was decided to submit a request to

the RCS for approval of final list of 120 members. The Management

Committee of the said society also sought condonation of the various

irregularities occurred due to lack of knowledge on the part of the

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

existing society at a different address and also to change the name of

CC No. 45/2010 Page 6 / 214


the society to avoid detection of the same. This letter was received

by Narayan Diwakar (A8), the then RCS on 29.12.2003 and marked

to Joint Registrar (East) i.e. A7.

Investigation has further revealed that J. S. Sharma (A6), the

then Assistant registrar (Audit) sent a letter dated 30.12.2003 to

Assistant registrar (East) (i.e. A2) mentioning therein that a letter

had been received from Deepak Kumar, Secretary of Rangmahal

CGHS Ltd., Registration No. 152 (H) dated 31.3.1973, requesting for

the audit of the society since its inception, as the same was pending.

He requested the Assistant registrar (East) to confirm the status of

the members of the society so that further action could be taken.

This letter was received by Ramesh Chandra (A2), the then Assistant

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

receipt of the letter from J. S. Sharma, the then Assistant registrar

(Audit). On 13.1.2004, in the first note of Rakesh Kumar Hasija

(A4), the then Dealing Assistant, it has been dishonestly and

fraudulently mentioned that as per the records available, the audit of

the society was pending since registration and no list had been sent

to DDA for allotment of land till date and no liquidation order was

available in the file. It was further mentioned that as per the

available records, status of the society was nonfunctional. In this

CC No. 45/2010 Page 7 / 214


note, a suggestion was incorporated to inform the position to

Assistant registrar (Audit) and to appoint Faiz Mohd. As Inspector to

conduct inspection of the society u/s 54 of the DCS Act 1972. This

note was approved by Ramesh Chandra, the then Assistant Registrar

(East) and further by Jasbir Singh Sindhu, the then Joint Registrar

(East) on 16.1.2004 after discussion with Ramesh Chandra, the then

Assistant Registrar (East). Ramesh Chadra, put up a note dated

20.1.2004 with the suggestion to appoint Faiz Mohd. as Inspecting

Officer. This proposal was approved by Narayan Diwakar, the then

RCS on 21.1.2004.

Investigating has further revealed that Faiz Mohd. submitted an

inspection report dated 3.2.2004 which was put up by Rakesh Kumar

Hasija (A4), the then Dealing Assistant on 10.2.2004. In his note,

Rakesh Kumar Hasija mentioned that the inspecting officer visited

the office of the society in Mayur Vihar and met Sh. Pradeep Kumar,

Secretary of the society, who produced all the relevant records and

informed that there were 120 members in the society but the list of

members had not yet been approved by the RCS for allotment of

land. It was further recorded that membership register was complete

in all respects and that the audit of the society was pending since

1.7.1970 onwards. Further, as per the report of Faiz Mohd., the

election of the society was held last on 28.12.2003 and that all the

records of the society were in the safe custody of Sh. Deepak Kumar,

CC No. 45/2010 Page 8 / 214


Secretary for production of complete original record on 20.2.2004 at

12.00 which was approved by Ramesh Chandra, the then Assistant

registrar (East). It may be mentioned there that the name of Pradeep

Kumar, Secretary has figured twice in the note dated 10.2.2004

recorded by Rakesh Kumar Hasija, the then Dealing Assistant

whereas in the same note, he has mentioned that all the records were

in the safe custody of Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary, as per the

inspection report submitted by Faiz Mohd.

Investigation has further revealed that premises no. 147G, Pkt.

A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi96 is owned by one Sh. Ram

Naresh Prasad Singh where Mohan Lal was a tenant. Sh. Ram

Naresh Prasad Singh has categorically stated that the said premises

were never used by any society and that the no meeting ever took

place at the said address. It may be mentioned here that Mohan Lal

fabricated the records containing bogus proceedings of the

Management Committee meetings at the said address. GEQD has

given a positive opinion on his writing.

Investigating has further revealed that a false and bogus report

was prepared by Rakesh Kumar Hasija, the then Dealing Assistant on

computer on 19.3.2004 stating therein that Sh. Deepak Kumar,

Secretary of the society attended the office of the RCS and produced

the original records for verification which were examined/verified. It

has also been mentioned that the relevant documents pertaining to

CC No. 45/2010 Page 9 / 214


the verification of final list of 120 members were examined and

verified and requested the competent authority to approve the list for

onwards transmission to DDA for allotment of land. The note was

approved by Ramesh Chandra, then the Assistant registrar (East),

Jasbir Singh Sindhu, the then Joint Registrar (East) and Naryana

Diwakar, the then RCS on 19.3.2004 itself.

Investigation has further revealed that Rakesh Kumar Hasija

the then Dealing Assistant was not the concerned Dealing Assistant in

the office of Assistant registrar (East) and such matters used to be

dealt with by one Smt. Sunita Nagpal. After the approval of list of

120 members, the file was given to Smt. Sunita Nagpal for further

processing. She put up a letter dated 22.3.2004 addressed to

Assistant registrar (Policy) to Ramesh Chandra, the then AR (East),

who forwarded the freeze list of 120 members to DDA for allotment

of land on 22.3.2004 itself. Surprisingly, none of these RCS officials

pointed out about the missing notesheet pages in the file and the

concerned RCS officials colluded with the private persons in the

approval of second list of members and also for allotment of land to

the society for the second time by the DDA.

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

name of the society and also for the approval of new model byelaws.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 10 / 214


Three names i.e. Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd., Hill View

Apartments CGHS Ltd. & Sky Blue Apartments CGHS Ltd., were also

suggested by him. This request was processed by Smt. Sunita Nagpal

on the same day. The file travelled with a lightening speed and the

same was cleared by Ramesh Chandra, the then Assistant Registrar

(East), Jasbir Singh Sindhu, the then Joint Registrar and approved by

Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS on the same day and the name of the

society was ordered to be changed to Silver View Apartments CGHS

Ltd. on 29.3.2004, which clearly reflects the collusion between RCS

officials and the other private persons.

It is alleged that the aforesaid parallel/duplicate society was

formed by Sri Chand (A1). The very fact that the RCS officials

entertained an application after a gap of 33 years, points towards

their connivance with the private persons. No one raised any query

or made any efforts to search for the missing notesheets/papers. It

was also not considered necessary to make any verification from the

DDA. It would be interesting to note that Ramesh Chandra, the then

Assistant Registrar (East) certified each page of new model of bye

laws of the society by affixing his official stamp but these model bye

laws did not contain even the name of the society. Investigation has

further revealed that most of the documents of Rangmahal CGHS

Ltd. was forged by Anna Wankhede, Sushil Kumar Sharma and

Mohan Lal. GEQD has given positive opinion on their writings.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 11 / 214


Investigation has further revealed that during December, 2004,

Sri Chand got an advertisement published through M/s V. A. Agency,

C28, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi in leading

newspapers on a payment of Rs.26,880/ requesting all the members

of the society to furnish the RCS vide public notice dated 18.12.2004.

Investigation has further revealed that P. K. Thirwani (A5), Sr.

Auditor in the office of RCS, had conducted the audit of the society

for a period of 33 years i.e. 1970 – 2003 at a stretch. It has been

established that the balance sheets of the society for audit had been

prepared by Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Chartered Accountant, Aravali

Shopping Centre, Alaknanda, New Delhi at the instance of Sri Chand.

She. Neeraj Kumar, CA has admitted to have received Rs.6,500/ in

cash from Sri Chand in lieu of the services rendered by him. During

the course of investigation, the original documents relating to the

audit of Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. have been collected from the

promoter members and it has come to light that the audit of the said

society had already been completed since inception till 199293. P. K.

Thirwani, has conducted the audit of the society for a period of 33

years at a stretch in violation of Sec. 84 (1) of DCS Rules, 1973. It

would not be out of place to mention that P. K. Thirwani had been

appointed as an Auditor to conduct audit of Rangmahal CGHS Ltd.

for a period of 33 years by J. S. Sharma, the then Assistant Registrar

(Audit) who was fully aware of the rules that the audit at a stretch

CC No. 45/2010 Page 12 / 214


could only be conducted for a period of 3 years.

GEQD has opined that the proceedings dated 4.3.2004,

23.11.2003 and forged model byelaws were in the hand of Mohan

Lal. GEQD has further opined that Anna Wankhede has forged the

proceedings and filled up the bogus receipts showing the receipts of

share money in the name of fictitious members and Sushil Kumar

Sharma had forged some of the proceedings, check list of audit

report which also bears the signatures of J. S. Sharma, the then

Assistant Registrar (Audit) and proves his knowledge.

Investigation has established that Arun Kumar, President,

Deepak Kumar, Secretary & P. K. Singh, Treasurer, shown as the office

bearers of the Management Committee of the society, are non

existent and fictitious persons. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that

during the course of investigation, FIR named accused person

namely, Deepak Kumar was found to be a fictitious and non existent

entity. Hence his name has been shown in Column No.2 of this

charge sheet.

After hearing the arguments, charge was framed against all the

accused persons under Section 120 read with Section 420/511 IPC,

468/471 IPC and Section 15 read with Section 13 (2) read with

Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

A charge against accused J. S Sharma (A6), Ramesh Chandra

(A2), Faiz Mohd. (A3), Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4), P. K. Thirwani

CC No. 45/2010 Page 13 / 214


(A5), Jasbir Singh Sindhu (A7) and Narayan Diwkar (A8) was

framed under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) read with

Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

A separate charge was framed against accused Sri Chand (A1)

under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC.

Separate charge was framed against accused Sushil Kumar

Sharma (A9), Anna Wankhede (A10) and Mohan Lal (A11) under

Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and under the substantial

offence under Section 468 IPC.

In order to prove its case prosecution examined 94 witnesses,

which are as under :

CC No. 45/2010 Page 14 / 214


PW1 Sh. Ram Naresh Prasad Singh deposed that Flat No.

147G, Pocket8, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi belonged to him and he

had occupied the said house in the year 1990. He further deposed

that accused Mohan Lal had resided in the said house from 1997 to

2002. After that Mr. Madhusudan Sahu and Sh. Dharam Singh had

resided in the said flat. No society in the name and style of Silver

View Apartments or Rangmahal CGHS had worked in the said flat at

any point of time.

Here, I may point out that there appears to be a clerical

mistake. “Pocket8” has been typed inadvertently due to phonetic

similarity with “Pocket A2”. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my

attention during final arguments that this address should be read as

Pocket A2 and and not as Pocket8. Therefore, a correction to this

effect in statement u/s 313 CrPC was made subsequently.

PW2 Satya Prakash deposed that during the year 2006 he was

working in the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies,

Parliament Street, New Delhi as LDC in the Audit Department. He

had proved a Seizure memo (D7) dated 23.5.2006 Ex.PW2/A;

proved the Audit Report for the audit period 1.7.1970 to 31.3.2003

Ex.PW2/A1.

PW 3 Manohar Lal deposed that he was working as Postman

and was posted in the Lajpat Nagar area since 1999. He had proved

that envelopes (D27) Ex.PW3/A containing address of Sh. Brij Bihari

CC No. 45/2010 Page 15 / 214


Singhvi son of Sh. G. N. Singhvi resident of 248D, Defence Colony,

New Delhi; (D87) Ex.PW3/B containing address of Sh. Sumant son

of Sh. Magan Bhai Desai resident of D13, Defence Colony, New

Delhi. He went to the aforesaid addresses for delivery of the

envelopes but no such person were available.

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

Prakash 75, Paharganj, New Delhi. On the reverse of said envelope,

an endorsement had been made might be in the hand writing of

Banwari Lal. He had further proved that address mentioned on the

envelope as “75, Paharganj, New Delhi” was not complete address.

PW 5 Kamal Singh had deposed that during the year 2003, he

was working as LDC in the Office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies,

Parliament Street, New Delhi. He was attached to the Audit Section.

His duties were to Diarise & Dispatch the documents which were

received in the said section. He remained posted in the Audit Section

till September, 2005. He was appointed as an Auditor in about 45

societies. He knew accused Prahlad Kumar Thirwani. He had proved

an appointment letter Ex.PW5/A in respect of auditor(CS Copy D11)

of RangMahal Cooperative Group Housing Society; proved

photocopy of receipt no. 038 dated 30.01.2004 Ex.PW5/A1 bearing

CC No. 45/2010 Page 16 / 214


his signature at point A. He did not receive any payment from

accused P. K. Thirwani.

PW 6 Hardutt Sharma deposed that he was working as a

Postman and was posted in B1 Block, Janak Puri Post Office since

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

aforesaid address and found that no such number was in existence at

the given address.

PW 7 Gopi Chand deposed that he was posted as a Postman at

Rajender Nagar Post Office, New Delhi since 1989. In the year 2006,

he was posted there in the same capacity. He had proved an envelope

(D130) Ex.PW7/A which was given to him for delivery at 212 E,

New Rajender Nagar in the name of Sh.Rajender Kumar Singh S/o

Sh.Pramod Kumar Singh; PW 8 Vijay Kumar had deposed that he

was posted as Postman at SriNiwas Puri Post Office, New Delhi in the

year 2006. He remained posted as Postman w.e.f. 1990 to 2006. He

had proved an envelope (D45) which was given to him for delivery

at D20, N. D. S. EII, in the name of Sh. Tulsi Dass Mundra S/o Sh.

Gangar Dass Mundra. The aforesaid letters could not be delivered at

the given addresses as no such persons were residing at the given

address.

PW 8 Vijay Kumar further proved another envelope

CC No. 45/2010 Page 17 / 214


(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

Daga S/o Sh. Badri Dass Daga. He visited the aforesaid address and

found that the addressee had changed the address to 7/18, Kalkaji

Extension, New Delhi and he made an endorsement to this effect in

his handwriting which was redirected to be delivered at the given

address as 7/18, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi.

PW 9 Bhagwat Prasad deposed that he was posted as Postman

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

Upadhyay S/o Sh.V.G.Upadhyay at D42, Defence Colony, New Delhi,

in the name of & (D117) Ex.PW9/B in the name of Sh. Sunil S.

Singhal S/o I.M. Prakash at D280, Defence Colony, New Delhi which

was given to Sh. Giriraj, Postman for delivery. The aforesaid

envelopes could not be delivered at the given addresses as no such

persons were residing there.

PW 10 Rajbir Singh had deposed that he was posted as

Postman at Lajpat Nagar Post Office, New Delhi in the year 2006. He

had proved an envelope (D110) Ex.PW10/A which was given to him

for delivery at J38, Defence Colony, New Delhi, in the name of

Sh.Krishnachandra Oza S/o Sh. Girija Shankar Oza but the said

envelope could not be delivered as no such block existed in that area.

PW11 Dharam Pal had deposed that he was posted as

CC No. 45/2010 Page 18 / 214

http://Sh.V.G.Upadhyay/






Postman at Zor Bagh Post Office in the year 2006 and he was also

looking after the area of Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. He had proved

envelopes (D33) Ex.PW11/A which was given to him for delivery at

137, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Sh.Satish Chander

Maheshwari S/o Sh. Nanak Chand Maheshwari; (D46) Ex.PW11/B

which was given to him for delivery at 86, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi

in the name of Smt. Vimlesh Kumar Maheshwari W/o Sh. Hari Prasad

Maheshwari; (D52) Ex.PW11/D which was given to him for delivery

at 53, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Anil Kumar

Maheshwari S/o Sh.H.K. Maheshwari; D53 Ex.PW11/E which was

given to him for delivery at 27, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in the name

of Sh. Mithan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop but the same could not be

delivered as no such persons were available on the given addresses.

PW11 Dharam Pal proved another envelope (D50)

Ex.PW11/C which was given to him for delivery at 179, Sunder

Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Mohan Kumar but the same

could not be delivered as no such number existed.

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

members marked as AX and BX Ext.PW12/DA.

PW13 Vikram Singh had deposed that he was posted as

Postman at GPO, Delhi in the year 2006 and he was also looking after

CC No. 45/2010 Page 19 / 214


the area of Sita Ram Bazar, New Delhi. He had proved envelopes

(D20) Ex.PW13/A which was given to him for delivery at 8166, 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, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi06 in the name of Sh. Bhola Nath

S/o Sh. Rattan Lal. He visited the aforesaid addresses and found that

no such house numbers existed and the envelopes were returned

undelivered to the sender.

PW14 Mahender Singh had deposed that he was posted as

Postman at Indraprastha Head Post Office, Delhi in the year 2006 and

proved an envelope (D57) Ex.PW14/A which was given to him for

delivery at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi in the name of Sh. P.C.

Maheshwari S/o Sh. C.D. Maheshwari. The envelope was returned

undelivered to the sender as the address was incomplete.

PW15 Ram Kumar had deposed that he was posted as

Postman at Indraprastha Head Post Office in the year 2006 and he

was also looking after the area of Minto Road, New Delhi. He had


delivery at B80, Minto Road, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Vinay

Goel S/o Sh. J.B.Goel. The envelope was returned undelivered to the

sender as no such person on this address was residing.

PW16 Mukesh Kumar had deposed that he was posted as

CC No. 45/2010 Page 20 / 214


Postman at Lajpat Nagar Post Office in the year 2006 and he was also

looking after the area of PartIII, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He had


delivery at B22, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Bipin

Bhai Patel S/o Sh. Amba Lal Patel. He visited the aforesaid address

on 02.03.2006 and found that no such person on this address was

residing. He had further deposed that the aforesaid envelope was

given to another Postman for delivery who also made an

endorsement at point C on 01.03.2006 that no such person was in

Part I & Part II of Lajpat Nagar. The envelope was returned

undelivered to the sender. He had further proved another envelope

(D84) Ex.PW16/B which was given to him for delivery at D9, Lajpat

Nagar in the name of Sh. Prafful Win S/o Sh. Chhataniya Lal win.

The envelope was returned undelivered to the sender as no such

person on this address was residing.

PW 17 Rakesh Kumar had proved that he was posted as

Postman at Lajpat Nagar Post Office for the last 15 years and even in

the year 2006 he was posted in the said post office in the same

capacity. He had proved an envelope (D83) Ex.PW 17/A which was

given to him for delivery at L8, Lajpat NagarIII, New Delhi in the

name of Sh.Ratti Lal Patel S/o Sh.Jhavar Bhai Patel. The said

envelope D83 could not be delivered as no such person at L8, Lajpat

NagarIII, New Delhi was residing and the same was returned

CC No. 45/2010 Page 21 / 214


undelivered to the sender. He had proved another envelope D96

Ex.PW17/B which was given to Sh.Sudhama(since retired) for

delivery at L11, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Smt.Kokila

Chanden W/o Sh. Dharmaji Chanden. The said envelope could not be

delivered at the given address as the address was incomplete and was

returned back to the sender as the same remained undelivered. He

proved the signatures of Sudhama at point A on the said envelope.

Pw17 identified his hand writing and signatures as he had worked

with him.

PW 18 Brahmanand had deposed that he remained posted as

Postman at Sarojini Nagar Post Office during the period 1983 to

2009. He had proved an envelope D119 Ex.PW18/A which could not

be delivered as no such person by the name Sh. Mukesh Jindal, S/o

Sh. S.P. Jindal lived at L130, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. The

aforesaid envelope could not be delivered and the same was returned

undelivered to the sender.

PW 19 Namechand had deposed that he was posted as

Postman at Inderprastha Post Office since 18.02.1987. He had

proved an envelope (D58) which was given to him for delivery at

1638, Khucha Chela, Gali Gadhaiya, Daryaganj, Delhi in the name of

Sh.Ishwar Dass Aggarwal S/o Sh.Gopi Nath. The envelope D58

Ex.PW19/A could not be delivered as no such person in 1638, Beat

no. 12, Khucha Chelan, Gali Gadhaiya, Daryaganj, Delhi was residing

CC No. 45/2010 Page 22 / 214


at the given address and the same was returned undelivered to the

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.PW 20/A which was given to him for delivery at

5A/8, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi in the name of Sh.Gunveer

Kumar Jain S/o Sh.Madan Lal Jain. The said envelope D22 could not

be delivered as no such person at 5A/8, Ansari Road, Daryaganj,

Delhi was residing at the given address. The aforesaid envelope could

not be delivered and the same was returned undelivered to the

sender. He had proved another envelope D25 Ex.PW20/B which

was given to him for delivery at 185A/8, Ansari Road, Daryaganj,

Delhi in the name of Smt.Sukhbeer Kumar Jain S/o Sh.Madan Lal

Jain for delivery. The said envelope could not be delivered at the

given address as no such house number existed there and returned

back to the sender.

PW 21 Dayanand Singh had deposed that he had been

working as a postman in the area of 16, Ansari Road, New Delhi2 for

the last 29 years. In the year 2006, he was posted in the same area.

He has proved envelope D94 Ex.PW21/A in the name of Sh.Shanti

Lal Seth S/o Sh.Vanmali Lal Seth R/o F21/10, Ansari Road,

Daryaganj, New Delhi which was given to him for delivery. The said

CC No. 45/2010 Page 23 / 214


envelope could not be delivered as the address mentioned in the said

envelope was not correct. However, the person Sh.Shanti Lal Seth

who was living in F1/16, Ansari Road, New Delhi did not receive the

said envelope due to incorrect address mentioned in the envelope.

PW 22 Ishwar Chand had deposed that he had been working

as a postman in the area of Sector5, R.K.Puram, New Delhi since

1996. In the year 2006, he was posted in the area of Sector5,

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, New Delhi which was given to him for delivery.

The said envelope could not be delivered as the person by the name

of Sh.Vinet Goyal was not residing there.

PW 23 Sh.Ramesh Chand had deposed that he was working as

a postman in the area of InderParastha, Head Post office, New

Delhi2 since 1983. In the year 2006, he was posted in the same area.

Darya Ganj area was under his jurisdiction. He had proved the

envelope D107 Ex.PW23/A in the name of Sh.Harmukh Parekh S/o

Sh.Chandu Lal R/o 12F, Darya Ganj, Delhi6 which was given to him

for delivery. The said envelope could not be delivered as the address

given was incomplete.

PW 24 Sh.Trilok Chand had deposed that he was working as a

postman in the area of Jungpura, Post office. In the year 2006, he

was posted in the same area. He has proved the envelope D103

CC No. 45/2010 Page 24 / 214

http://R.K.Puram/

http://R.K.Puram/


Ex.PW24/A in the name of Sh.Kishan Mehta S/o Sh.K.T.Mehta R/o

108, Link Road, Jungpura, Delhi 24 which was given to him for

delivery. The said envelope could not be delivered as there was no

such number in the Link Road.

PW 25 Sh. Azad Singh had deposed that in the year 2006, he

was posted as Postman in the GPO, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The

Railway Quarter, Naya Bazaar Area, Delhi, was under his jurisdiction.

He has proved the envelope Ext. PW25/A addressed to Sh. Kailash

Nath Joshi s/o. Banna Lal r/o. B53, Railway Quarters, Naya Bazaar,

Delhi110006. This letter was assigned to him and accordingly, he

went to deliver the same. However, no such person and such number

existed in Naya Bazaar. Hence, he returned the said envelope to the

sender.

PW 26 Sh. Raghubir Singh had deposed that in the year 2006,

he was posted as Postman in the Malkaganj Post Office. He was

called by the CBI and certain inquiries were made regarding the

delivery of envelope containing letter. He has proved the envelope

(D93) Ex. PW26/A addressed to Sh. Bhamurai Babaria S/o Sh.

Hemraj Babaria, R/o 779,Prem Nagar, Kamla Nagar, Delhi06.

However, no such number existed there. Hence, he returned the said

envelope to the sender.

PW27 Sh. Jai Prakash had deposed that he had retired from

Postal Department. In the year 2006, he was posted at Rajender

CC No. 45/2010 Page 25 / 214


Nagar, Post Office, Delhi7 as a Postman. He had proved envelope

(D76) Ext.PW27/A addressed to Sh. Madhusudhan Shah S/o

Sh.Mangal Dass Shah R/o 18D, Bazar Marg, Rajender Nagar, New

Delhi. The said envelope containing letter was assigned to him for

delivery as the address given on the envelope was under his beat. He

found that no such number 18D in Bazar Marg, Rajender Nagar was

in existence. The said envelope was sent back undelivered.

PW28 Sh. Nawab had deposed that he retired from Postal

Department. In the year 2006, he was posted at Nizamuddin, Post

Office, Delhi as a Postman. He was called by the CBI and certain

inquiries were made regarding the delivery of envelope containing

letter. He had proved the envelope (D86) Ext.PW 28/A addressed to

Sh. Arvind Bhai Desai S/o Sh.Mani Bhai Desai R/o D89, Nizamuddin

(East), New Delhi. The said envelope containing letter was assigned

to him for delivery as the address given on the envelope was under

his beat. It was found that no such number D89 in Nizamuddin

(East) in existence. Accordingly, the said envelope was sent back

undelivered. PW28 proved another envelope (D85) Ext.PW 28/B

addressed to Sh. Randhir Jhavani S/o Sh.Kartar Chand Jhavani R/o

C52, Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi. He went to the given address

and made inquiries and found that no such person in C52,

H.N.Delhi13 Nizamuddin (East) was residing. Accordingly, the said

envelope was sent back undelivered.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 26 / 214


PW29 Sh.Murli Ram Sharma had deposed that in the year

2006, he was posted at GPO, Chawri Bazar Post Office, Delhi as a

Postman. He was called by the CBI and certain inquiries were made

regarding the delivery of envelope containing letter. He has proved

the envelope (D23) Ext.PW 29/A addressed to Vijender Kumar Jain

S/o Sh.Madan Lal Jain R/o 1344, Chawri Bazar, Delhi6. The said

envelope containing letter was assigned to him for delivery as the

address given on the envelope was under his beat. He went to the

given address and made inquiries and found that no such number in

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

Jain S/o Sh.Madan Lal Jain R/o 1344, Chawri Bazar, Delhi6. The

said envelope containing letter was assigned to him for delivery as

the address given on the envelope was under his beat. He went to

the given address and made inquiries. It was found that no such

number in Chawri Bazar in existence. The said envelope was sent

back undelivered.

PW29 Sh.Murli Ram Sharma further proved envelopes (D36)

Ext.PW29/C addressed to Smt. Santosh Aggarwal W/o

Sh.S.K.Aggarwal R/o 208, Chawri Bazar, Delhi; (D38) Ext.PW 29/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


Devi W/o Sh.Munshi Lal R/o 208, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. The said

envelopes containing letter was assigned to him for delivery as the

address given on the envelopes was under his beat. He went to the

given address and made inquiries. It was found that no such person

was residing. Accordingly, the said envelopes were sent back

undelivered.

PW30 Sh. Surender Singh had deposed that in the year 2006,

he was posted at Andrews Ganj Post Office as Postman and was

looking after the South Extension PartI area. He had proved an

envelope D90 Ext.PW30/A which was marked to him for delivery to

Sh. J.C. Shah, S/o Sh. Chaggan Lal, R/o A21, South Extension PartI,

New Delhi. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW31 Sh. Prem Singh had deposed that in the year 2006 he

was posted at Lajpat Nagar Post Office as Postman and was looking

after the Block B & E and some part of Block C of Defence Colony

area. He had proved an envelope D97 Ext.PW31/A which was

marked to him for delivery to Sh. B.J. Trivedi, S/o Sh. Jay Shankar,

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. There also he could not deliver the same as no such person

was found there. He had proved another envelope D98

Ext.PW31/B which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Shikhar

CC No. 45/2010 Page 28 / 214


Chand Jain, S/o Sh. Bansi Dhar Jain, R/o S106, Defence Colony,

New Delhi. The aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as no such

BlockS was in that area, hence, the same was returned back to the

CBI. He had also proved another envelope D118 Ext.PW31/C

which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Ashok Singhal, S/o Sh.

O.P. Singhal, R/o E83, Defence Colony, New Delhi. He went to the

given address but the aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as no

such number was existing in EBlock. He had also proved an

envelope D131 Ext.PW31/D which was marked to him for delivery

to Sh. M.K. Singh, S/o Sh. D.K. Singh, R/o E27, Defence Colony,


person was living at the given address. He had also proved an

envelope D74 Ext. PW31/E which was marked to him for delivery to

Sh. Vijay Kumar, S/o Sh. Vasant Lal, R/oB29, Defence Colony, New

Delhi. The aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as the house

was found locked. He further deposed that he visited the given

address for three days consecutively but the same could not be

delivered. He had proved an envelope D68 Ext.PW31/F which was

marked to him for delivery to Sh. Ramneek Lal Basaria, S/o Sh.

Jagjeevan Das Basaria, R/o E211, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The

aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as no such number was

existing in the area of EBlock. He had also proved another envelope

D78 Ext.PW31/G which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Luv

CC No. 45/2010 Page 29 / 214


Kumar Vadhera, S/o Sh. K.N. Vadhera, R/o E250, Defence Colony


number was existing in the area of EBlock. PW31 proved another

envelope D88 Ext.PW31/H which was marked to him for delivery to

Sh. Jai Singh, S/o Sh. Mohan Singh, R/o E104, Defence Colony


number was existing in the area of EBlock. He had proved another

envelope D34 Ext.PW31/J which was marked to him for delivery to

Sh. Manik Chand Sawani, S/o Sh. Gagan Lal Sawani R/o E224,

Defence Colony New Delhi. The aforesaid envelope could not be

delivered as no such number was existing in the area of EBlock. All

the aforesaid envelopes were returned back to the CBI undelivered.

PW32 Sh. Sita Ram had deposed that in the year 2006 he was

posted at Hauj Khas Post Office as Postman and at the time of

deposition in the court he was posted at Sarojini Nagar Post Office as

Assistant. He had further proved an envelope D81 Ext.PW32/A

which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. M.G. Vaidhya, S/o Sh.

G.V. Vaidhya, R/o D34, Green Park, New Delhi16. The aforesaid

letter could not be delivered as no such number had existed in the

said locality and the same was returned to the consignee.

PW33 Sh. Karambir Singh had deposed that in the year 2006

he was posted at Ramesh Nagar Post Office as Postman and he was

looking after the area of Kirti Nagar. He had proved an envelope

CC No. 45/2010 Page 30 / 214


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

number in FBlock had existed in the said locality and was returned

to the consignee.

PW34 Sh. Hem Raj Sharma had deposed that in the year

2006, he was posted at Delhi GPO as Postman. He remained posted

in the said post office wef 1991. He was looking after the area of

Dariba Kalan Beat No. 13, Chandni Chowk, Delhi06. He had proved

the envelopes D61 Ext.PW34/A which was marked to himfor

delivery to Sh. Bharat Bhushan Gupta, S/o Late Sh. Bishambhar

Sahai R/o 1877, Dariba Kalan, Delhi06; D56 Ext.PW34/B which

was marked to him for delivery to Ms. Kundlata, D/o Sh. Mehtab

Singh R/o 1305, Dariba Kalan, Delhi06; D59 Ext.PW34/C which

was marked to him for delivery to Smt. Kusum Lata , S/o Dr. Vijay Lal

R/o 155, Dariba Kalan, Delhi06; D55 Ext.PW34/D which was

marked to him for delivery to Sh. Yashodhara Kumar, S/o Sh. Mehtab

Singh R/o 1305, Dariba Kalan, Delhi06. He went to the aforesaid

addresses for delivery of the aforesaid letters but the same could not

be delivered as no such numbers in Dariba Kalan had existed in the

said locality. The envelopes were returned to the consignee.

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


remained posted in the said post office wef 1972 till his retirement

i.e. December, 2007. The area of C9, Kalkaji was being looked after

by Sh. R.S. Rana, Postman. He had further proved an envelope D72

Ext.PW35/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Moti Bai

Joshi, S/o Sh. Goverdhan Das Joshi R/o C9, Kalkaji, New Delhi. He

identified the handwriting and signatures of Sh. R.S. Rana as he had

worked under R.S. Rana and he was well conversant with his

handwriting and signatures. The letter could not be delivered

despite his visit to the given address and the house was found locked

every time. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW36 Sh. Mohan Lal had deposed that in the year 2006 he

was posted at Sriniwas Puri Post Office as Postman and was looking

after the area of Garhi. He had proved an envelope D112

Ext.PW36/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Vijay

Kumar Goel, S/o Sh. R.B. Goel R/o 56, Garhi, POSriniwas Puri, New

Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on 30.03.2006, 31.03.2006 &

01.04.2006 for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not

be delivered as no such person was residing on the said address. The

envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW37 Sh. Satyapal Singh had deposed that in the year 2006,

he was posted at Lodhi Road Post Office as Postman. He was looking

after the area of Kaka NagarNew Delhi03. He had proved an


CC No. 45/2010 Page 32 / 214


Smt. Gorbhi Bhai, W/o Sh. Dassa Bhai R/o 161, Kaka Nagar, New

Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on 01.03.2006 for delivery of

the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as no such

person was residing on the said address. The envelope was returned

to the consignee.

PW38 Sh. Vijay Kumar proved an envelope D123

Ext.PW38/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Pankaj

Goel, S/o Sh. J.B. Goel R/o D38, Pandara Road, New Delhi; PW39

Sh. Dharam Dutt proved an envelope D99 Ext.PW39/A which was

marked to him for delivery to Sh. Ramneek Lal Kadhi, S/o Sh. Nand

Lal Kadhi R/o 87B, Kamla Nagar, Delhi07; PW40 Sh. Durga Das

proved an envelope D35 Ext.PW40/A which was marked to him for

delivery to Sh. Surjeet Kumar, S/o Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta R/o

B13/73 Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Accordingly, they all went to the

respective addresses for delivery of the aforesaid letters but the same

could not be delivered as no such numbers were existing in the said

locality. The envelopes were returned to the consignees.

PW41 Sh. Barister Shah had deposed that in the year 2006 he

was posted at Indraprastha Post Office as Postman and was looking

after the area of Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. He had proved an


Sh. Pratap Narain Sharma, S/o Sh. Raj Narain Sharma R/o Kala

Kunj, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj No. 1, Delhi06. The letter could not

CC No. 45/2010 Page 33 / 214


be delivered as no such person was residing on the said address.

The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW42 Sh. Yogender Singh had deposed that in the year 2006,

he was posted at GKII Post Office as Postman and was looking after

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/o Dr. V.V. Mehta, R/o D211, Greater KailashII, Delhi. He

went to the aforesaid address on 01.03.2006 & 02.03.2006 for

delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as

no such number was in existence. He also went on B211 but no

such person by the name of Dr. Sushila Mehta was residing there.


PW43 Sh. Avinash Kumar Jain had deposed that in the year

2006 he was posted at Malka Ganj Post Office as Postman and was

looking after the area of Sohan Ganj, Shora Kothi, Kolhapur House

and Lehna Singh Marg. He had proved an envelope D73

Ext.PW43/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Devi Dayal,

S/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal, R/o 1123, Sohan Ganj, Subzi Mandi, Delhi07.

He went to the aforesaid address for delivery of the aforesaid letter

but the same could not be delivered as no such number was in

existence and the envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW44 Sh. Jeet Singh had deposed that in the year 2006 he

was posted at GPO Post Office, New Delhi as Postman and was

CC No. 45/2010 Page 34 / 214


looking after the area of EBlock & MBlock, Connaught Place, New

Delhi. He had proved an envelope D43 Ext.PW44/A which was

marked to him for delivery to Sh. Jagdish Prasad Sharma, S/o Sh.

Hardev Prasad Sharma, M/s Fort Frostal Industries Ltd., M77,

Connaught Circus, New Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on


be delivered as no such person was residing on the said address. He

made an inquiry from the neighbourhood as well as from Sh. B.R.

Maheshwari & Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma, Adv. He had proved another

envelope D44 Ext.PW44/B which was marked to him for delivery to

Sh. Ganesh Das Batler, S/o Sh. Mewal Das Batler, R/o M74,

Connaught Circus, New Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on


be delivered as no such person was residing on the said address. In

fact, Federal Bank exists on the said address. Both the envelopes

were returned to the consignee.

PW45 Sh. Radhey Sham had deposed that in the year 2006

he was posted at Lajpat Nagar Post Office as Postman and was

looking after the area of New Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi

and had proved an envelope D64 Ext.PW45/A which was marked to

him for delivery to Sh. Chander Kant Joshi, S/o Sh. Rahi Lal Joshi,

R/o 3/21, New Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi24; D79

which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Rajni Ben Mehta, S/o

CC No. 45/2010 Page 35 / 214


Sh. P.V. Mehta R/o 32/118B, New Double Storey, Lajpat NagarII,

New Delhi24. He went to the aforesaid address for delivery of the

aforesaid letters but the same could not be delivered as no such

numbers was in existence. He had further proved another envelope

D65 Ext.PW45/C which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. 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

delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as

the address was incomplete. Accordingly, the envelopes were

returned to the consignee.

PW46 Sh. Duli Chand had deposed that in the year 2006, he

was posted at Sarojini Nagar Post Office as Postman and was looking

after the area of Kidwai Nagar. He had proved an envelope D106

Ext.PW46/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Shanti Lal

Shah, S/o Sh. Mangal Das Shah, R/o B27, Kidwai Nagar East, New

Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on 28.03.2006 for delivery of

the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as no such

number was in existence. The envelope was returned to the

consignee.

PW47 Smt. Kamla Tariyal had deposed that in the year 2006

she was posted at Malwiya Nagar Post Office as Woman Postman and

was looking after the area of Nill Block, 80 Block, Bhagat Singh

Market, HBlock, Toot Sarai, LBlock. She had proved an envelope

CC No. 45/2010 Page 36 / 214


D111 Ext.PW47/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. P.K.

Singhal, S/o Sh. Kola Singh, R/o 13 Malwiya Nagar, New Delhi. She

went to the aforesaid address on 30.03.2006 for delivery of the

aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as the address

mentioned in the letter was incomplete due to the reason that no

block number was mentioned. The envelope was returned to the

consignee.

PW48 Sh. Manoj Kumar Gond had deposed that in the year

2006 he was posted at Safdarjung Post Office as Postman and was

looking after the area of Krishna Nagar and Safdarjung Enclave. He

had proved an envelope D91 Ext.PW48/A which was marked to him

for delivery to Sh. Shanti Lal Ray, S/o Sh. Jetha Bhai Roy, R/o

B101/5, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. He went to the aforesaid

address on 01.03.2006 for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the

same could not be delivered as no such person by the aforesaid name

was residing on the said address. He inquired from the house owner

Mr. Sharma who had stated that no person by the aforesaid name

had ever resided in the said house. The envelope was returned to the

consignee.

PW49 Sh. Rakesh Sharma had deposed that in the year 2006

he was posted at Jungpura Post Office as Postman. Sh. Ramesh

Kumar was also posted in the same post office who was looking after

the area of Hari Nagar, Ashram. PW49 had proved an envelope

CC No. 45/2010 Page 37 / 214


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, New Delhi. Pw49 Sh. Rakesh Sharma had identified his

handwriting and signatures on the back side of the envelope being

conversant with the same. He made an endorsement that no such

number in HN Ashram. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW50 Sh. Ajab Singh had deposed that in the year 2006 he

was posted at Hauz Khaas Post Office as Postman and was looking

after the area of Safdarjung Development Area. He had proved an


Sh. Hansmukh Bhai Ray, S/o Sh. Jetha Bhai Ray, R/o C2/51,

Safdarjung Enclave,New Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on


be delivered as the aforesaid person had already left the said address.


PW51 Sh. Anil Kumar Tete had deposed that in the year 2006

he was posted at Sarojini Nagar Post Office as Postman and was

looking after the area of Pilanji. He had proved an envelope D126

Ext.PW51/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Arun

Kumar, S/o Sh. Vishwas Rao, R/o 120, Village Pilanji, New Delhi. He

went on the said address on various date but could not deliver the

letter as no person was residing on the said address. The envelope

was returned to the consignee.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 38 / 214


PW52 Sh. Jitender Kapoor deposed that he was the promoter

member of Rangmahal CGHS having registration no. 152H. The

society was having 50 members. He had further deposed that

besides him, Sh. Ravi Kapoor his brother was also one of the member

of Rangmahal CGHS. 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 Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi. The draw of lot of flats

was conducted by the DDA in the year 1993 and the members of the

society were alloted flats accordingly. He was alloted flat no. C16.

He further deposed that he participated in the meetings of the

society which was alloted flats in the year 1993 but he never

attended any meeting with regard to subsequent created society by

the name of Rangmahal CGHS. He had proved an affidavit dt.

01.01.2006 Ext.PW52/A; proceeding register D15 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. In the said file, he identified the signatures of Sh. S.P.

Jain, Secretary of the society on the various papers at points X

placed at page 179 Ext.PW52/D1, at page 175 Ext.PW52/D2,

at page 156 to 162 perpetual lease at points X Ext.PW52/D3, at

page 145 Ext.PW52/D4, page 143, 142,141 Ext.PW52/D5

collectively, page 128 Ext.PW52/D6 and page 126 Ext.PW52/D7.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 39 / 214


PW52 Sh. Jitender Kapoor had further proved an application for

membership Ext.PW52/F; photocopy of receipt no. 19 placed at page

no. 155/C (D9) Ext.PW52/G; the application dt. 26.5.1975

Ext.PW52/G1 which was written to Assistant Registrar Cooperative

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;

copies of letters dt. 10.10.1972 & 25.7.1972, 23.11.1971 which were

written under the signatures of Sh. S.P. Jain marked as

Ext.PW52/G6, Ext.PW52/G7 & Ext.PW52/G8; copy of bye laws

of Rangmahal CGHS Ext.PW52/G9 collectively.

PW53 Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta; PW54 Sh. Virender Kumar

Gandotra; PW55 Sh. Prem Verma; PW56 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta;

PW57 Sh. Jaswant Jain had deposed that they were the promoter

members of Rangmahal CGHS having registration no. 152H. This

society was having 50 members. 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 Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi. The draw of lot

of flats was conducted by the DDA in the year 1993 and the members

CC No. 45/2010 Page 40 / 214


of the society were alloted flats accordingly. PW53 was alloted flat

no. B2; PW54 was alloted flat no. B8; PW55 was alloted flat no.

11A but he could not get the possession of the said flat due to

personal reasons; PW56 was alloted flat no. 9A; PW57 was alloted

flat no. B10 and flat No. A2 was alloted to his brother Sh. Ram

Mehar Jain. They all had participated in the meetings of the society

which was alloted flats in the year 1993 but never attended any

meeting with regard to subsequent created society by the name of

Rangmahal CGHS. After the allotment of flats, no activities of the

Rangmahal CGHS took place. They further stated that he did not

know about the management of subsequent office bearers of so called

Rangmahal CGHS. They had proved the list of members for

Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society Ext.PW54/A as on

15.07.1990 which was approved by the RCS Office; proceeding

register D15 of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society for

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 ; the original proceeding register Ext.PW57/A which was

being maintained by the office bearers of the society at the relevant

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 had deposed that he became member of Rangmahal CGHS

CC No. 45/2010 Page 41 / 214


having registration no. 152H in the year 1986. This society was

having 50 members. Besides PW58, his brother Sh. Jaswant Jain was

also one of the member of Rangmahal CGHS. PW59 deposed that

earlier, his father Sh. Raj Kishore Tripathi was the founder member of

Rangmahal CGHS and later on he transferred his membership to him

in the year 1985. 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 Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi. The draw of lot of flats was

conducted by the DDA in the year 1993 and the members of the

society were alloted flats accordingly. PW58 was alloted flat no. A2

and flat No. B10 was alloted to his brother Sh.Jaswant Jain; Pw59

was alloted flat no. C3 jointly with Sh. Pawan Kumar Tripathi, his

brother. They further deposed that he participated in the meetings of

the society which was alloted flats in the year 1993 but they never


the name of Rangmahal CGHS. Even, they did not know about the

subsequent created society by the name Rangmahal CGHS. They had

proved the proceeding register D18 of Rangmahal Cooperative

Group Housing Society for the period dt. 07.12.1985 to 30.06.1987.

The original proceeding register was the same which was being

maintained by the office bearers of the society at the relevant time;

the list of members already exhibited as Ext.PW54/A for Rangmahal

Cooperative Group Housing Society as on 15.07.1990 which was

CC No. 45/2010 Page 42 / 214


approved by the RCS Office. The audit of the society was being

conducted time to time. No correspondence was made with the

office of RCS once the objective of society was achieved. PW59 had

proved the list of members wherein the number of flats alloted to the

original members of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society

had been mentioned exhibited as Ext.PW59/A & already exhibited as

Ext.PW57/A17. He had identified the signatures of Sh. Jaswant Jain

on Ext.PW59/A as he had seen him signing and writing during the

official course of business. The audit of the society was being

conducted time to time. No correspondence was made with the

office of RCS once the objective of society was achieved. PW59 Sh.

Vinod Kumar Tripathi that he had proved an affidavit dt. 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

promoter members Ext.PW59/C to be appended with the Modal Bye

Laws of Cooperative Group Housing Society placed at page 334 &

335 in file D8; proved the application for membership placed at

page 234/C in file no. D9 Ext.PW59/D purportedly having the

signatures of his father Sh. Raj Kishore Tripathi at point A; proved

the receipt bearing no. 050 placed at page no. 145/C in file no. D9

Ext.PW59/E purportedly issued for receipt of Rs. 110/ on

04.01.1973 having the signatures of his father Sh. Raj Kishore

Tripathi at point A; proved the register D17 already exhibited as

CC No. 45/2010 Page 43 / 214


Ext.PW52/C.

PW 60 Sh. Ajay Kumar Maheshwari had deposed that he

became joint member with Smt. Raj Kumari Maheshwari of

Rangmahal CGHS having registration no. 152H in the year 1987. He

was alloted flat no. C2 jointly with Smt. Raj Kumari Maheshwari, his

sister in law (Bhabhi). Neither he nor Smt. Raj Kumari Maheshwari


the name of Rangmahal CGHS. Even, they did not know about the

subsequent created society by the name Rangmahal CGHS. He had

proved the proceeding register D16 Ext.PW60/A of Rangmahal

Cooperative Group Housing Society for the period dt. 02.12.1979 to

16.11.1982; the list of members for Rangmahal Cooperative Group

Housing Society as on 15.07.1990 already exhibited as Ext.PW54/A

which was approved by the RCS Office; proved 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 Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society had

been mentioned; proved an affidavit dt. 01.01.2004 Ext.PW60/B

purportedly shown to had been executed in the name of Smt. 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); proved the application for membership Ext.PW60/C.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 44 / 214


PW 61 Sh. Giriraj Ratan Soni; PW 62 Sh. Sudhir

Maheshwari; PW 63 Sh. Anil Kumar Maheshwari; PW 64 Sh.

Kailash Chand Jain; PW 65 Sh. Sunil Jain had all deposed that

they became members of Rangmahal CGHS having registration no.

152H in the year 1988. This society was having 51 members. 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

Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi. The draw of lot of flats was conducted

by the DDA in the year 1993 and the members of the society were

alloted flats accordingly. PW61 was alloted flat no. C6; PW62 was

alloted flat no. A4; PW63 was alloted flat no. A6; PW64 was alloted

flat no. C10 and PW65 was alloted flat no. B91. They all stated

that they had participated in the meetings of the society which was

alloted flats in the year 1993 but he never attended any meeting with

regard to subsequent created society by the name of Rangmahal

CGHS. Even, they did not know about the subsequent created society

by the name Rangmahal CGHS. They had proved the list of members

for Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society as on 15.07.1990

(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

Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society had been mentioned;

proved the proceeding register D17(already exhibited as

CC No. 45/2010 Page 45 / 214


Ext.PW52/C) of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society for

the period dt. 28.12.1982 to 27.10.1985; proved the register

Ext.PW57/A; proved the list of promoter members to be appended

with the Modal Bye Laws of Cooperative Group Housing Society

(Ext.PW59/C); proved the application for membership Ext.PW62/B;

proved the receipt bearing no. 046 Ext.PW62/C; proved the

proceeding register Ext.PW60/A; proved an affidavit dt. 01.01.2004

Ext.PW63/A; proved the application for membership placed at page

D9 as Ext.PW63/B.

PW 66 Sh. Sudhir Mittal that he had been working as an

advocate and had also been working as Oath Commissioner. In the

year 2004 he was sitting in Parliament Street, New Delhi. He had

further deposed that the affidavits placed in file no. D9 at pages 1/C

to 120/C shown to have been attested by Mr. S. Kumar, Oath

Commissioner on 1.1.2004 did not bear seal;affidavits Ex.PW66/1 to

PW66/75; Ex.PW62/A; Ex.PW66/76 to PW66/82;Ex.PW63/A;

Ex.PW66/83 to PW66/88; Ex.PW60/B; Ex.PW66/89 to PW66/98;

Ex.PW52/A; Ex.PW66/99 to Ex.PW66/116 were neither attested by

him nor bears his signatures.

PW67 Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had deposed that in the year

1977, he became a member of Rangmahal CGHS. The society was in

existence since 1973 and land was alloted in the year 1977 at Plot

No. 13, Saraswati Vihar, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. In the year 1993,

CC No. 45/2010 Page 46 / 214


flats were alloted to 50 members of society by a draw which was held

in the presence of DDA & RCS officials and the members of the

society. He was also alloted flat no. B3 in the said society.

PW68 Sh.Jatender Pal Singh Johar had deposed that that he

had been practising as Chartered Accountant by profession since

1985 in Lajpat Nagar under the name and style of M/s J.S. Johar &

Associates. He had proved a letter dt. 30.08.1991 (D145)

Ext.PW68/A whereby his firm i.e. J.S. Johar & Associates, 5/30 Old

Double Storey, Lajpat NagarIV, N.D.24 was appointed as Auditor for

conducting the audit of Rangmahal CGHS and proved the auditor'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

Development Authority as Executive Officer wef 1971 to 1979 and

proved a letter Ext.PW69/A; proved another letter No. F4(139)/73

CS/DDA dt. 31.03.1977 as Ext.PW69/B.

PW70 Sh. Radhey Shyam Maheshwari had deposed about

the membership of his wife Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Maheshwari in

Rangmahal CGHS in the year 1973 and was alloted flat no. C19. He

had proved the proceeding register D15 Ext.PW52/B; proved the

list of members wherein the number of flats alloted to the original

members of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society

Ex.PW59/A; proved an affidavit dt. 01.01.2004 (already exhibited as

CC No. 45/2010 Page 47 / 214


Ext.PW66/90); proved the list of promoter members to be appended

with the Modal Bye Laws of Cooperative Group Housing Society

Ext.PW59/C; proved the application for membership Ext.PW70/A;

proved the receipt Ext.PW70/B.

PW 71 Sh. P. R. Bhatia had deposed that he was working as

stamp agent and obtained license from the Deputy Commissioner, Tis

Hazari, Delhi. In May 2001 Sh. Avinash Kumar was appointed as Sub

Agent. PW 71 Sh. P. R. Bhatia had proved the affidavits (stamp

papers) placed at pages no. 1/C to 120/C in file D9. All the stamp

papers of the denomination of Rs.10/ each was sold by sub agent

Sh. Avinash Kumar and bearing his stamp at the back of each stamp

paper by the name of “P. R. Bhatia” Stamp Agent, License No. 262,

Parliament Street. He identified the stamp on the back of the stamp

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.PW66/99 to Ex.PW66/116.

PW 72 Sh. Awanish Kumar had deposed that earlier he was

working as sub agent with Sh. P. R. Bhatia for selling the stamp

papers and deposed that during the year 2003 affidavits were used to

be purchased from him by accused Anna Wankhede, a representative

of Rang Mahal CGHS, through one Mr. Ravi Robinson, a typist, who

CC No. 45/2010 Page 48 / 214


used to sit in Parliament Street for typing. He had proved the

affidavits (stamp papers) placed at pages no. 1/C to 120/C in file

D9. He identified the stamp on the back of the stamp papers at

points PX on each affidavit already exhibited as Ex.PW66/1 to


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.

PW 73 Sh. Ravi Robinson had proved the affidavits (stamp

papers) placed at pages no. 1/C to 120/C in file D9. All the stamp

papers of the denomination of Rs.10/ each were sold by Sh. Awnish

Kumar, sub agent bearing stamp at the back of each stamp paper by

the name of “P. R. Bhatia” Stamp Agent, License No. 262, Parliament

Street to Sh. Anna Wankhede. He identified the stamp on the back of

the stamp 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.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

aforesaid affidavits were brought by accused Anna Wankhede.

PW 74 Sh. Gunveer Jain had deposed that Rangmahal CGHS

having registration no. 152H was formed by him in the year 1971.

Earlier the society was having 15 members but subsequently the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 49 / 214


membership of the society was enhanced to 51. 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 Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi.

He resigned from the society after 3 / 4 years and he participated in

the meetings of this society till he remained its member for about 3 /

4 years but he never attended any meeting with regard to subsequent

created society by the name of Rangmahal CGHS. Even, he did not

know about the subsequent created society by the name Rangmahal

CGHS. He had proved the proceeding register D15 (already

exhibited as Ext.PW52/B) of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing

Society for the period dt. 16.04.1973 to 24.10.1979; proved the

affidavits dt. 01.04.2004 purportedly shown to have been executed

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

members to be appended with the Modal Bye Laws of Cooperative

Group Housing Society (already exhibited as Ext.PW59/C); proved

the applications for membership Ex.PW74/A, Ex.PW74/C,

Ex.PW74/C and Ex.PW74/D; proved the receipts bearing no. 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/B and Ex.PW20/B.

PW75 Sh. S.K. Punhani had deposed that he remained posted

CC No. 45/2010 Page 50 / 214


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 pertaining to Cooperative Group Housing

Society Scam Cases. He had proved that on 10.01.2007, Insp. Bodh

Raj had taken the specimen signatures/writing of accused Anna

Wankhade; accused Sushil Kumar Sharma; accused Sri Chand; Shri

Satender Kumar, S/o Sri Chand on various papers which were given

by them voluntarily. He witnessed the said specimen

signatures/writings from S722 to S751 Ext.PW75/A; S752 to

S785 Ext.PW75/B; S786 to S820 Ext.PW75/C; S821 to S849

Ext.PW75/D.

PW76 Sh. R.P. Shukla had deposed that during the year 2006,

he was posted as LDC in the Group Housing Section of DDA. He had

proved a seizure memo dt. 19.07.2006 (D150) Ext.PW76/A.

PW77 Sh. V.K. Bansal had stated that he remained posted in

the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi wef 31.01.2004

to 31.05.2008 as Assistant Registrar at Parliament Street, New Delhi.

Initially, he was looking after Banking Zone and later on, he was

asked to look after North West Zone. He further deposed that he was

conversant with Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 and Delhi

Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 and deposed about the procedure

regarding working of cooperative societies. He had also proved the

copy of notification no. F.9/38/68/Estt./Coop/VolI/1675 dt.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 51 / 214


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 & identified the signatures of G.S. Meena at point A and

another letter Ext.PW77/DF.

PW 78 Sh. Surinder Kumar Abrol had deposed that in the

year 2006 he was posted at Darya Ganj in Delhi State Cooperative

Bank Ltd., Delhi as Accounts Officer. Smt. Shikha Verma was the

Branch Manager at that time. An account was being maintained in

the name of Rang Mahal Cooperative Group Housing Society having

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

account as Ext.PW78/C.

PW 79 Sh. Sher Singh had deposed that during the year 2006

he was posted at Indraprastha Post Office and was looking after the

area of Kuncha Chalan, Darya Ganj and proved an envelope D63

Ex.PW79/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Raj Kishore

Tripathi S/o Sh. Raghav Ramji R/o 1762, Kuncha Chalan, Darya

Ganj, Delhi but the envelope was returned undelivered to the sender

as no such person by the name of Raj Kishore Tripathi was living

there

PW80 Sh. Ram Naresh Thakur had deposed that he had

CC No. 45/2010 Page 52 / 214


worked in Delhi Development Authority and retired in April, 2008 as

Assistant Director. He was posted in Group Housing Department in

the year 2005 and described the procedure of allotment of land to a

society and had proved letters dt. 31.03.1977 Ext.PW69/B;

Ext.PW80/A placed at page 63 in file D13 (Ext.PW52/D); perpetual

lease Ext.PW52/D3; the form Appendix 'D' Ext.PW80/B; proved

another letter dt. 03.04.1982 Ext.PW80/C; proved a list of members

Ext.PW59/A.

PW81 Insp. S.L. Garg had proved production cum seizure

memo dt. 12.08.2005 Ext.PW81/A; handing over/taking over memo

D5 Ext.PW81/B; another handing over/taking over memo (D3) dt.

16.12.2005 Ext.PW81/C vide which Insp. Rajenderan had handed

over the aforesaid three files mentioned in handing over taking over

memo Ext.PW81/B to Insp. L.Hangshin of EOWII.

PW82 Sh. Naresh Saxena had deposed that he is the

proprietor of V.A. Agency. He had proved production cum seizure

memo dt. 13.09.2005 Ext.PW82/A; proved the certified true copy of

the notice pertaining to Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd.

(Registration no. 152) which was published in the “Times of India”

newspaperExt.PW82/B; proved the certified true copy of bill/cash

memo having invoice no. 52 dt. 04.01.2005 Ext.PW82/C; proved the

certified true copy of bill cum receipt dt. 27.12.2004 Ext.PW82/D;

proved the certified true copy of Release Order dt. 27.12.2004

CC No. 45/2010 Page 53 / 214


Ext.PW82/E. He testified that the advertisement for the newspaper

was given by accused Sri Chand.

PW83 Sh. Neeraj Kumar is a Chartered Accountant by

profession and has been practising from the office M/s ANK &

Associates (Earlier it was C.L. Golchha & Co.) at Unit No. 6, Second

Floor, Arawali Shopping Center, Alakhnanda, New Delhi. He had

proved D11 Audit Report VolumeI pertaining to Rangmahal Group

Housing Society having registration no. 152H (already exhibited as

Ext.PW2/A1) and proved the pages 12 to 240 Ext.PW83/A (colly.);

proved D12 Audit Report VolumeII pertaining to Rangmahal Group

Housing Society having registration no. 152H and proved the pages

12 to 240 Ext.PW83/B (Colly.); proved the carbon copy of his

statement which was recorded u/s 164 CrPC Ext.PW83/C before the

Ld. MM at Patiala House Courts and proved the original statement

recorded u/s 164 CrPC as Ext.PW83/D. He testified that the work of

preparing balance sheets for the society was done by him on the

instructions of accused Sri Chand, who had sent the documents and

fee through his employee Sushil Kumar Sharma.

PW84 Sh. C.S. Prakashnarayanan deposed that he remained

associated as Investigating Officer in CGHS Scam Cases which were

ordered to be investigated by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi. 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


memo of V.A. Agencies dt. 04.01.2005 and bill cum receipt dt.

27.12.2004 and the release order dt. 27.12.2004 (already exhibited

as Ext.PW82/B to Ext.PW82/E).

PW85 Ms. Sunita Nagpal was an LDC in the office of Registrar

of Cooperative Societies and had proved a note sheet dt. 22.03.2004

Ext.PW85/A placed in file D8; proved another notes dt. 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.

Registrar marked as Ext.PW85/A3. She further proved a note dt.

31.03.2004 Ext.PW85/A4; proved a letter dt. 31.03.2004

Ext.PW85/A5; proved the copy of Bye Laws of Cooperative Group

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; proved another copy of bye laws of the society as well

as list of promoter members placed at pages 324/C to 333/C

Ext.PW85/A7; proved a letter dt. 29.12.2003 placed at page 322/C

Ext.PW85/A8; proved another letter dt. 10.02.2004 Ext.PW85/A9;

proved letter dt. 03.02.2004 Ext.PW85/A10; proved the inspection

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. She had also proved a letter dt.

22.03.2004, note sheets placed at pages 9 to 22 in file D8. She did

CC No. 45/2010 Page 55 / 214


not fully support the prosecution case and therefore was cross

examined by Ld. Public Prosecutor. During such cross examination,

she testified that the file of Rangmahal CGHS was given to her by

accused Ramesh Chandra.

PW86 Sh. M.A. Hashmi was the Dy. Registrar in the office of

RCS. He had proved a list already exhibited as Ext.PW52/D; proved

a letter dt. 08.11.1991 Ext.PW86/A; proved a letter dt. 24.02.1992

Ext.PW86/B.

PW87 Sh. P.Vijaya Shankar was posted at GEQD(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

November 2006 running into three pages Ex.PW87/A5; proved the

copy of his reasons for opinion Ex.PW87/A6 (colly.); proved a letter

dated 2.3.2007 (D154) Ex.PW87/A7 vide which his supplementary

opinion no. CH338/2006 was forwarded to the Superintendent of

Police, CBI; proved his supplementary opinion/report dated 27th 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

with the standard signatures S455 to S459 of Jasvir Singh Sandhu,

which collectively stands proved as Ex.PW87/A16; S460 to S466

of Narayan Diwakar, collectively proved as Ex.PW87/A20; S467 to

CC No. 45/2010 Page 56 / 214


S486 of Mohan Lal, which collectively proved as Ex.PW87/A23;

S528 to S542 of Faiz Mohd., collectively exhibited as

Ex.PW87/A24; S607 to S626 of Sh. Ramesh Chandra., collectively

exhibited as Ex.PW87/A38 (total sheets 20); S487 to S527 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

S721 Ex.PW87/A44 of Sh. Mohan Lal; S739 to S743, S748 to

S751 (already exhibited as Ex.PW75/A) of Sh. Anna Wankhede;

S680 to S683 (Ex.PW87/A66) and S781 to S783 (already

exhibited as Ex.PW75/B) of Sushil Kumar Sharma.

PW88 A.Subramaniam is a GradeIV (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/NCT of Delhi during the year 20062007 and granted

sanction in respect of Sh. Prahlad Kumar Thirwani. He had proved

the sanction order dt. 30.04.2007 Ext.PW89/A.

PW90 Insp. Bodhraj Hans is the Investigating officer and has

proved the investigation of this case. He testified that the notices to

join investigation were sent through speed post to all 120 members.

(Perusal of these letters would show that all these letters received

back by CBI undelivered with the report that No such person or no

CC No. 45/2010 Page 57 / 214


such address were available.) He seized various files from the office

of Registrar as well as from the office of Rangmahal CGHS. He also

seized the files from DDA vide which the land had already been

alloted to Rangmahal CGHS. He testified that the specimen

signatures of the accused persons were also taken and the questioned

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

proved the sanction order dt. 08.05.2007 Ext.PW93/A in respect of

accused Jitender Singh Sharma.

PW94 Sh. Yogi Raj was Assistant Registrar in the office of

Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Parliament Street, New Delhi wef

2000 to 2005. He proved the photocopy of letters dt. 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. He had proved the attested photocopy of list of 120

members Ext.PW94/C which was forwarded vide letter dt.

25.03.2004 Ext.PW94/A by him; proved the Rule 11 (1) of 1973.

In statement under Section 313 CrPC accused persons denied

the allegations. Accused Sri Chand examined DW1 Vinay Kumar in

CC No. 45/2010 Page 58 / 214


defence. This witness is a Head Clerk in Audit Branch in the office of

RCS. He testified that the auditor would only charge the audit fee.

However, he also testified that as per new DCS Act2003 & DCS Rules

2007, the Chartered Accountant cannot audit the accounts of the

society without permission of RCS. He explained that since he was

not a commerce student, therefore, he was unable to make any

comment about the balance sheets shown to him for different years

pertaining to Rangmahal CGHS.

Accused Ramesh Chandra (A2) examined Sh. R.K. Mudgil

(DW2) in his defence. This witness testified that he is posted as Sub

Inspector in the office of RCS. He testified that he had received the

summons issued by the court to produce the following records:

(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

allotment between 1976 to 2004.

(2) Relevant instructions/order of the Government of NCT

Delhi/Registrar Cooperative Society regarding functioning of Policy

Division of the RCS office.

He testified that these registers are not maintained in the office

of RCS but the relevant files are maintained and he brought the same

to the court. He also testified that no document or registers

CC No. 45/2010 Page 59 / 214


maintained in Policy Division regarding sending of list of members of

CGHS to DDA for allotment of land is available. Even after 199798,

no such registers were maintained in Policy Branch. However, he

added that the relevant files are available from 1997 onwards. In

cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor, he testified that before

the year 199798, there were two units of group housing. One was

called “Old Group Housing” and the other unit was called as “New

Group Housing.” The witness added that before the year 199798,

the lists approved by office of RCS used to be sent by aforesaid group

housing units to DDA. After 199798, the office of RCS was divided

in nine zones for the purpose of group housing societies and the files

which were being dealt in the above stated units were

distributed zone wise after division of the office of RCS in nine

zones. He further testified that the file of a society prior to

199798 would be found in respective zone. I would like to

reproduce the relevant portions of cross examination by Ld. Public

Prosecutor dated 17.05.2012 and 21.05.2012 as under:

“Q I draw your attention to the letters dt. 24.02.1992 bearing no. F.47/152/GH/Coop 389 (Ext.PW86/B) & dt. 08.11.1991 bearing no. F.47/152/GH/Coop 2931 Ext. PW86/A which were sent to DDA alongwith a list of 50 members of Rangmahal CGHS. Is it correct that these letters had the same file number in the dispatch number, which is appearing on the files of Rangmahal CGHS (D8 & D9)?(Objected to by Ld. Defence Counsel on the grounds already stated above. Objection overruled.)

A The file D8 bears the number F47/152/75/Coop/GH and

CC No. 45/2010 Page 60 / 214


D9 bears the number F47/152/Coop/GH. The letters bear the number of the file as F.47/152/GH/Coop in the dispatch number.

Q Is it correct that as per letter dt. 27.01.2004 Ext.PW85/A13, it contains the same file number i.e. F.47/152/GH/Coop?(Objected to by Ld. Defence Counsel on the grounds already stated above. Objection overruled.)

A It is a matter of record.”.............................................“Q Is it correct that there is no mention regarding letters dt.

08.11.1991 Ext.PW86/A and letter dt. 24.02.1992 Ext.PW86/B in the noting portion of file D8 sent to DDA by the Asstt. Registrar (GH)? (objected to by the accused.)

A I cannot answer to this question. It is a matter of record. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deliberately evading the answer to the aforesaid question.

Q Is it correct that as and when draw of lots for allotment of flats is conducted by the DDA to any society, an officer from the office of RCS remains present at that time? (objected to by the accused.)

A It is correct. However, I cannot say about the earlier system. Q Is it correct that a copy of letter deputing an officer by the

office of RCS for attending the draw of lots is also sent to the President/Secretary of the society? (objected to by accused)

A I do not know about the previous system, but, presently this practice is being followed.I cannot admit or deny the suggestion that this practice was always prevalent.

Q Is it correct that an order dt. 22.01.1993 (D142) Ext.PW90/A60 was issued by the Asstt. Registrar (GH) vide which Sh. A.SubramaniamSub Inspector was deputed as an observer for attending the draw of lots to be held on 23.01.1993 at 11 a.m. pertaining to Rangmahal CGHS? (Objected to by accused.)

A It is a matter of record. (Voltd. I was not posted at the relevant time.)”

The other accused persons did not lead any evidence in

CC No. 45/2010 Page 61 / 214


defence.

Submissions of the Public Prosecutor

Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that the evidence led by the

prosecution proves that Sri Chand (A1) was one of those builders,

who were the king pin of the society scam. He got prepared various

documents of the alternative society with active involvement of

accused Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9), Anna Wankhede (A10) and

Mohan Lal (A11). It is submitted that pursuant to this conspiracy

one application was filed by one Deepak Kumar, a fictitious secretary

of the society, on 29.12.2003 requesting for approval of the final list

of 120 members of the said society for allotment of land. All these

120 members were found fake in the sense that the out of the 50

original members, names of only a few were shown as the promoters

members, whereas rest of the same did not even exit. Even those

members, who were also the members of the actual society had

denied having participated in the proceedings pertaining to change of

address etc. of the parallel society. Moreover the registered office of

the society was also shown to have been shifted from 81, Sunder

Nagar, New Delhi to 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII,

New Delhi vide a forged managing committee resolution dated

20.8.1995 so that the society comes in the jurisdiction of Assistant

Registrar (East), who was Ramesh Chandra (A2) at that time. Ld.

Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the letter dated

CC No. 45/2010 Page 62 / 214


29.12.2003 Ex.PW85/A8 (D8) page 322C. In this application, it is

mentioned that 50 members of the society had no roof over their

families in Delhi and thereafter 70 members were enrolled from

time to time and that now the freeze strength of the society is

120 members. It is submitted that this letter was made with a view

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

presented to Narayan Diwkar (A8), the registrar, which stands proved

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

correspondences from where all the letters (even if addressed to the

other officials of RCS) are put before Registrar, who marks it to the

relevant branches. This letter was marked to J. R. (East) Jasbir Singh

Sandhu (A7), who further marked to Ramesh Chandra (A2) to A. R.

(East). A. R. (East) marked this letter to Dealing Assistant.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to a letter dated

31.12.2003 Ex.PW85/A14 (D8) page 69C, wherein J. S. Sharma

(A6) A. R. Audit has written A. R. East that a letter has been received

from Deepak Kumar Honorary Secretary of Rangmahal CGHS in

which he has requested for audit of the society since registration upto

CC No. 45/2010 Page 63 / 214


31.3.2003. J. S. Sharma (A6) has to explain as to on which letter he

acted because the letter dated 29.3.2003 had not reached him till

that date.

On receiving this letter the Dealing Assistant Rakesh Kumar

Hasija (A4) initiated his note sheet dated 13.1.2004. He writes in

the note sheet (page 9 of D8) that as per the records available the

audit of the society is pending since registration and no list was

sent to DDA for allotment of land till date and there is no

liquidation order in the file. It was also recommended that Faiz

Mohd. (A3) may be appointed as inspector for conducting the

inspection under Section 54 of the present running condition of the

society. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to page 66/C

of the file (D8) in which there is a reference of deposition of earnest

money to be deposited by the original society with DDA.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the letter

dated 26.5.1975 Ex.PW52/G1 (page 68/C of D8), which is a letter

written on behalf of the original Rangmahal CGHS to the Assistant

Registrar. The last note sheet available on the file was dated

27.8.1973. Since there were communications in this file upto the

year 1975 also, this shows that note sheet in respect of the said

communications must be available, therefore instead of noting this

fact the dealing clerk clearly wrote contrary to the record that the

status of the society is non functional.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 64 / 214


Vide this note he proposed appointment of Faiz Mohd. (A3) as

inspector for conducting the inspection under Section 54 for the

present running condition of the society.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has again drawn my attention to the

letter dated 29.12.2003 Ex.PW85/A8 wherein it was written that

the society was registered at its address 81, Sunder Nagar, New

Delhi110003 and was shifted to 157G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar,

PhaseIII, Delhi110096 vide MC resolution passed on 20.8.1995.

Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that there was nothing on record to

show that the RCS was informed about this change of address

previously, therefore the dealing clerk Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4) and

Ramesh Chandra (A2) should have raised the query as to why such

change of address has not been informed as per rules, which is

mandatory rule as per the rule of DCS Act.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the fact that

Jasbir Singh Sindhu (A7) wrote “PL. Spk.” i.e please speak at

Ex.PW87/10. However he does not explain as to what query was

sought by him from his subordinates i.e. dealing clerk Rakesh Kumar

Hasija (A4) and Ramesh Chandra (A2).

Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that this should be seen at the

back drop of the fact that the original registered office of the society

fall in Central New Delhi Zone but it was shown to have changed its

address fraudulently in the letter dated 29.12.2003 as well as the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 65 / 214


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) at that time.

In response of note of Jasbir Singh Sandhu (A7) the dealing

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

the status of the society being non functional and having not been

audited since inception may be informed to A. R. Audit. This note

sheet went up to RCS and was approved on 21.1.2004. Pursuant to

approval of this note, Ramesh Chandra (A2) informed A. R. (Audit)

J. S. Sharma (A6) vide letter Ex.PW85/A12 (page no.71/C of D8)

informing the fact that audit of the society was pending since

registration, no list was sent to DDA for allotment of land till date

and the society was not under liquidation. Ld. Public Prosecutor has

further drawn my attention to the order of Ramesh Chandra (A2) Ex.

PW85/A13 vide which Ramesh Chandra (A2) appointed Faiz

Mohd. (A3) as inspecting officer to find out the factual position

of the society and to verify documents and records of the society

and submit the report within 10 days.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the letter of

Faiz Mohd. (A3) dated 3.2.2004 Ex.PW85/A10 (page 318/C of

D8) addressed to A. R. East in which he has clearly stated that “he

had visited at 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi on 31.1.2004 and he was

CC No. 45/2010 Page 66 / 214


informed that the office of the society has been shifted to 147/G,

Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi”. He further states that he

visited the office of society at Mayur Vihar address on 9.2.2004

where he met Deepak Kumar, secretary of the society. He also stated

that Deepak Kumar, secretary of the society, produced all the relevant

records of the society and that there were 120 members of the society

and the list of the members has not been approved by the RCS office

for allotment of land. In audit report Ex.PW85/A11 Faiz Mohd.

(A3) writes that the audit of the society is pending since 1.7.1770 till

date. This letter and the inspection report were duly received by

Ramesh Chandra (A2) on 4.2.2004.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the note dated

10.2.2004 signed by dealing assistant Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4) and

A. R. East Ramesh Chandra (A2). In this note sheet (Ex.PW87/A32

page 11/N of D8) it is written that as per the report of inspector,

the society has shifted address from Sunder Nagar to Mayur Vihar

and that he checked the records. It was proposed that a letter may be

written to the society to produce the complete record in original for

20.2.2004. Pursuant to this note Ramesh Chandra (A2) A. R. East

sent a letter Ex.PW85/A9 dated 10.2.2004 asking the

President/Secretary of the society to appear with the records of the

society.

Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that pursuant to this letter

CC No. 45/2010 Page 67 / 214


Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4) prepared a note signed by Ramesh

Chandra (A2) A. R. East in which it is stated that Deepak Kumar,

secretary of the society, had attended the office and produced the

records for verification. After writing in detail about the general

body resolution for final list of the members for allotment letter etc.,

he reproduced inspection report of Faiz Mohd. (A3). Thereafter he

wrote that the accounts of the society have been audited by the

department auditor upto 31.3.2003. In the end of this detailed

note sheet, dealing clerk and A. R. (East) have proposed the approval

of final list of 120 members for onwards transmission to DDA for

allotment of land. This note was considered by Jasbir Singh Sandhu

(A7) and was finally approved by Narayan Diwkar (A8) on

19.3.2004. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that Smt. Sunita Nagpal

wrote a note sheet Ex.PW85/A putting a letter to be sent to DDA for

allotment of land. This letter was sent by Ramesh Chandra (A2) on

22.3.2004 to Assistant Registrar (Policy), who in turn sent the letter

to DDA. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to a letter

dated 19.1.2005 Ex.PW77/DF written by Assistant Registrar to all

the branches of RCS stating that DDA has returned a list of 135

cooperative housing societies for reverification of membership and

other details. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the

list Ex.PW77/DD, which mentions Rangmahal CGHS i.e. Silver View

CGHS, which is the changed name.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 68 / 214


Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the letter

Ex.PW85/A1 dt. 29.03.2004 written by Deepak Kumar, the fictitious

secretary of the society, to A. R. (East) in which it was prayed that

the old name of the society may be changed and new name i.e. Silver

View Apartments CGHS Ltd. may be given to it. On this letter Smt.

Sunita Nagpal the dealing assistant wrote a noting proposing that the

file may be sent to RCS for approval. It is submitted that Ramesh

Chandra (A2) and the A. R. (East) and Jasbir Singh Sindhu (A7)

have written their notes proposing the change of the name of the

society and it was finally approved by Narayan Diwakar vide his

signatures dated 29.3.2004. It is submitted that this was done so as

to avoid the detection of the fraud of creation of a parallel society.

Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that in the entire note sheets

upto 20.1.2004, there is no reference to the letter dated 29.12.2003

Ex.PW85/A8 written by Deepak Kumar, the fictitious secretary. It is

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

drawn my attention to the fact that in fact there is no order of audit

for more than 3 years passed by RCS but still the audit of the society

is being done since the time its inception. It is argued that the only

course for RCS office was to write a letter to DDA to verify as to

whether the land has been allotted to this society or not but the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 69 / 214


entire hierarchy right from the dealing clerk upto registrar

deliberately omitted to do so.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to Ex.PW52/D

(D13), which is a file of DDA in respect of the allotment of land to

the real Rangmahal society, which shows that the land was allotted to

the society way back in the year 1977. Ld. Public Prosecutor has also

drawn my attention to the list of 50 members, which was approved

by the Assistant Registrar M. A. Hashmi and this list sent by M. A.

Hashmi, the then A. R., vide letter dated 8.11.1991, which is

Ex.PW86/A. Ld. Public Prosecutor has also drawn my attention to

the order Ex.PW90/A16 written by AR dated 22.1.1993 to the

President/Secretary of Rangmahal CGHS as well as A. Subramanyam,

the Sub. Inspector, who was deputed to act as observer for the draw

of allotment to the societies. It is submitted that the copy of this

letter is also not available on the file D8 and D9 of the RCS in

respect of this society, though it should be available on it. Further

the DDA file D13 shows that A. Subramanyam, the Sub. Inspector,

posted in RCS office was also present in the draw of lots held on

23.1.1993 vide which the particular land came to this society. It is

submitted that all these communications must have been present on

the file of RCS office, which shows that the same were removed

deliberately with a view to create a fake/parallel society.

Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that all these facts are enough to

CC No. 45/2010 Page 70 / 214


prove that all the accused persons had conspired to create a parallel

society of Rangmahal CGHS, it being one of the earliest societies

having high seniority value for land allotment and the list of fake

members was sent to DDA by RCA officials by abusing their official

positions to benefit the builder mafia.

Kaveri CGHS Judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court

Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that in Kaveri Cooperative Group

Housing Society Ltd. Vs Union of India (AIR 1991 Delhi 217) had

ordered the criteria of seniority of the society as per the date of their

registration, so as to stop the bunglings in the office of RCS but the

RCS officials were smart enough to defeat the purpose of that

judgement and had invented a new trick by fraudulently reviving the

defunct societies at the instance of builder mafia. The another

modus operandi was fraudulently creating a parallel society with the

same name and same registration number, even though the actual

society was still functional. The parallel society was created because

the registration number of the actual society was high in seniority list

on account of its date of registration.

The circumstances of the present case fully justify the

submissions of Ld. Public Prosecutor. For sake of understanding the

logic of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kaveri CGHS judgement, I

would like to reproduce the relevant paragraphs from this judgement

as under :

CC No. 45/2010 Page 71 / 214


“Where in respect of allotment of land by the Delhi Development authority (DDA) to the Group Housing Societies, under the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules (1981) framed under S. 22 read with S. 56 of the Delhi Development Act (1957), an office memorandum was issued determining seniority on the basis of finalisation of list of 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 unreasonable and hence arbitrary. The main principle which has been set out in the said office memorandum is that the seniority is to be determined with effect from the date on which the papers of the Society have been found in order and approved by the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The effect of this is that irrespective of the date when the Societies were registered, the seniority will not be determined with effect from the date of registration nor with effect from the date when the list of members were submitted, but is to be determined with effect from the date when the Registrar accords its approval to the list so filed. This criteria is unreasonable, to say the least. The effect of this principle is that the societies have been left at the mercy of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. There may be cases, and they probably are, where full particulars may not have been supplied by the societies. But as

CC No. 45/2010 Page 72 / 214


and when verification has taken place, it must necessarily relate back to the date when the list of members was filed. There are numerous instances which show that with no fault of the societies they have been relegated to a lower position in the seniority list, as there are societies where the lists were verified number of years after they had been submitted even though no defects were indicated in the list originally filed.”

In this judgement it was specifically held that land was to be

allotted to the society according to the seniority i.e. date of

registration. The purpose of this judgement was to restrict the

powers of RCS so that these powers are not abused. However the

facts of the present case show that the RCS officials in conspiracy

with the private persons invented new fraudulent methods.

Official Proceedings

The proceedings in the present matter started when AR(East)

received a letter from AR(Audit) asking for status of the society. The

said letter Ext.PW85/A14 (placed at page 69/C of D8) is

reproduced as under:

To

The ASSTT. REGISTRAR (EAST)OFFICE OF THE R.C.SSANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI01

SUB: REGARDING AUDIT OF THE RANGMAHAL COOP.G/H SOCIETY LTD. (Regn. No. 152(H) dated 31.3.1973.)

SIR,

CC No. 45/2010 Page 73 / 214


A letter has been received from Sh. Deepak Kumar Hony. Secretary of theRanmahal coop. G/H Society Ltd. in which he has requested for the audit of the societysince registration to 31.3.3.2003. As the audit of the society is pending since registration, itIs, therefore, requested to confirm the present status of the society from your records atthe earliest, so that further action in this regard will be taken accordingly.

(J.S. SHARMA) ASSTT. REGISTRAR (AUDIT)

On receiving of this letter, accused Rakesh Hasija (the Dealing

Clerk) typed a note sheet which was signed by Ramesh Chandra on

13.01.2004, but, Sh. J.S. Sindhu, AR(East) wrote 'Pl. Spk.” and file

returned to AR(East). I reproduce the note sheet as under:

“May kindly see the PUC received from Asstt. Registrar (Audit) reg.Rangmahal Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. The Secretary of the society hasapplied for audit in audit branch since registration of the society. As per recordavailable the audit of the society is pending since registration and no list was sentto DDA for allotment of land till date and there is no liquidation order in the file.As per record available the status of the society is non functional. Asstt.Registrar (Audit) has requested and asked for status of the society. If agreed we mayinform to AR(Audit) accordingly and Sh. Faiz Mohamad may be appointed as inspector for conducting the inspection U/s 54 for present running condition of the society.Both letters are added for Signature please.

Sd/Dealing Clerk.13/1

We may inform AR(Audit)accordingly and order oninspection u/s 54 for the present status of the society. May kindly approve.

JR(E) Sd/Ramesh Chandra13.1.04

Pl Spk.Sd/J.R. Sindhu16.1.04

AR(E)Sd/

CC No. 45/2010 Page 74 / 214


Ramesh Chandra16.1.04

DA

On the noting “Pl. Spk.” of Sh.J.R. Sindhu JR (E), the dealing

assistant Sh. Rakesh Hasija typed the following note sheet which was

signed by AR(E) on 20.01.1984. Sh. J.R. SindhuJR(E) wrote “For

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:

“As discussed with worthy JRCS reg. Status of Rangmahal CooperativeGroup Housing Society Ltd. The Secretary of the society has applied for audit branch since registration of the society. (see at FlagB) As per record available the audit of the society is pending since registration and no list was sent to DDA for allotment of land till date and there is no liquidation order in the file.As per record available the status of the society is non functioned. Asstt. Registrar (Audit) has requested and asked for status of the society. If agreed we may inform to AR(Audit) accordingly and Sh. Faiz Mohamad may be appointed as inspector for

'A' conducting the inspection U/s 54 for present running condition of the society. Both letters are added for Signature please.

Sd/Dealing Clerk. AR(East)20.1 Sd/

Ramesh Chandra20.1.04

JR(E)For approval of 'A' above please

Sd/J.S. Sindhu21.1.04

RCSSd/Narayan Diwakar21.1.04

JR(E)Sd/J.S. Sindhu23.1.4

AR(E)Sd/Ramesh Chandra

23.1.4

After receiving the report of Faiz Mohd. and receiving another

PUC dt. 29.12.2003 , a note sheet typed by Rakesh Hasija and

recommended by AR(E) is written at page no. 11/N of D8. The

CC No. 45/2010 Page 75 / 214


same is reproduced (with emphasis supplied) as under:

“May kindly see the PUC is a report of Sh. Faiz Mohammad, Inspector of RCSoffice reg.status of Rang Mahal Cooperative group Housing Society. As per report ofInspector this society has been shifted from 81,Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to 147G,PocketA2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi96. After visited at Mayur Vihar he metSh. Pardeep Kumar, Secretary of the society. Sh. Pardeep Kumar Secy. Of the societyhas produced all the relevant records of the society and informed that there are 120members are existing in the society and list of the members of the society has not yetapproved by the RCS office for allotment of land. The Membership Register iscomplete in all respect. The Audit of the society is pending since 01/07/70 on wards all the accounts are ready for audit since 01/7/70 to 31/3/03. (copy of unauditedaccounts since 1/7/70 to 31/3/03 enclosed with the report). Sh. Faiz Moh. Has alsostated that the election of the society was held on 28/12/03 as per DCS rules. All the society records are found under the safe custody of Sh. Deepak Kumar Secy. of the society. Kindly see the PUC received from the society reg. List of members. In thisregard if agree we may sent a letter to society for produce the complete record inoriginal, in this office dated 20.2.04 at 12.00 Noon.

Fair letter is added for Signature please.

Sd/ Sd/Rakesh Hasija Ramesh Chandra 10.2.04 10.2.04

AR(East)

(Ex PW87/A32)5.11.2011

:13:Verification of the records of the Society.

May kindly see that Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary ofthe Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.has attended this office and produced the original records forverification and the same was examined/verified,accordingly submissions are as under:

The Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing SocietyLtd. is registered with this department at S.No. 152(H) on31.03.73 at its regd. Address 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi andpresently functioning at 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar PhaseIII, Delhi110096 and registered under the provisions ofBombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 (Bombay Act No. VIIof 1925) as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi and latergoverned under the provisions of Delhi Cooperative SocietiesAct, 1972 & Rules framed thereunder with the object to acquireland for construction of flats for its members (Copy of the Registration Certificate and Regd. ByeLaws are placed at P 24/C to P30/C respectively (Main File.)

CC No. 45/2010 Page 76 / 214


The Secretary of the society has submitted resolution ofManaging Committee Meeting dated 200895 (see P 383/CVol.I) that the society had shifted its office from 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar PhaseIII, Delhi110096 during the year 1995.

Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary of the Society has furthersubmitted that the matter of approval of final list of members forallotment of land was put up before the General Body on 28/12/2003 (resolution No. 5) (see P 322/C to P 323/C (Vol

I)) and it was unanimously approved by the General Body topray before the Registrar Cooperative Societies to approve the final list of 120120 members in order o achieve its objective to provide shelter to its members. He ha further submitted that theelections of the society were held from time to time and the lastelection was held on 28/12/2003 (resolution no. 1) in the General Body Meeting (photocopy of the minutes of GBM placed at P 322/C to P 323/C (VolI).

In this connection, an Inspection under section 54 of theDCS Act, 1972 was conducted to know the existence andfunctioning of the society before taking action for approval offinal list of 120 members and to getting its accounts Audited bythe Departmental Auditor. Sh. Faiz Mohammad Gr.II Inspectorof North West Zone was appointed as Inspecting Officer vide this office order no. F.47/ 152/ GH/ Coop./ 2064 dated27.01.2004 (see P 71/C (Main File.)

The Inspection Report of Inspecting Officer is placed at P72/C to 319/C (VolIII). The contents of his report are givenas under:(i) That he had visited at 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi on

31.01.2004. He was informed from there that the Office of theSociety h as been shifted from 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi 110096.Thereafter, he had visited at the Office Address of the Societyi.e. 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi110096 on 01.02.2004 and there he met Sh. Deepak Kumar,Secretary of the Society.

(ii) That Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary of the Society produced allthe relevant records of the Society and informed that there are120 members are existing in the Society and list of membershas not yet approved by the RCS office for allotment of land.

(iii) That the Regd. Address of the Society was 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi and at present the Society is functioning at 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi96

(iv) That the Membership Register was completed in all respect.(v) That the Audit of the Society was pending since 01.07.70

onwards. All the accounts were ready for audit since 01.07.70

CC No. 45/2010 Page 77 / 214


to 31.03.2003 (A copy of unaudited accounts since 01.07.70 to31.03.2003 was enclosed)

(vi) That the Proceeding Register was also completed and the lastManaging Committee meeting was held on 29.12.2003.

(vii) That as per records of the Society the last Election was held on 28.12.2003 as per DCS Rules (Copies of Election record was enclosed)

(viii) That all the Society records were found under the safe custody of Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary of the Society,

Keeping in view of the facts stated above it appears that the society is functioning, but failed to fulfill the statutory obligations under the provisions of DCS Act & Rules and byelaws of the society (see note at P9/N) and the members of the society are still hoping to have a shelter of their own.

The Secretary of the society has produced/submitted theoriginal records and documents pertaining to membership, audit& election, etc. for verification and the same was counterchecked/verified and found in order. A detailed report in this regard is given as under:

1. The society has submitted a list of 120 members (see P325/C to P 364/C VolI) for approval and onwardsubmissions to DDA for allotment of land.

2. The Society was registered with this department at S.No. 152(H) on 31.03.1973 with 56 promoter members (refer copyof the byelaws at P22/C to P24/C (Main File)).

3. The following 6 members were deleted out of 56 members bythe RCS at the time of registration, the details list is given asunder:

Sl. No. M.No. Member's Name1. 24 Prem Narain Mahesh Mani2. 25 Nand Lal Rathi3. 29 Vikram Kumar Surbani4. 33 Madan Lal Joshi5. 38 Ram Swaroop Bakshi6. 56 Nand Kishore Khanna

Enrolments prior to 30.6.86: The society has enrolled 71 members prior to freeze date i.e. 30.6.86. A consolidated listof these members is placed at P365/C to P366/C (VolI) andthe details are given as under:

Sl. M. Member's NameDate of Date of Date of No. No. Application MC Receipt

CC No. 45/2010 Page 78 / 214


Approval of ShareMoney

1. 57 Chandra Kant Joshi 10.09.76 16.09.76 20.09.762. 58 K.H. Patel 10.09.76 16.09.76 20.09.76.. .. .............. .............. .............. ................ .. .............. .............. .............. ................ .. .............. .............. .............. ................ .. .............. .............. .............. ................ .. .............. .............. .............. ................ .. .............. .............. .............. ................ .. .............. .............. .............. ................ .. .............. .............. .............. ................ .. .............. .............. .............. ..............71. 127 M.K. Singh 08.07.78 15.07.78 22.07.78

Since all the above mentioned enrolments were made prior to freeze date i.e. 30.6.86, therefore, no approval is required for the same. However, the society has submitted the following documents in connection with these above mentionedenrolments:

i) Photocopy of application forms for membership from 120enrolled members is placed from P162/C to P288/CVol – I).

ii) Photocopy of receipt of Share Money from enrolledmembers is placed from P121/C to P161/C Vol.I).

iii) Photocopy of the minutes of the managing committeemeetings in which the enrolments were approved areplaced at P369/C to P375/C Vol I).

iv) Fresh affidavits in original in r/o 120 existing members are placed at P1/C to P120/C VolI).

4. Resignations prior to 30.6.86: The following one member has resigned from the Society. A consolidated list ofmember is placed at P382/C VolI) and the details list is givenas under:

Sl. M. Member's Name Date of Date of Date of No. No. Resignation MC Refund

Approval of Share Money

1 47 Mrs. Achamma Abraham 11.05.75 11.05.75 11.05.75

Since the above mentioned resignation was made prior to freezedate i.e. 30.6.86, therefore, no approval is required for the same.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 79 / 214


However, the society has submitted the following documents inconnection with this above mentioned resignation:

i) Photocopy of resignation from membership of 1 memberis placed at P381/C VolI).

ii) Photocopy of refund of Share Money of resigned memberis placed at P381/C VolI).

iii) Photocopy of the minutes of the managing committee meeting (resolution No.9) in which the resignation wasapproved, is placed at P380/C (VolI).

5. Resignations after 1.7.86 : Nil6. Enrolments after 1.7.86 : Nil

The Society produced original records for verification,which were examined and verified accordingly. All the enrolments are found in order and in accordance with theprovisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act & Rules.No Residence proof is required as all the enrolments were made prior to 01.05.1985 (refer notification of SpecialSecretary (cooperation) No. F.47/ Legal/ Policy/ Coop/92/23052316 dated 5.12.2001.

7. Transfer Cases & Joint Membership: Since registration of the society, there are no cases of Transferof membership & Joint Membership.

Present Strength of the society:

Promoter members 56Deleted at the time of registration 06Number of members enrolled prior to 30.06.86 71Number of members resigned prior to 1.7.86 01Number of members enrolled prior to 1.7.86 Nil

Total 'existing members' prior to 1.7.86 120(56+71=1277)

Number of members resigned after to 1.7.86 NilNumber of members enrolled after to 1.7.86 Nil

Present Strength 120

The Secretary of the Society has filed an affidavit in respect ofabove mentioned enrolments along with a final list of 120present members for approval and onward submission to DDAfor allotment of land (see P291/C to P303 (VolI).

CC No. 45/2010 Page 80 / 214


In this regard, it is submitted that since the membership strengthof the Society prior to freeze date i.e. 30.6.86 was 120(50+70),hence the freeze strength of the society may be treated as 120.The details of these 120 members are given as under:

Sl. No. M.No. Member's Name1 1 Sh. Surender Kumar Maheshwary.. .. ....................................................... .. ....................................................... .. ....................................................... .. ....................................................... .. ....................................................... .. ....................................................... .. ....................................................... .. ....................................................... .. ....................................................... .. ....................................................... .. ....................................................... .. ....................................................... .. .....................................................120 127 M.K.Singh

The Secretary of the Society has also filed an Affidavitstating that:

a) The society is ready to take responsibility, if any memberwho had resigned, files any case/claim before any courtof law. (see P319 Vol I)

b) There is no court case pending in any court of law against the Society. See P321/C (VolI)

c) There is no inspection u/s 54 and inquiry u/s 55 & 59pending against the society. See P320/C (VolI)

d) The General Body Members of the Society in theirmeeting held on 28.12.2003 (resolution no. 4) have also sought condonation for the lapses/irregularities occurreddue to lack of knowledge to run the Society. (See P322/C to P 324/C (VolI)

Audit: The accounts of the Society have been audited by the Departmental Auditor upto 31.03.2003. (see P01/C to P240/C(VolII)

Election : The election of the Managing Committee of theSociety was held in the General Body Meeting dated 28.12.2003and following Managing Committee has been Elected:

S.No. M.S. No. Name of the M.C. DesignationMember

1. 122 Sh. Arun KumarPresident2. 123 Smt. Raksha Devi VicePresident3. 121 Sh. Deepak Kumar Secretary4. 124 Sh. Rajender Kumar Singh Treasurer

CC No. 45/2010 Page 81 / 214


5. 125 Smt. Vishakha Singh Member

The society has submitted the following documents in connection with election of the Society:

i) Minutes of the Managing Committee Meeting held on 23.11.2003 (photocopies are placed at P318/C (VolI)

ii) A copy of the Agenda Notice dated 24.11.2003 wasissued to all the members for the GBM of the societyheld on 28.12.2003 is placed at (see p317/C (VolI).

iii) Service proof of the Agenda Notice issued to all the membersof the society dated 24.11.2003 is placed at P312/C to P316/C (VolI).

iv) Photocopy of the Nomination forms of the candidates are placed at P305/C to P309/C (VolI).

v) Photo Copies of minutes of General Body dated 28.12.2003 placed at P310/C to c

vi) Copy of minutes of MC dated 29.12.2003 placed at P304/C VolI)

The Society has produced/submitted all the relevant documentspertaining to the verification of final list of 120 members foronwards transmission to DDA for allotment of land and the samehas been examined and got verified accordingly.

In view of above stated facts we may request the competentauthority to consider the following:

1. To approve the final list of 120 members for onwardtransmission to DDA for allotment of land.

Submitted for approval please.

Sd/ Sd/Dealing Clerk AR(East)19.3.04 19.3.04

JR(East)19.3.04

RCS Sd/Narayan Diwakar (RCS)

Sd/ 19.3.04Ramesh Chandra22.3.04 JR(E) AR(E)

DA

CC No. 45/2010 Page 82 / 214


Thereafter, a note sheet written by another dealing clerk Smt.

Sunita Nagpal (PW85) on 22.03.2004 which was approved by

AR(E). The same is reproduced as under:

“As approved by competent authority listmay be sent to DDA for allotment of land.Fair letter is added for signature pl.

Sd/ AR(E)Dealing Assistant Ramesh Chandra22.03.04 22.3.04

DA

Thereafter, the RCS received an application Ext.PW85/A1(placed at page

353/C D8 dt. 29.3.2004) which is reproduced as under:

No.152(H)

THE RANGMAHAL COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSEING SOCIETY LTD.

147G, PocketA2, Mayur Vihar PhaseIII, Delhi110096

Dated: 29.03.2004

To,The Asst. Registrar (East)Cooperative SocietiesGovt. of NCT of DelhiParliament StreetNew Delhi110001

Sub.: Request to change the Name of the Society & approve the NewModel ByeLaws of the Society.

Sir,

This is to inform you that the Managing Committee of the Society has approved thefollowing New Name of the Society & also adopted the New Model ByeLaws of Cooperative Group Housing Society as per DCS Act & Rules. It has also been approvedby the Special General Body members meeting held on 27.03.2004.

OLD NAME OF THE SOCIETYTHE RANGMAHAL CGHS LTD.

NEW NAME OF THE SOCIETY1. THE SILVER VIEW APARTMENTS CGHS LTD.2. THE HILL VIEW APARTMENTS CGHS LTD.3. THE SKYBLUE APARTMENTS CGHS LTD.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 83 / 214


sd/ Kindly approve the same & oblige. Ramesh Chandra

29.3.04 Thanking you, DA

Yours Sincerely,5493/E29/03/04 sd/ (DEEPAK KUMAR) SECRETARY

Encl.: 1. Copy of Managing Committee Meeting dated 04.03.2004.2. Copy of Agenda Notice dated 05.03.20043. Copy of UPC (Service Proof) dated 05.03.20044. Copy of Special General Body Meeting dated 27.03.20045. Three copies of amended Model ByeLaws of Cooperative Group Housing

Society (in original)

On this application, Sunita Nagpal wrote a note in hand which

is reproduced as under:

“May kindly see the PUC recd. Fromthe secy. Of the society regarding changeof the name of the society. The society has called the GBM dtd. 270304 andchange the name of the society fromRang Mahal CGHS Ltd. to The Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd.

The above name wasunanimously approved by the Managing Committee in their meeting held on 040304 (see at page 362/C. The agendanotice dtd. 5.03.04, see at page 361(c) wassent to all members through UPC dtd. 5.03.04 to call Special GBMand GBM has approved the above name unanimously in theirmeeting dtd. 27.03.04 see at page 354/C.

The GB Members have also approved and adopted the ModelBye laws of Coop. G Housing Societyunanimously in its meeting held on 27.03.04 as per DCS act and rules. Three copies of ModelBye Laws of Coop. Group Housing Societyin original for approval see page 324/c to 353/c.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 84 / 214


In view of above, we may sent this file to worthy RCS for approval pl.

Submitted pl.Sd/ Sunita Nagpal

AR(E) 29.03.04 May kindly see

for approvalSd/Ramesh Chandra 29.03

JR(E)May please approve the change of name and adoption ofmodel bye laws as proposed above.

Sd/J.S. Sindhu

RCS 29.3.4Sd/ Narayan Diwakar29/3/04

Sd/ Sd/Ramesh Chandra J.S. Sindhu31.3.04 DA JR(E) AR(E)

Thereafter, Sunita Nagpal wrote another note dated 31.03.2004

as under:

“As approved by competent authorityFair letter is added for sign pl.

Sd/ Sd/Sunita Nagpal Ramesh Chandra31.03.04 31/3

DA

Before discussing the aforesaid note sheets, the submissions of

the public servants who are the Dealing Clerk, Assistant Registrar

(East), Jt. Registrar (East), Registrar Cooperative Societies, Auditor,

Assistant Registrar (Audits) & Inspector have to be considered. It

would be appropriate to decide some questions of law common to all

the accused persons. One of the main and most important

CC No. 45/2010 Page 85 / 214


submission on behalf of all these public servants is that they had

done the work in routine manner and have relied upon the

documents furnished by the society and they had no knowledge that

the said documents were forged. It is, therefore, argued that they

had acted in routine manner without having any knowledge of the

forgery or without having any intention to abuse the official position.

In view of these common submissions, the court is faced with the

question as to whether the mens rea in form of intent or knowledge

is a necessary ingredient of Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act.

It is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that till recently, no

judgment had thrown any light on this aspect. Therefore, when this

question arose before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Mr.

Justice S. Muralidhar vide his order dated 24.09.2009 referred this

issue to a larger Bench. Accordingly, this issue was considered by

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P.

Mittal in CRL.A. 482/2002, CRL.A. 509/2002 and CRL.A.484/2002

i.e. Runu Ghosh, T.Rama Rao and Sukhram Vs CBI vide judgment

dated 21.12.2011. I reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the

judgment as under:

“73. Having regard to the previous history of the statute, the amendments to the 1947 Act, its avowed objects and the distinctive structure which Parliament adopted consciously, under the 1988 Act, despite being aware of the preexisting law, as well as the decisions of the Court the conclusion which this Court draws is that mens rea is inessential to convict an accused for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(iii). It would be sufficient

CC No. 45/2010 Page 86 / 214


if the prosecution proves that the public servant “obtains” by his act, pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, to another, without public interest. The inclusion of public interest, in the opinion of the Court, tips the 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, or obtaining of a valuable thing to someone else; typically these may relate to payment of royalty, grant of license or concessions, issuance of permits, authorizations, etc. Yet, such grants, concessions, or other forms of advantages to third parties would not criminalize the public servants actions, so long as they have an element of public interest. They (acts of the public servant) are outlawed, and become punishable, if they are “without public interest.”

.....................

“75. It would be profitable to emphasize the public servants are an entirely different class, and the level of trust reposed in them by the society is reflected in the high standards of behaviour and rectitute expected of them, both in the discharge of their duties, and otherwise. In the case of ministerswho are 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 requirement that before their appointment, each of them has to subscribe to an oath of office and scerecy according to the form set out in the Schedule, to the Constitution of India by which holders of such offices are required to take oath 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 requirement is a constant reminder to the holder of that office that she or he is a trustee and custodian of public interest,and all decisions taken in that capacity are to be based on that factor alone. Holders of other public offices, under the State (a compendious term) are equally bound by such a condition. To ensure that they are afforded the amulet protection and immunity, the Constitution has mandated some safeguards (in the case of members of a service or holders of office under a State or the Union, the protection from arbitrary loss of employment, under Article 311, and the protection of status accorded by virtue of rules or enactments made, pursuant to Article 309 of the Constitution of India). There is an added layer of immunity in the form of requirement of sanction under section 197 or other similar provisions, to protect public servants from needless harassment. However, when the public servant

Crl.A.Nos. 482/02, 509/02 & 536/02 Page 55 acts in a manner that is devoid of public interest, not only would the action become suspect, 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 afforded to his decisions, and is then exposed to prosecution.”

“77. The court, as a consequence has to determine the objective criteria by which acts (of public servants) without public interest, are to be

CC No. 45/2010 Page 87 / 214


judged, if mens rea (to obtain pecuniary advantage or valuable thing to another) is not a necessary ingredient. This exercise is essential because in the absence of mens rea (which has been ruled out) the court has to say what “acts” resulting in someone obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing are “without public interest”. Obviously the mere fact that a third party obtains pecuniary advantage, or a valuable thing, is insufficient; a supplier of equipment to public servants or offices, a travel agent who makes bookings for a public agency, a businessman or corporate group granted licenses or clearances, by departments or agencies of the Government, would all stand to benefit. Many of these decisions are infact, and all are, expected to be in public interest. Therefore, the kind of behaviour which amounts to an “act” resulting in someone “obtaining pecuniary advantage” or “valuable thing” without public interest” needs to be spelt out.”

Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, adv. for accused J. S. Sindhu (A7) argues

that Hon'ble Delhi High Court had proceeded on a wrong

presumption that there is no judgement on this aspect till date. He

has referred to J. Jayalalitha Vs State (MANU/TN/1423/2001)

decided on 4.12.2001. Ld. Counsel for J. S. Sindhu (A7) has read

the entire judgement and I reproduced the relevant portions of the

same as under :

“...........The contention of the prosecution that mere exercise of power to confer pecuniary advantage to another person even without any dishonesty, can attract the penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be accepted, since if such a contention is accepted, any order passed by a public servant, which confers pecuniary advantage, can be prosecuted under the said Act. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 relates to the offence of criminal misconduct, whether it is under Clause (i) or (ii) or (iii) and

CC No. 45/2010 Page 88 / 214


therefore, the offence recognized under all the three clauses is only an offence of criminal misconduct. In my view, all clauses in Section 13(1)(d) of the Act require mens rea and it is an essential ingredient for the offence. The judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala (AIR 1963 SC 116), which was quoted with approval by the Apex Court in Major S. K. Kale v. State of Maharashtra (MANU/SC/0139/1976 : (1977) 2 SCC 394), shows that in order to come within the mischief of the Section, the abuse of position must necessarily be dishonest on the part of the accused. If the words “corrupt, illegal means or abuse” are not read into Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the said Act, innocent persons will be harassed in the course of performance of their official duties.”

The judgments referred to above show that what is sought to be punished under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is not mere misconduct but criminal misconduct and for criminal misconduct, the element of mens rea is essential and if there is no mens rea, the act does not by itself become punishable, except in certain cases, like Section 304A IPC as it provides punishment for rash and negligent act committed without mens rea. I have already extracted Section 13(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


interest” used in the said Section show that 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 interest and even if the act serves one public interest and if the said one public interest is against another public interest, a person cannot be prosecuted, since the Section states emphatically that the act shall be done without any public interest. The word 'any' is therefore to be understood that there should be a zero public interest. The word 'any' is defined in Judicial Dictionary of words and Phrases (Fifth Edition by John S. James) as a word which excludes limitation or qualification. Therefore, the word 'any' used Section 13(1)(d)(iii) is absolute. The trial Judge has also conceded in his judgment that tourism involves public interest, but went on to hold that it cannot override another public interest, i.e. Ecological system. Therefore, it is not a case where we can fit in the words “without any public interest”, To make out an offence of criminal misconduct, two requirements are necessary and they are, (1) the absence of any public interest whatsoever, and (2) the knowledge of the accused that his act is without any public interest. The first requirement is the objective absence, as a fact, of any public interest and the second requirement flows from the legal maxim regarding mens rea. If the accused acted bona fide without any public interest, believing that he is acting in

CC No. 45/2010 Page 90 / 214


the public interest, he is not guilty of the offence of criminal misconduct.”

Regarding Jayalalitha judgement, I would say that when a

judgement of our own High Court on the issue of Section 13(1)(d)

(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act is before this court, the same is

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

High Court is that the element of “mens rea” is applicable to Section

13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act only to the extent that

the public servant should also have the knowledge that his act is

without any public interest. This observation has been admitted by

Hon'ble High Court in Runu Ghosh case but in different words. In

Runu Ghosh case in para 79 Hon'ble High Court has observed that

“however it is only those facts done with complete and manifest

disregard to the norms, and manifestly injurious to public interest

which were avoidable, but for the public servant overlooking or

disregarding precautions and not heeding the safeguards he or she

was accepted and which resulted in pecuniary advantage to

another..........”. To put it in different words, the judgement means

that the if the public servant knew that his act of over looking or

disregarding the precautions would be injurious to public interest, he

CC No. 45/2010 Page 91 / 214


would be covered under the mischief of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The knowledge of the injury to

public interest, however, has to be deduced from the note sheets

because normally no other evidence would be available against such

public servants. The conjoint reading of both the judgements would

lead to the conclusion that when an issue affecting public service

comes before a public servant, it is natural that such public person

would know that any disregard of the norms would harm the public

interest. This knowledge of public interest has to be gathered from

the facts of the case. For example in the present case allotment of

land/plot to the society would be an act in public interest but if land

is granted to a fake society, it would be adverse to the public interest.

In the present case the RCS officials were under the obligations to

verify and certify the members so that land is allotted to a proper

society. Needless to say that land is extremely expensive in NCT of

Delhi, therefore the matter before RCS officials was of utmost

importance. The importance of this issue has been specified by

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kaveri judgement and I reproduce the

relevant portion of the same as under:

“It is open to the Registrar to fix a time limit within which the defects, if any, must be removed by the society so as to enable the Registrar to grant approval. If the defects are not removed within the stipulated time, then the society can have no grievance if the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 92 / 214


approval is not accorded. But once the approval is accorded the same must relate back to the date of the filing of the list. 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.”

I may point it out that in the charges framed by this court, it

has been specifically mentioned that these public servants had acted

against the public interest with a view to obtain pecuniary advantage

to the other accused persons. In the 'Runu Ghosh case', it has also

been decided that since the offences of corruption are done under the

cloak of official duties and in a very clever and shrouded manner, the

only evidence available is note sheets against them and the court

would be fully justified to draw appropriate inferences from such

note sheets. This court has to carefully peruse the note sheets to

consider as to whether there has been any abuse of powers, as per

Section 13(1)(d)(ii) or whether the public servant has acted without

any public interest to obtain pecuniary advantage to any party,

bringing the case under Clause (iii) of Section 13(1)(d).

Case law cited by accused Narayan Diwakar (A8)

Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to Union of India

Vs. Major J. s. Khanna 1971 SPPL (LF) 6096 SC wherein it was

held by Hn'ble Supreme Court that if a public servant had not been

careful or was grossly negligent, his action would not be said to have

CC No. 45/2010 Page 93 / 214


been actuated with criminal intent.

I have perused this case law. The public servant, in the said

case, was facing trial under Section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act

1947, whereas the present accused i.e. Narayan Diwkar is facing trial

under section1 3(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, clauses

of which have been interpreted by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in

'Runu Ghosh' case discussed above. Further I would say that the facts

mentioned in this authority would not be applicable because the

action of the public servant was actuated by an emergency caused by

China War in the year 1962 and Hon'ble supreme Court clearly held

that “it was, however, possible that the goods might have been

required immediately specially in an emergency like the one which

was then prevailing and officer might find it difficult, if not

impossible, to go through the........., possible and desirable in peace

time.” Therefore Hon'ble Supreme Court acquitted the public servant

in the said case. However in the present case, there was no

emergency to act speedily ignoring of safeguards. 1976 SPPL (LE)

8169 SC Major S. K. Kaley Vs. State of Maharashtra has also been

referred to. In this case also the public servant had acted during the

Chinese attack in 1962, when an emergency was declared and the

Army required certain engineering tools to be supplied immediately.

For the aforesaid reasons these authorities are also not applicable to

the facts in hand.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 94 / 214


Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to K. R.

Purshothaman Vs. State of Kerala (2005) 12 Supreme Court

cases 631. In para 21 of the said judgement, it has been held that

for convicting a person under the provision of Section 13(1)(d) of

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, there must be evidence on record

that accused had obtained for himself or for any other person, in

valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. It is argued by Ld. Counsel

for accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) that no pecuniary advantage had

been obtained by accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) or by any public

servant in this case. It is argued by Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, adv. that

the Runu Ghosh judgement in Hon'ble High court of Delhi is in

contravention of aforesaid of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further

argued that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgement had not

referred to this judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is therefore

argued that this court would be justified in ignoring the judgement of

Hon'ble High Court in “Runu Ghosh” case.

I have perused the aforesaid judgement of Hon'ble Supreme

Court and I am of the opinion that Ld. Defence Counsel hs not read

the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in proper perspective.

There cannot be any scope of any disagreement on the point as laid

down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement that

“obtaining pecuniary advantage for himself or any other persons” is

the main ingredient of Section 13(1) (d) on Prevention of Corruption

CC No. 45/2010 Page 95 / 214


Act 1988. It is also true that prosecution hs been unable to prove any

evidence to show that if any public servant had obtained any

pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. But it must

be kept in mind that the charge against the public servants in this

case is under Section 15 read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act i.e. an attempt to obtain the pecuniary advantage for

himself or for some other person. Since it is an offence of “attempt”

only therefore there is no question of these public servants having

actually obtained any pecuniary advantage to themselves or to the

persons operating the fake society. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court

has not interpreted Section 13(1)(d)(iii), as has been done in “Runu

Ghosh” case by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Therefore it cannot be

said that the ratio decided in Runu Ghosh is in contradiction to the

aforesaid judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accused Narayan

Diwakar (A8) has referred to 2009 Crl. L. J. 3450 wherein Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that “in absence of proof of demand or request

from the public servant for a valubale thing or pecuniary advantage,

offence under Section 13(1)(d) cannot be held to be established.” It

is argued by Ld. Counsel that there is no evidence that any of the

public servants demanded or requested for a valuable thing or

pecuniary advantage. Perusal of the judgement would show that the

public servant had demanded a sum of Rs.25/ for delivery of the

driving license. On the complaint of the complainant the public

CC No. 45/2010 Page 96 / 214


servant was caught red handed in trap laid by the police. However

the prosecution did not examine the complainant during trial. In the

said judgement Section 13(1)(d) was read in reference to Section 7

of the Prevention of Corruption Act and since prosecution could not

prove any demand by the public servant of a pecuniary advantage, in

absence of such proof the appellant was acquitted.

Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred 1971 SPPL STPL

(LE) 9633 SC, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that word

“abuse of position” includes the element of dishonesty in the act of

the public servant. I fully agree with the submissions of Ld. Defence

counsel but would hesiting to add that in Runu Ghosh case Hon'ble

High Court of Delhi has also taken the same view on the point of

“abuse” of official position. However “Runu Ghosh” case further

interprets 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act and holds

that mens rea is required for 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of Prevention of

Corruption Act but is not an essential ingredient of 13(1)(d)(iii) of

Prevention of Corruption Act.

Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to 1979 STPL

(LE) 9597 SC. I may point out that this is a case under Section 5(1)

(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. In this case the allegation

was that a contractor had executed the work and his bills contained

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


prosecution to prove that the number of labourers, shown to have

been engaged on each date, was not correct. Further the work was

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

clearly held that there was no proof of falsity of any entries made

in the document. Hence the convictions were set aside and accused

persons were acquitted. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has not

settled any law, rather the judgement is based upon appreciation of

facts. This case law is not applicable to the facts of this case because

in this case there is clearcut proof of forgery of documents.


(LE) 31062 SC. In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “mere

acceptance of money without their being any other evidence would

not be sufficient to convict accused under Section 13(1)(d)”. This

case law is not applicable because the case in hand is not a case of

acceptance of any money. I may point out that in this case also

Section 13(1)(d) has been discussed with reference to Section 7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act.


(LE) 32047 SC. Perusal of this judgement would show that the

concerned Minister of Power and Energy, Karnataka approached the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 98 / 214


appellants seeking to help out during the crises of scarcity and

electricity in their State. Such emergent circumstances are not

appearing in the case in hand. However I would point out the para

18 of the judgement, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring

the shorter Oxford Dictionary opined that the word “obtained” means

to secure or gain “money” as the result of request or effort. It was

also held that prosecution must prove that accused had the

necessary mental state or degree of fault at the relevant time. It

was also held that one must turn to definition of particular crimes

to ascertain the precise mens rea required for specific offences. I

am of the opinion that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Runu Ghosh

has dealt with the aspect of mens rea in detailed in reference to

Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of P. C. Act.

Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to 1987 Crl. L. J. 1061 on the point as to what is “reasonable belief”. It was held that

“whether or not the official concerned had seized the articles in the “reasonable belief” that the goods were smuggled goods, is not a question on which the court can sit in appeal.......... This court had administered caution to the courts not to sit in appeal in regard to this question and has observed that if prima facie there are grounds to justify the belief, the court have to accept the officer to believe regardless of the fact whether the court of its own might or might not have entertained the same belief...... Whether or not the officer concerned had entertained reasonable belief under the circumstances is not a matter which can be placed under legal microscope, with an over indulgent eye which seeks no evil anywhere within the range of its eye site. The circumstances have to be viewed from the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 99 / 214


experienced eye of the officer, who is well equipped to entertain the suspicious circumstances and to form a reasonable belief in the light of said circumstances.”

It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused Narayan Diwakar (A8)

that being RCS having the assistance of large number of subordinates

acted on a reasonable belief that the note/proposal presented to him

contained the true and correct facts and that in such reasonable

belief accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has approved the

recommendations of the subordinates. Here I would like to advert to

the facts of the case law cited by the accused. The above quoted

observation were passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. P. Thakkar and Mr.

Justice S. Natrajan while dealing with the facts wherein a passenger

was having a waist chain made of pure gold quoted with mercury so

as to give it an appearance of being made of silver. It was seized by

the Custom Department “on a reasonable belief” that it was a

smuggled. It was held in this judgement that when custom officer

had testified that he had seized the same in the reasonable belief

that the same was an article made of smuggled gold, in such

circumstances the burden of proof shifts on the person from whom

such article was seized to show that it was not smuggled gold in view

of Section 123 of Custom Act. Therefore Hon'ble High held that the

circumstances have to be seen from the experienced eye of the office,

who is well equipped interpret the circumstances and to form

CC No. 45/2010 Page 100 / 214


reasonable belief. The purport of this case law is that when a party

claims good faith, the burden shifts on the opposite party to prove

the bad faith. Therefore, it will have to be considered by this court

as to whether accused Narayan Diwakar had a reasonable belief

about the correctness of the records submitted to the RCS. However

if the circumstances are proved by the prosecution, which show his

involvement in the conspiracy with persons operating the fake

society, the plea of “reasons to believe”, and “good faith” would not

be available to him.

Accused Narayan Diwkar (A8) has referred to A. S. Krishan

and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala (MANU/SC/0233/2004) which define

the word “knowledge and reason to believe”.

Ld. Counsel for accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to

Union of India Vs. Chhaju Ram (A2003) 11 SCC 584, 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

Supreme Courts should be read in the relevant context and even one

additional fact can make a world of difference between conclusions

in two cases. It is therefore submitted that Runu ghosh is not

applicable to the facts of this case. I agree with defence submission

that the facts of Runu Ghosh case and this case are altogether

different, but principle of law as laid down by Hon'ble High Court in

CC No. 45/2010 Page 101 / 214


Runu Ghosh case would be applicable and binding on all the courts

subordinate to it.

Ld. Counsel for accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Sheetla Sahay & Ors. 2009 VIII Ad

(SC) 630, C. P. Thakur Vs CBI (2009)(110) DRJ 1 High Court of

Delhi and R. Balakrishan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1996

Supreme court 901 in which it was consistently held that sanction

under Section 197 CrPC was a sine qua non for prosecuting the

accused persons under IPC offences. This aspect would be

considered by me at a later stage.

Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has filed a copy of the order

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

discussing the role of Narayan Diwkar, the RCS, observed that “his

conduct in not calling the original file from North Zone could at best

be taken as negligent act or dereliction of duty on his part”. I am of

the opinion that the facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable

from the facts of this case and therefore discharge of Narayan

Diwakar in the said case will have no bearing upon this case.

Case law cited by accused J. S. Sindhu (A7)

On the point of conspiracy accused has referred to following

authorities :

CC No. 45/2010 Page 102 / 214


1. K. R. Purshothaman Vs. State of Kerala 2005 (12) SCC 631.2. Navjot Sandhu Vs State of NCT 2005 SCC (Crl.) 1715.3. Sudhdeo Jha Uptal Vs The State of Bihar AIR 1957 SC 466.4. Rita Handa Vs CBI 2008 (3) JCC 248.5. Shreekatiah Ramayya Munipalli Vs State of Bombay 1955 AIR

(SC) 287.6. Amrik Singh Vs State of Pepsu AIR 1955 SC 309.7. Kantongen Kemi OCHFORVALTNING Vs State through CBI

2004 [1] JCC 218.8. Anil Kr. Bose Vs. State of Biar 1974 [4] SCC 616.9. Shreya Jha Vs CBI 2007 JCC {3} 2318.10.State (through) CBI Vs Someshwar & Ors. 120 (2005) DLT

324.11.A. Subair Vs State of Kerala 2009 Crl. L. J. 3450.

I would only hold that the law of conspiracy is now well

defined and for the sake of brevity I am not inclined to discuss the

same. Suffice it to say that the case law cited by Ld. Defence Counsel

state the well established principle of law on conspiracy. However

each case has to be considered in light of its peculiar circumstances.

Case law cited by accused Sri Chand (A1) and Mohan Lal (A11)

Sh. R. P. Shukla, adv. for accused Sri Chand has referred to

2011 (3) JCC 1687 of Delhi High Court and (2005) 11 Supreme

Court cases 600 on the point of conspiracy and circumstantial

evidence. The question of conspiracy would be considered while

discussing the role of each accused. However I would say that the

aforesaid case law lase down the principle governing law of evidence

pertaining to conspiracy and circumstantial evidence.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 103 / 214


Sh. R. P. Shukla, adv. has referred to a judgement dated

6.7.2012 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in writ petition (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.

Defence Counsel that even in the present case there is no specific

order of Hon'ble High Court for registration of an FIR. Therefore the

entire investigation and trial are vitiated and therefore the accused

persons should be acquitted.

On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that in order

Ex.PW90/A7 Hon'ble High Court has passed a specific direction to

investigate all the matters of 135 societies, which includes

Rangmahal CGHS. It is submitted that an investigation is started by

CBI only after registration of FIR and when Hon'ble High Court had

ordered initiations of investigation, it would mean the registration of

an FIR.

I have perused the aforesaid case law cited by Ld. Defence

Counsel. In the said case Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered to

conduct an inquiry with respect to execution of Taj Heritage Project

at Agra. CBI had registered the said case but apart from the said case

CBI also registered a DA case. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that CBI

had gone beyond the directions of the Supreme Court and as such

there was no direction to register a DA case, the FIR registered by

CC No. 45/2010 Page 104 / 214


CBI for DA case was quashed. However the order of Hon'ble High

Court in this case is very specific i.e. Investigation of 135 societies by

CBI. It is not in dispute that Rangmahal is one of these societies.

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

infirmity in the same.

Accused Sri Chand has filed a certified copy of an order datd

30.4.2012 passed by Ld. Special Judge in the matter of Taj CGHS in

which the only evidence against Sri Chand was that he had

approached M/s Vibha on 30.12.2004 and paid a sum of s.21,777/

for issuance of public notice in the name of Golden Valley CGHS Ltd.

Ld. Special Judge held that this sole fact was not enough to connect

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

acquittal on the ground that he was discharged in another case. The

entire evidence concerning him would be appreciated further.

Case law cited by accused Rakesh Kr. Hasija (A4)

He has furnished a list of cases in which he was discharged by

Ld. Special Judges. It is further submitted that in a case pertaining to

Kanak Durga CGHS, CBI had filed closure report. I am of the opinion

that each case has its own peculiar facts and on the basis of one case,

acquittal cannot be sought in another case. The role of accused

CC No. 45/2010 Page 105 / 214


Rakesh Kr. Hasija would be seen in context of the facts and

circumstances of this case.

Case law cited by accused Anna Wankhede (A10)

Ld. Counsel for accused Anna Wankhede has referred to

following case law :

1. Punjab & Sind Bank Vs M/s Kunshiv Profiles Co. Pvt. Ltd. & ors. RFA App. No. 460/2007 (Delhi High Court).

2. Surinder Kaur Vs Sardar Mangal Singh & ors. C.R.P. 589/1998. D.O.D. 6.3.2009 (Delhi High Court).

3. H. Siddiqui Vs A. Ramalingam (2011)4 SCC 240 (Supreme Court)

4. M. Durga Prasad Vs State of A.P. 2003(2) ALD Cri 5645, 2004 CriLJ 242 (Andhra High Court).

5. State (Delhi Administration) Vs Paliram 1979 AIR 14, 1979 SCR(1) 931 (Supreme Court).

6. Ashok Dulichand Vs Madhavlal Dube & another (Supreme Court).

7. Sayyed Ahmad Vs. State 2010[2] JCC 1416 (Delhi High Court).8. Surjit Rai Vs Prem Kumar Khera (1995) 110 PLR 140 (Punjab

Haryana High Court)9. Rakesh Kumar Vs State 2004[1] JCC 110 (Delhi High Court)10.Bheri Nageswara Rao s. Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao & Ors. AIR

2006 A.P. 314 (Andhra Pradesh H.C.)11.Alamgir Vs State (NCT of Delhi AIR 2003 SC 282 (Supreme

Court)12.State of Gujrat Vs. Shah Sanjay Kumar K. Judgment dat

25.2.2000 (Gujrat H.C.)

For sake of brevity, I am not inclined to discus above stated

authorities separately. But in nut shell, following principle have been

enunciated in these case law :

CC No. 45/2010 Page 106 / 214


1. The original document is the best and primary evidence and

secondary evidence should not be allowed unless the

circumstances offer sufficient justification for reception of

secondary evidence as per Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act.

2. Photostat copy of a document cannot be received in evidence

unless it is shown that it is in possession of a person against

whom document is sought to be proved.

3. The hand writing of a person would not be compared from a

photo copy because in these days of advance technology,

signatures from one place can be lifted and placed on another

document by super imposition.

4. The specimen hand writing must be taken in presence of a

Magistrate, otherwise it cannot be received in evidence.

5. That the opinion of hand writing expert is a weak evidence.

I agree with point no. 1 and 2 as the same lay down the law on

the condition when secondary evidence becomes admissible.

However as regards point no.3, I would say that this finding in Shree

Surjit Rai Vs Shri Prem Kumar Khera has been given in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case and does not lay down any

principle of law. Therefore I am of the opinion that where there is no

possibility of any such superimposition, the opinion of hand writing

expert would be of great importance.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 107 / 214


As regards the weight of the opinion of hand writing expert, I

would say that there were divergent views of our own High Court on

this issue but now in Bhupender Singh Vs. State, the full Bench of

Delhi High Court consisting Hon'ble Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, Mr.

Justice Anil Kumar and Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, while deciding

Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2008 (vide order dated 30.09.2011)

upheld the view taken by the single judge of Hon'ble High Court of

Delhi in Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal

Appeal No. 446 of 2005 decided on 25.3.2010) and rejected the ratio

of the decision of the Division Bench in Satyawan Vs. State (Criminal

Appeal No. 34/2001 decided on 9.7.2009). In Satyawan Vs State, the

Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court had held that taking specimen

writing without the order of the court is not legal and would not be

admissible in evidence against accused. In Bhupender Singh Vs.

State the full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi clearly held that

the view expressed in the decisions namely Satyawan Vs State is not

the correct view. Hence it is clear that the specimen hand writing

can be taken from an accused by the Investigating Officer and same

would be admissible in evidence even if such specimen hand writing

had been taken by the Investigating Officer without permission of the

Magistrate.

Regarding the importance of opinion of hand writing expert,

reliance may be placed on Jaipal Vs State and Rajender Vs State. I am of

the opinion that an expert's opinion is an evidence in itself. Section 45 of

CC No. 45/2010 Page 108 / 214


Indian Evidence Act lays down that when the court has to form an opinion

as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon

that point of the persons expert in that science are relevant facts. If the

two handwritings match with each other, this itself is an evidence as per

the Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act s the same establishes the identity of

a person as writer of the questioned hand writing. To say it differently, the

matching of two handwritings is itself a substantial evidence u/s 9 read

with Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the opinion of the handwriting

expert is sought only to facilitate the court to form an opinion on this

point. Therefore, to say that conviction cannot be based solely upon the

report of handwriting expert would be misleading. The appropriate

interpretation of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is that court is

competent to form its own opinion on the point of identity of handwriting

and for that purpose the court may call for the report of a handwriting

expert. Therefore, the relevant fact before this court is the matching or

non matching of the handwriting. If the handwritings match there cannot

be any hitch in convicting the accused even if further corroborative

evidence is not available. I quote from the judgment dated 05.07.2011

passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Ravindra Bhatt and

Hon'b le Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal in Jaipal Vs State Criminal Appeal No.

137/98 and Rajendra Vs State Criminal Appeal No. 181/98 as under:

“It is true that except the handwriting Expert's report Ext.PW4/A there is no corroboration that the ransom letter Ext.PW12/A was in the handwriting of Appellant Jaipal. The question was dealt in detail by the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531. The court observed that handwriting expert is not an

CC No. 45/2010 Page 109 / 214


accomplice and there is no justification for condemning his opinion evidence. It was held that if the Court is convinced from the report of an expert that the questioned handwriting was of the accused, there is no difficulty in relying upon the expert's opinion without any corroboration.”

It is pertinent to note that Hon'ble High Court had relied upon

Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531 wherein Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that there was no rule of law nor any rule of prudence that the

evidence of handwriting expert must not be acted upon, unless

substantially corroborated.

In view of the above stated law, I am of the opinion that when a case

is being pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of handwriting

expert, the court should be very cautious and the reasons for the expert

opinion must be carefully examined. In case where reasons for opinion

are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt upon it,

the testimony of handwriting expert may be accepted.

The question as to whether the photocopies of the proceedings

qualify the conditions of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act would be

discussed at appropriate place.

Whether the officials of the office of RCS are not public servants?

It is argued by Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv. for A2, A3, A4 & A5

that none of the officials of the office of RCS (who arrayed as

accused herein) are public servants.

It was also contended by all the other officials of the office of

Registrar Cooperative Societies, including accused Narayan Diwakar

CC No. 45/2010 Page 110 / 214


that the officials of the Registrar Cooperative Societies are not the

public servants under the Indian Penal Code and hence cannot be

charged of the offence under the Indian Penal Code, per State of

Maharashtra Vs. Laljit Rajshi Shah & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 937.

It is also argued that Section 89 of Delhi Cooperative Societies

Act, 1972 makes a liquidator, a deemed public servant under the Act,

meaning thereby, that the other officials of the office of Registrar

Cooperative Societies are neither the public servants nor the deemed

public servants, hence cannot be prosecuted under the Indian Penal

Code.

The argument of the accused persons is wholly misconceived.

Section 89 only makes a Liquidator, a deemed public servant. It does

not say that other officials; on the payroll of the Government, are

excluded from the definition of public servant or that the said

officials are not public servants. The Act of 1972 only speaks of a

deemed public servant, who was earlier not a public servant under

the Act but was created for the purposes of the Act only.

Even otherwise, in State of M. P. Vs. Rameshwar & Ors., 2009

Crl. J. 2415 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had put to rest this

controversy and in para no. 37 has pointed out that Laljit Rajshi

Shah's case has since been overruled, after the amendment of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 wherein the Chairman, directors

etc. of a Cooperative Society were made public servants.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 111 / 214


It is important to note that Laljit Shah's case the main question

for consideration was if the Managing Director/Director/Officials of

the Society were a public servant or not and in such context the

Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the Maharashtra Cooperative

Societies Act.

Section 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 defines public

servant as a person who is on the pay roll of the Centre or State

Government. It is not denied by any of the officials of the Registrar

Cooperative Societies that they were not on the pay roll of the

Government.

Accordingly I find no substance in the arguments of Sh. S. K.

Bhatnagar, adv. that the officials of RCS office are not the public

servants. Rather they are public servants as defined in Section 2 of

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

Requirement of sanction u/s 197 CrPC

It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that there is no sanction

under Section 197 CrPC to prosecute accused Rakesh Kumar Hasija,

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

requirement for obtaining sanction under Section 19 of P. C. Act. Ld.

Defence Counsels argue that for a prosecution under IPC, a sanction

CC No. 45/2010 Page 112 / 214


under Section 197 CrPC is required, irrespective of the fact as to

whether the public servant is still serving or has retired. I have

considered the submissions of the accused persons. All the accused

persons have argued that since there is no sanction under Section

197 CrPC, therefore they cannot be convicted under any IPC offence

including under Section 120B IPC. Almost everyone of them has

referred to R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala and another

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 been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. It was contended by the learned counsel for the State that the charge of conspiracy would not attract Section 197 of the Code for the simple reason that it is no part of the duty of a Minister while discharging his official duties to enter into a Criminal conspiracy. In support of his contention he placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Harihar Prasad v State of Bihar, 1972 CriLJ 707:(1972)8 SCC 89. He drew our attention to the observations in paragraph 74 of the 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 conspiracy and hence want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code was no bar to the prosecution. The question whether the acts complained of had a direct nexus or relation with the discharge of official duties by the concerned public servant would depend on the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 113 / 214


facts of each case. There can be no general proposition that whenever there is a charge of criminal conspiracy levelled against a public servant in or out office the bar of Section 197(1) of the Code would have no application. Such a view would render Section 197(1) of the Code specious. Therefore, the question would have to be examined in the facts of each case. The observations were made by the Court in the special facts of that case which clearly indicated that the criminal conspiracy entered into by the three delinquent public servants had no relation whatsoever with their official duties and, therefore, the bar of Section 197(1) was not attracted. It must also be remembered that the said decision was rendered keeping in view Section 197 (1), as it then stood, but we do not base our decision on that distinction. Our attention was next invited to a threeJudge decision in S. B. Saha v. M. S. Kochar, (1979) 4 SCC 177 : (AIR 1979 SC 1841). The relevant observations relied upon are to be found in paragraph 17 of the judgment. It is pointed out that the words 'any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty employed Section 197 (1) of the Code, are capable of both a narrow and a wide interpretation but their Lordships pointed out that if they were construed too narrowly, the section will be rendered altogether sterile, for, it is no part of an official duty to commit and offence, and never can be. At the same time, if they were too widely construed, they will take under their umbrella every act constituting an offence committed in the course of the same transaction in which the official duty is performed or is purported to be performed. The night approach, it was pointed out, was to see 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 engaged in the performance of his official duty, which is entitled to the protection. Only an act constituting an offence directly or reasonably connected with his

CC No. 45/2010 Page 114 / 214


official duty will require sanction for prosecution. To put it briefly, it is the quality of the act that is important and if it falls within the scope of the aforequoted words, the protection of Section 197 will have to be extended to the concerned public servant. This decision, therefore, points out what approach the Court should adopt while construing Section 197(1) of the Code and its application to the facts of the case on hand.7. In the present case, the appellant is charged with having entered into a criminal conspiracy with the coaccused while functioning as a Minister. The Criminal conspiracy alleged is that he sold electricity to an industry in the State of Karnataka 'without the consent of the Government of Kerala which is an illegal act' under the provision of the electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Kerala Electricity Board Rules framed thereunder. The allegations is that he in pursuance of the said alleged conspiracy abused his official position and illegally sold certain units to the private industry in Bangalore (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 appellant is that while functioning as the Minister for Electricity he without the consent of the Government of Kerala supplied certain units of electricity to a private industry in Karnataka. Obviously, he did this in the discharge of his duties as a Minister. The allegations is that it was an illegal act in as much as the consent of the Government of Kerala was not obtained before this arrangement was entered into and the supply was effected. For that reason, it is said that he had committed an illegality and hence he was liable to be punished for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B I.P.C. It is, therefore, clear from the charge that the act alleged is directly and reasonably connected with his official duty as a Minister and would, therefore, attract the protection of Section 197(1) of the Act.8. For the above reasons, we are unable to accept

CC No. 45/2010 Page 115 / 214


the view taken by the High Court of Kerala insofar as the requirement of sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code is concerned, in relation to the charge of criminal conspiracy. We, therefore, allow this appeal, 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 charge under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, the view of the High Court remains undisturbed. The appeal is allowed accordingly and will stand so disposed of.”

Accused persons have also referred to following authorities in

their support :

(i) Sankaran Moitra Vs Sadhna Dass & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 1599;(ii)Paul Varghese Vs State of Kerala & Anr., JT 2007(5) SC 525 &(iii)Anjani Kumar Vs State of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC 1992.

I am not inclined to discuss these three authorities because the

same contain the same principle of law as laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in R. Balakrishna Pillai case. A perusal of this case

would show that Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon the criteria,

which had already been held repeatedly by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

This criteria is that while deciding the question of applicability of

Section 197(1) CrPC, neither this provision can be interpreted too

widely nor too narrowly and a balance has to be maintained by the

court because if this provision is construed too narrowly, the

section will be rendered altogether sterile, for it is no part of an

CC No. 45/2010 Page 116 / 214


official duty to commit an offence and never can be. At the same

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'ble Supreme Court held that right approach is

to see that the meaning of the expression lies between two

extremes. Therefore the court will have to assess the facts and to

take a decision as to whether the conspiracy charge is so intertwined

with the discharge of the official duty that a sanction under Section

197 would be required, or, the official duty is discharged in such a

fashion that the public servant becomes active stimulator of the

conspiracy in question. In later case, the sanction under Section 197

CrPC would not be required. Therefore the aforesaid authorities can

not be applied without automatically for or against the public

servant.

In 'Dharambir Khattar Vs. CBI decided on 5.5.2009 in Criminal

Revision Petition No. 340 of 2008, by the Hon'ble High Court of

Delhi, it was observed that:

“There is a merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the CBI that sanction under Section 197 CrPC is actually not required when the often committed are under the PCA. It is submitted that a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under the PCA cannot be cloaked with any immunity to indulge in criminal misconduct. Want of sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore, no bar. The matter can be looked at from

CC No. 45/2010 Page 117 / 214


another angle as well. The petitioners have been charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. Under Section 3 of PCA, 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 attempt to commit or any abetment of the offences specified in clause (I).

Under Section 40 IPC, it has been mentioned that in Chapter VA and in Sections 109, 110 IPC the word “offence” denotes a thing punishable under this Code, or under any special or local law as hereinafter defined.” Under Section 41 IPC, a special law has been defined as “a law applicable to a particular subject.” Therefore, in terms of Section 40 and 41 IPC, the PCA would be a Special Law. The offence under Section 120B in Chapter VA IPC would therefore also become punishable under the PCA which is a special enactment for that purpose. Once the sanction under Section 19 PCA has been obtained, there is no need to obtain a separate sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecuting the petitioners for the offence under Section 120B IPC.”

Thus, the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 5.5.2009 has

categorically observed the offence under Section 120B in chapter VA

IPC would also become punishable under the Prevention of

Corruption Act and hence once sanction under Section 19 of

Prevention of Corruption Act has been obtained, no sanction under

Section 197 CrPC would be required.

Similar is the law settled in 'Kaushal Kumar Vs. CBI, 2009 (1)

LRC 56, Delhi.

The aforesaid legal proposition has been reiterated by Hon'ble

CC No. 45/2010 Page 118 / 214


Mr. Justice M. L. Mehta in C. K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State (Through

CBI) 2012 IV AD (DELHI) 214, wherein it was held that if there is a

sanction under Section 19 of P. C. Act, the absence of sanction under

Section 197 CrPC would not come to the rescue of an accused even if

the public servant has been charged for IPC offences.

Therefore A2, A4, A5 and A6 cannot claim any benefit on the

ground that there is no sanction under Section 197 CrPC as the

sanction under Section 19 of P. C. Act stands proved against them.

Regarding A2, A3 and A8, I would say that the aforesaid case law

cited by me clearly shows that an offence of a conspiracy is clearly

beyond the purview of discharge of official duties.

Therefore it is to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able

to prove its charge against these accused persons under Section 120B

IPC. I may point out that being in conspiracy with the persons who

have committed the forgeries of various records of Rangmahal CGHS

would be altogether a different act, which is not connected with

performance of official duties. In this case the records of the society

have been forged by the private person and presented in the office of

Registrar Cooperative Societies. If the RCS officials were hobnobbing

with these offenders, by no stretch of imagination, they can claim

protection under Section 197 CrPC because in that case their role

would go beyond the official act.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 119 / 214


Sri Chand (A1)

Sh. R. P. Shukla, Adv. submits that there are only two

prosecution witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution

against him. It is submitted that both the witnesses are highly

unreliable. There is no evidence to corroborate their testimonies.

Here it is necessary to discuss the evidence of these two

witnesses i.e. PW82 Sh. Naresh Saxena, and PW83 Sh. Neeraj Kumar.

PW82 Sh. Naresh Saxena had testified that he had been doing the

business of advertisement in the name and style of M/s V. A. Agency

since 2001 at C28, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi91.

He testified that he is the proprietor of M/s V. A. Agency and the he is

running another firm by the name of Vibha Adds, which is being run

by him but the proprietor of the same is his wife Smt. Rashmi

Saxena. This firm is also being operated from C28, Acharya

Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi91. He testified that M/s V. A.

Agency is doing advertisement for Newspapers other then Hindustan

Times, whereas, the Vibha Adds is quick booking Center of Hindustan

times Newspaper. He testified that he had produced the documents

mentioned in the seizure memo dated 13.9.2005 to Inspector Sh. C.

S. Prakash Narayan pertaining to advertisement given in Times of

India Newspaper in respect to Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd. He

testified that this advertisement was published in the Times of India

on asking of accused Sri Chand. He also proved certified true copy of

CC No. 45/2010 Page 120 / 214


notice Ex.PW82/A pertaining to Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd.

no.152. He also proved the certified true copy of the bill/cash memo

having invoice no.52 dated 4.12005 issued in the name of Silver

View Apartments CGHS Ltd. He also proved the certified copy of the

bill cum receipt dated 27.12.2004 issued by Times of India Group of

Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd and receipt of payment of Rs,

22,848/, which was given after deduction of the commission of Rs.

4032/. He proved the certified true copy of release order dated

27.12.2004, which was sent to Times of India regarding publishing of

public notice in respect of Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd. 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, who had contact him for publishing the advertisement in the

Newspaper.

Ld. Defence Counsel submits that first of all this accused is

shacky as to the identity of accused Sri Chand. Secondly the receipt

was not issued in the name of Sri Chand rather in the name of

society. Therefore even the receipt does not connect Sri Chand with

the conspiracy. Ld. Defence Counsel further argues that in cross

examination, this witness testifies that Sri Chand did not give him

any request in writing nor he gave the contents in writing rather he

CC No. 45/2010 Page 121 / 214


gave him a already written paper containing contents of the

advertisement. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that the testimony of

PW82 is vague and weak. It is submitted that on the basis of such

weak testimony, it would be highly unjustified to read this testimony

of PW82 against accused Sri chand.

On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that the

witnesses had identified the accused Sri Chand categorically out of

many accused persons present in the court.

I would refer to the testimony of PW82 here. He testified that

“the person present in the court seems to be like Sri Chand, who had

contacted him for publishing in the said newspaper”. This answer

has not come in reply to any leading question by the prosecution.

Rather he has identified him as the person, who had contacted him

for publishing the advertisement. The court is not always to go

literal meaning rather the court should understand as to what the

witness wants to say. The witnesses normally testify in Hindi and its

translation into English should not be read in a way to defeat the

spirit of ocular testimony. I may add here that it is nowhere

suggested that accused Sri Chand had never met him or the persons,

who had given the advertisement was some other person than

accused Sri Chand. Therefore I am of the opinion that the identity of

accused Sri Chand as the person who contacted PW82 and gave

advertisement stands proved. In cross examination he has testified

CC No. 45/2010 Page 122 / 214


that accused Sri Chand had given the advertisement in Times of India

in respect of silver View Apartment CGHS Ltd. This testimony is

corroborated by the fact that even the bill/cash memo Ex.PW82/C is

issued in the name of Silver View Apartment CGHS Ltd.

It is pertinent to note that list of fake members of Rangmahal

CGHS was approved by RCS on 19.03.2004 and thereafter name of

the society was changed to Silver View Apartment CGHS Ltd. by RCS

at the request of society and thereafter the list was sent to DDA with

a recommendation for allotment of land. However, DDA returned

these lists of all 135 societies asking for verification of the members.

Pursuant to this situation, accused Sri Chand issued advertisement to

all the members in Times of India, copy of which is Ex.PW82/B

which is reproduced as under:

NOTICESILVER VIEW APARTMENT

CGHS LIMITED147G, PocketA2, MayurVihar, PhaseIII, Delhi96

(REGN. No. 152) This is in Compliance of the

Press Advertisement by theRegistrar CooperativeSocieties, Delhi on 18/12/2004 in the Leading Newspaper we request all themember of the society tocontact the society officewithin 7 days from the dateof publish of thisadvertisement to furnish theinformation desired by the RCS Office for forwarding

CC No. 45/2010 Page 123 / 214


the list of members to DDAfor allotment of Land

President/Secretary

It is necessary to mention here that accused Sri Chand

summoned a record of this evidence in his defence, but, when one

Manish Shukla, Dy. Manager (Advertising Department), Times of

India appeared with the record, on 30.04.2012 in the court, accused

Sri Chand dropped this witness. These proceedings are written in

the order sheet dt. 30.04.2012. Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that an

adverse inference may be drawn for deliberate withholding of this

witness by accused Sri Chand that this advertisement was given in

the newspaper by none other person than Sri Chand. There is also

another reason as to why advertisement was given by Sri Chand in

Newspaper. I may point out that the affidavits of all 120 members

were prepared in one day i.e. on 29.12.2003. All these affidavits

were in fact fake affidavits. If all these members were real and so

active to have purchased the stamp papers on 29.12.2003 and had

also filed their affidavits on that very day, it meant that they were

closely connected each other and were highly active in the affairs of

the society, the office bearer of this society would not have faced any

difficulty in informing all these members to furnish their identity

proofs to RCS through the office bearers of the society. But since all

these members were fake therefore the only option available to these

fake operators was to publish an advertisement in the Newspaper.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 124 / 214


Sh. R. P. Shukla, adv. has drawn my attention to an order of Ld.

Special Judge of Rohini wherein he was pleased to discharge accused

Sri Chand on this evidence.

I have perused this order and I am of the opinion that in the

said case Ld. Special Judge did not consider this evidence sufficient

enough to connect with the conspiracy of forging and creating new

society. However in the present case further evidence is

forthcoming.

PW83 Sh. Neeraj Kumar is a Chartered Accountant. He

testified that as per the instructions of accused Sri Chand, he had

prepared the balance sheet, income expenditure, receipt payments

and other statements pertaining to Rangmahal CGHS. He testified

that the requisite details in this respect were provided by him. He

proved the balance sheets Ex.PW83/A and Ex.PW83/B. He testified

that he had charged Rs.60006500/ from Sushil Kumar Sharma, the

employee of Sri Chand.

Ld. Defence Counsel has strongly assailed this evidence. Sh. R.

P. Shukla, adv. has drawn my attention to the balance sheets and the

audit charges. It is submitted that this is contrary to his testimony in

cross examination where he states that he usually charges Rs.200/

per year. Ld. Defence Counsel has further drawn my attention to the

cross examination of this witness wherein he has admitted that

accused Sri Chand has not come himself for delivery and collecting

CC No. 45/2010 Page 125 / 214


the documents and the payments but he had sent Sushil Kumar

Sharma for this purpose. He testified that Sri Chand has asked him

telephonically to hand over the documents to Sushil Kumar Sharma.

It is argued that prosecution has not collected any telephonic records

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

accused Sri Chand.

I have considered the facts. As per the testimony of PW83,

Sushil Kumar Sharma, employee of Sri Chand, had brought the cash

account documents to him. He specifically testified that Sushil

Kumar Sharma was sent by Sri Chand. In cross examination he has

testified that accused Sri Chand had asked him telephonically to

hand over to Sushil Kumar Sharma the documents etc. It must not

be forgotten that in normally, the activities of the businessman and

professionals go in similar fashion. Peoples send their servants or

employees for delivery of documents and payment of fee. Similarly

the professionals act on telephonic communications of their clients.

The person, who is actively in contact with another person, does not

have to make any special efforts to identify the voice of the person

calling him on telephone. Further such a professional would also

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


impractical to accept the defence submissions that some other person

could have made a call in the name of Sri Chand. I may further point

out that since exact date of such transaction cannot be remembered

by the witness, it is not possible for Investigating Agency to trace out

the telephonic calls between Sri Chand and PW83 as it would be a

difficult situation like tracing a needle in the haystack. PW83 is a

truthful witness. He has been able to testify so because the balance

sheets were prepared by him at the instance of Sri Chand. These

balance sheets for more than 30 years were prepared by him in the

year 2003 at the instance of Sri Chand. Accused Sri Chand had given

the advertisement Ex.PW82/B of Silver View Apartments (the new

name of Rangmahal CGHS) in the year 2004 as proved by PW82 Sh.

Naresh Saxena. This is the period in which all the forgeries of the

affidavits of fake members, fake proceedings etc. were done and the

list of fake members of the society was approved and the name of the

society was changed by the officials of RCS. This proves that not

only the records of the society were in possession of Sri Chand but he

was continuously operating this fake society and was active at every

stage of forgeries, approval of the fake list and change of the name of

the society.

This evidence enough to prove that it was Sri Chand, who had

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


sheets why he has not been arrayed as an accused. I am of the

opinion that in cross examination no suggestion has been given to

him by any accused that he had any intention to cheat anyone,

further he has testified that he had produced the balance sheets on

the basis of records produced before him. Therefore I find no

evidence against him that this witness had acted in collusion with the

other accused persons malafidely. Hence I find no substance in the

defence submissions in this regard.

Sh. R. P. Shukla, adv. has drawn my attention to the balance

sheets Ex.PW83/A upto 31.3.2003. It is submitted that this balance

sheet shows the accounting charges payable Rs.24,750/. Ld.

Counsel has taken me through the balance sheets of previous year ,

which shows that this witness was charging Rs.750/ for each year.

Therefore Ex.PW83/A shows the accounting charges payable for 33

years to be Rs.24,750/. This is contrary to the testimony of PW83

wherein he has stated that he had charged Rs.6500/ in the present

case.

I have considered the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. It is

pertinent to note that this aspect was not put to the witness in cross

examination and the witness was not given an opportunity to explain

this fact. Further the balance sheet Ex.PW83/A shows the amount of

Rs.24,750/ as accounting charges payable. It does not state that

this amount was actually paid to PW83. PW83 has testified that as to

CC No. 45/2010 Page 128 / 214


what amount was actually paid to him. Therefore in view of these

circumstances, I am not inclined to give any importance to this

defence argument. However I may point that in this balance sheet

the audit fee payable is shown to be Rs.9900/. This corresponds to

the copy of the receipt Ex.PW5/A1 (in file D11, Volume1), which

has been issued by Assistant Registrar (Audit) as a token of receipt of

Rs.9900/ having received from Rangmahal Cooperative Society Ltd.

Hence, the charge u/s 120B IPC stands proved against this accused.

Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9)

Prosecution has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW83

Neeraj Kumar, who has testified that Sushil Kumar Sharma, the

employee of Sri Chand, had gone to PW83 Neeraj Kumar and got the

fake balance sheets prepared.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the testimony

of PW87 the hand writing expert. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn

my attention to the specimen writing of Sushil Kumar Sharma, which

are from S680 to S683 and S752 to S785. Ld. Public Prosecutor

has drawn my attention to the examination in chief of this witness

dated 5.11.2011 relevant to this accused as under :

“I further examined the Q1371 (already exhibited as Ex.PW5/A) and Q3048 (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


(already exhibited as Ex.PW75/B) of Sushil Kumar Sharma.”

Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that the accused stands fully

connected with the present forgery and conspiracy etc.

On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for Sushil Kumar

Sharma that the hand writing expert's report should not be relied

upon unless corroborated. It is further argued that even if it is

presumed that he has done some forgery, there is no evidence that he

has not done so for the purpose of cheating. It is further argued that

there is no evidence that he presented forged documents in the

society nor there is any documents to show that Sushil Kuimar

Sharma had in any manner benefited from the forgery etc.

I have already discussed in earlier portion of this judgment that

there is no law, which required corroboration for convicting a person

on the basis of report of hand writing expert. However in such a case

the court has to be very cautious and closely and minutely examine

the reasons given by such hand writing expert. I reproduce the

reasons given by the expert in support of his opinion :

“My opinion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S680 to S683 and S781 to S783 also 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


questioned and the standard writings both in general writing habits and individual writing characteristics. The general writing habits such as – skill, movement, size and proportion of characters, alignment. Similarities have also been observed in the individual writing characteristics in the form and formation & their terminations and combinations. Some of them are – manner of execution of 'R' along with the nature of eyelet in the middle part ; ticked commencement of letter 'A' along with the inward finish of 'A', nature and location of the horizontal stroke in 'A' ; nature of the retrace in 'P' along with the shape of the oval part ; nature of the retrace in the initial and terminal part of 'N' ; peculiar manner of writing 'b' as figure '6' ; manner of writing 'G' along with the nature of the eyelet in the terminal curved part ; manner of writing 'V'. Similarities are also observed in the form and formation of various words like 'RANG MAHAL', 'SOCIETY', 'MAYUR VIHAR', 'PHASE', 'Registration', 'Auditor'. Similarities are again observed in the manner of writing various numerals such as peculiar movement in the combination of zeros along with the angularity at the base and the eyelet in the oval part, manner of writing '3', '9', '7', '/'

In short, there are no basic differences in the writing habits of the questioned and the standard writings. The aforesaid similarities in the writing habits are significant and sufficient and their collective consideration leads me to the opinion of

CC No. 45/2010 Page 131 / 214


common authorship.”

I have perused the standard writing and the question hand

writings carefully and I fully agree with the reasoning given by the

hand writing expert as discussed above. I am therefore left in no

doubt that the above stated question hand writings have been

written by accused Sushil Kumar Sharma. Now let me see what is

the question hand writing Q1371, which is a portion encircled in red

pencil on the documents Ex.PW5/A (D11, Volume1). The

documents is reproduced as under :

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR : COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES : GOVT. OF NCTOF DELHI: OLD COURTS BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET: NEW DELHI110001

Date of issue 29/12/03(Valid within 30 days from date of issue)

(In triplicate Optioncumappointment letter for conducting statutory audit for 20022003/concurrent auditfor 20032004 including pending audit, (not prior to 19992000)

(To be filled in block letters)

1. Name of the society THE RANGMAHAL COOP. G/H SOCIETY LTD.2. Address of the Society with Tel. No. 147G, POCKETA2, MAYUR VIHAR

PHASEIII, DELHI110096 Pin code 110096

3. Registration No. & Date 152 (H) Dt. 31031973 4. Zone EAST 5. Year upto which the audit has been completed

and name of Chartered Accountant/AUDITOR This is the first audit since registration 6. Yearwise turnover since last audit up to 3132003 Below 3,00,000/=(Three Lacs) 7. i) In case the audit is pending prior to 3132002.

reasons for not conducting the Audit Not approached by the RCS officer – auditor ii) whether any Charted Accountant was appointed by Department ? If yes, name & address. No

8. i) Name & Address of the Charted Accountant opted. No ii) Category of Charted Accountant. NA iii) Panel No. of the chartered Accountant. NA

9. Status of the Society : Yes / Nowhether under liquidation ?If yes, name of the liquidator.

10. Number & Date of last Audit report Submitted NA Declaration:

CC No. 45/2010 Page 132 / 214

S. No. 2549Price Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty only)

Q1371


I/We DEEPAK KUMAR do hereby certify and declare that the above mentioned acts are correct to the best ofmy/our knowledge and belief.Ecl. : 8 Pages Signature of Secy./Pres.

Society with Seal

Acceptance Certificate by the CA/AuditorI/We P. K. THIRWANI do hereby give my/our consent for conducting the audit of your above mentioned society.Our consent is subject to the approval by the office of Registrar Cooperative Society, Delhi.I/We certify that my/our firm does not suffer from any disqualification mentioned in Section 226 ofthe Companies Act, 1956.

PlaceDate Authorized Signatory

Name & address of the firm with SEAL

APPROVAL OF REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCEITIESNO. ( Deplt AR/Audit 2003/ 430 Dated 28\1\04Option exercised by the society has been approved for the year 197374 to 200203 and properly recorded

Date 28|1|04 Asstt. Registrar (Audit)...........................................................................................................................................................................................

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPTS. No.................

Received the option cum appointment form from the Coop. Society Ltd. On approved Form may be collected on Signature of Receipt clerk

Date:

IN PUBLIC INTERST BY : DELHI COOPERATIVE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.

The auctioncumappointment letter reproduced above bears

the particulars of the society and these particulars have been filled in

portion Q1371 by accused Sushil Kumar Sharma. It bears the

signatures of one D.Kumar (i.e. Deepak Kumar) as the Secretary of

the society. Below it is the acceptance of accused P.K. Thirwani for

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. The fact that the particulars of Rangmahal Society have

been filed by accused Sushil Kumar Sharma and below it there are

signatures of Deepak Kumar who is purportedly the Secretary of this

society proves that either Sushil Kumar himself is Deepak Kumar or

CC No. 45/2010 Page 133 / 214


he knows very well as to who this Deepak Kumar is? This accused

has refrained to disclose the identity of Deepak Kumar during the

entire trial. This proves his criminal intentions for filling up the

particulars of the society at Q1371. In such circumstances, even if it

is presumed that he himself is not Deepak Kumar, still it stands

proved that he was not only acquainted with this person, but, also he

was fully involved in operation and creating the fake society. PW83

has testified that accused Sri Chand had sent him with the

documents and the fee of this society for preparing balance sheet for

33 years. Therefore, it stands proved that this accused was fully in

league with accused Sri Chand.

These circumstances are further proved by the affidavit of

Deepak Kumar, the so called Secretary of the society. This affidavit

Ext.PW12/DA was filed in the office of RCS by the person purporting

to be Deepak Kumar and is available in “D9” at page no. 304/C. On

the back of this affidavit, the particulars of the person who purchased

this affidavit have been written, which as per GEQD report, in the

handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar. It is pertinent to note that this

Sushil Kumar is not a stamp vendor, but, handwriting on the stamp of

the stamp vendor vide which the name of Deepak Kumar, his

parentage and address are written at Q3048, the same have tallied

with the specimen handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar Sharma.

Accused Sushil Kumar Sharma had failed to give any explanation as

CC No. 45/2010 Page 134 / 214


to how the name, parentage and address of Deepak Kumar, a fake

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

proved the prosecution case that he was in league with the person

who was impersonating as Deepak Kumar, the Secretary of the

society. As per investigation, no person with the name of Deepak

Kumar was found at the address 1005, Gali No. 3, Vishwas Park,

Shahdara, Delhi. I may refer to the report of the Postman on the

letter D127 on which it is written by the Postman “No such number

'1005' exists in Vishwas Park. The Investigating Officer has proved

this letter alongwith the other letters which are collectively exhibited

as Ext.PW90/A6. The above discussed evidence has therefore firmly

proved the role of accused Sushil Kumar as one of the operators of

this fake society.

However, since the above stated questioned writings would not

fall in the definition of forgeries, therefore, I am not inclined to

convict him under the substantial offences u/s 420/511 IPC and u/s

468 IPC, but, I convict him u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 420/468/471

IPC also read with Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act 1988.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 135 / 214


ANNA WANKHEDE (A10)

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the

membership numbers given on the application for membership

(placed in D9) alongwith the date written on the top corner of the

applications. It is argued that as per the GEQD report, this

handwriting matches with the handwriting of accused Anna

Wankhede. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that these persons have

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 (placed at page 288/C of D9) purportedly pertain to

one member namely Surender Kumar Maheshwari. On the top

corner, membership number is written “M1” and below it a date is

written “Dt. 16.4.71”, which are Q3049 and Q3047A. As per

GEQD report, these numerals and the alphabets match with the

handwriting of accused Anna Wankhede. It is pertinent to note that

these numerals and alphabets, which are the photocopy of the

original documents, are very less in number. I have also seen the

specimen handwriting. Of course, the science of handwriting had

developed to such an extent that the handwriting on the photocopy

can also be identified. Although, I do not find any infirmity in the

opinion of the expert on this point but still as a matter of abundant

CC No. 45/2010 Page 136 / 214


caution, it would be proper for the court to compare the

handwritings which are not scanty as appearing on the upside corner

of this application. Hence I am not inclined to take in consideration

these hand writings on the application for of the members.

Therefore, I straightway come to the affidavit Ext.PW66/57

purported to be sworn by Ragini Ben and the affidavit Ext.PW60/B

which are placed at page no.'s 56/C and 91/C in the file D9. These

affidavits have been filed by the fake society in the office of Registrar

for the purpose of getting the list of members approved.

PW60 Ajay Kumar Maheshwari was examined by prosecution.

He testified that Raj Kumari Maheshwari is the sisterinlaw (bhabhi).

He has testified that he alongwith Raj Kumari had been alloted Flat

No. C02 in the original Rangmahal Society and that his sisterinlaw

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

prosecution to identify her signatures. I am of the opinion that it was

not required because if the flat has already been alloted to her in the

year 1993, as testified by PW60, there was no reason that Raj

Kumari would file such an affidavit in the year 2004. I may point out

that this affidavit shows that it was attested by Oath Commissioner

but, PW66 Sudhir Mittal, Adv., the Oath Commissioner has testified

that he had not attested the affidavit on page 1/C to 120/C in D9.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 137 / 214


(which includes the affidavits Ext.PW66/57 and Ext.PW60/B).

Therefore these fake affidavits with the fake signatures of Ragini Ben

Mehta and Raj Kumari having been forged by Anna Wankhede.

Similarly the signatures of Smt. Raj Kumari on affidavit

Ext.PW60/B at points A i.e. Q1191 & Q1192 and signatures of

Ragini Ben in Ext. PW66/57 Q1260 & Q1261 have tallied with the

specimen handwriting of Anna Wankhede as per GEQD report. I

reproduce the reasoning of the GEQD report Ex.PW87/A1 which is

as under:

Reasons for opinion as embodied in Para 3:

My opinion that the persons who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S739 to S743 and S748 to S751 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q1191, Q1192, Q1260, Q1261 as well as the writings the photostatic reproductions of which are marked Q3049 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, Q3123 to Q3126, 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, Q3163 and Q3166 is based on the cumulative consideration of various similarities occurring between the questioned and the standard writings both in general writing habits and individual writing characteristics. The general writing habits such as skill, movement, size and proportion of characters, alignment. Similarities have also been observed in the individual writing characteristics in the form and formation, their terminations and combinations. Some of them are – manner of execution of 'ja', the curvature int he initial part along with the relative location of the vertical part with reference to the curved 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' in single operation, the overall appearance of letter 'ma' as English letter 'n' along with the angularity at the upper curved part ; manner of execution of letter 'Ra', the shape of the curved part of letter 'ra' ; nature of the vowel sign 'ekar' in the name reading 'Raj Kumari' ; nature of the eyelet in the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 138 / 214


initial curved part of letter 'na' along with the location of the commencement; peculiar manner of writing letter 'ba' along with the location of the vowel sign 'ekar' ; manner of execution of letter 'gi' 'ra' in the name reading 'Ragini Bane'.

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 respected numerals in the questioned writings are similarly found in the standard writings.

In short, there are no basic differences int he writing habits of the questioned and the standard writings. The aforesaid similarities in the writing habits are significant and sufficient and their collective consideration leads me to the opinion of common authorship.”

I have seen the specimen handwritings and the questioned

documents. I fully agree with this reasoning of GEQD report. Perusal

of the specimen handwriting would show an unmistakable similarity

in the handwriting of Q1191 & Q1192 and Q1260 & Q1261 with

the specimen handwritings S739 to S743 and S748 to S751 of

Anna Wankhede.

I would refer to the testimony of PW72 Ashwini Kumar.

He testified that he was working as Sub Agent with Sh. P.R. Bhatia for

selling the stamp papers till 2009. He further testified that when he

remained with him, the stamp bearing the name of P.R. Bhatia was

used to be affixed on the back of the stamp papers having license

number 262. He testified that the stamp papers during the year 2003

were purchased from him by accused Anna Wankhede, a

representative of Rangmahal CGHS through one Sh. Ravi Robinson, a

typist. On seeing the affidavits placed at page no. 1/C to 120/C in

CC No. 45/2010 Page 139 / 214


file D9 which includes the affidavits of Raj Kumari Ext.PW60/B and

Ragini Ben Mehta Ext.PW66/57, I may point out that the envelope

Ext.PW45/C (D79) sent at the address of Ragini Ben as appearing in

this affidavit has returned with the report “No such number.” This is

enough to show that the address of Ragini Ben on the affidavit is a

fake address. PW72 stated that all the affidavits bear the stamp of

Sh. P.R. BhatiaStamp Agent, License No. 262, Parliament Street and

the same were given to Sh. Anna Wankhede on 29.12.2003. The

prosecution witnesses have testified that either no such person, in

whose name the affidavit is sworn exists, or if such person exists he

has testified that he has not sworn such affidavits. Out of these 120

affidavits, the signatures on two affidavits have been forged by

accused Anna Wankhede. PW73 Ravi Robinson is a typist who had

typed the particulars in the affidavits in the blank space of para 1,2,

and 3 of the affidavits. He has testified that all the aforesaid

affidavits were brought by accused Anna Wankhede. In this manner,

the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had

forged the signatures of Ragini Ben Mehta and Raj Kumari on the

aforesaid affidavits. It stands proved that these 120 affidavits were

purchased by accused Anna Wankhede. Further, the relevant

portions were also got typed by accused Anna Wankhede. Finally,

these affidavits were presented in the office of the RCS for the

purpose of getting the list of members approved. Needless to say

CC No. 45/2010 Page 140 / 214


that not only this was fake/duplicate society as the land had already

been alloted to the actual society but also the entire list of members

was a fake list as the affidavits of all the 120 members are fake

affidavits. Accused Anna Wankhede does not explain as to why he

was purchasing and getting typed such a large number of affidavits

on one single day i.e. 29.12.2003 which is appearing on the stamp of

the back side of these affidavits. The only conclusion that can be

drawn is that this accused was one of those managing the fake

society and was fully involved in creating a fake society with fake

members. Accordingly, accused stands convicted in substantial

offence u/s 468 IPC and offence of conspiracy i.e. u/s 120B IPC r/w

Section 420/468/471 IPC r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption

Act 1988.

MOHAN LAL (A11)

Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that the address of the fake

society was shown to be Flat No. 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar

PhaseIII, New Delhi. It is submitted that on this address accused

Mohan Lal used to reside from 1997 to 2002. PW1 Sh. Ram Naresh

Prasad Singh, the owner of this flat has testified that no society in the

name and style of Silver View Apartments or Rangmahal CGHS had

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


proceeding register (Ext.PW87/A41) at page 344/C & 345/C in file

D8 and the proceedings Ext.PW87/A42 dt. 20.08.1995 placed at

page 117/C in D8 and page no. 351/C dt. 20.08.1995 in file D9. 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

same proceedings dt. 20.08.1995. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn

my attention to the two copies of the Bye Laws of the CGHS which

are Ext.PW85/A6 and Ext.PW85/A7 placed in D8. Ld. Public

Prosecutor has drawn my attention that Ext.PW85/A6 contains the

Bye Laws of the duplicate society. In this Bye Laws, Ext.PW59/C is

the list of members. At the end of this list of members at Q221 the

certificate to the fact “certified that all the above members have

signed in my presence and they are well known to me” and similar

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, on the first page of these two sets of Bye Laws, the address

of the society i.e. 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar PhaseIII, Delhi

has been written by accused Mohan Lal. Ld. Public Prosecutor

submits that it is the same address at which accused Mohan Lal had

lived as a tenant during the period 1997 to 2002.

It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the handwriting

expert's report on a photocopy would be highly unsafe. I disagree

with his submissions. On this point, accused Mohan Lal had cross

CC No. 45/2010 Page 142 / 214


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, opinion can be given on such document or photocopy of the

handwriting/signatures in case the quality of photostat copy is good.

He stated that the quality of the photostat copy was of his subjective

satisfaction. I have also seen the photostat copies of the proceeding

register. The photocopies are not only in very good condition but

also nearly as good in quality as the original. Further, handwriting is

not sparse as in the case of accused Anna Wankhede which I had

declined to take in to account while dealing his role. All these

proceeding sheets have been written in detail. Therefore, I am of the

opinion that these photocopies are good enough for a handwriting

expert to give his experts' opinion. As per GEQD report (page 2)

Ext.PW87/A7, the person who had wrote S467 to S486 and S701

to S721 also wrote the writings, the photostatic reproductions of it

are red encircled and are marked as Q3016 to Q3018, Q3019A to

Q3032. Similarly, portion Q36 on page 352/C in file D8

(Ext.PW87/A22) also matches with the specimen handwriting S467

to S468 and S701 to S721. Before discussing import of these

documents, I would like to reproduce the reasoning given by the

expert in his opinion as under:

Reasons for opinion as embodied in Para 2:

CC No. 45/2010 Page 143 / 214


“My opinion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S467 to S486 and S701 to S721 also wrote the writings the Photostatic reproductions of which are red enclosed and marked Q3016 to Q3018, Q3019A and Q3032 is based on the cumulative consideration of various similarities occurring between the questioned and the standard writings both in general writing habits and individual writing characteristics. The general writing habits such as skill, movement, size and proportion of characters, alignment. Similarities have also been observed in the individual writing characteristics in the form and formation & their terminations and combinations. Some of them aremanner of combining 'e' with 'e', nature of the tcross in the letter 't', shape of the shoulder parts of 'm' in the word 'meeting'; manner of combining 'a' with 'd' and the distance between 'n' and 'e' in the word 'adjourned'; peculiar manner of writing 'the' without 'e'; manner of writing 'f' without upper loop as appearing in the word 'of'; habit of combining idot with the succeeding letters like 'e' in the word 'Society'; idot with 'd' in the word 'President', 'vide'; manner of writing 'view', 'Hill'; nature of the loop in the vertical part of 'p', ticked commencement of 'A' along with the manner of writing horizontal stroke in the word 'Apartment'; manner of the writing 'Idd' along with the manner of combining tcross with the oval part of 'd'; ticked commencement of 'M', nature of the loop in the 'd' as appearing in the word 'managing' similarities are again observed in the manner of execution of various letters in the words 'Rangmahal', 'Cooperative', 'Group', 'Shri Arun Kumar', 'Smt. Rakha Devi' etc., similarities are again observed in the manner of the writing numerals '9', '7', '2', '3' etc.

In short, there are no basic differences in the writing habits of the questioned and the standard writings. The aforesaid similarities in the writing habits are significant and sufficient and their collective consideration leads me to the opinion of common authorship.

Now, I reproduce the reasoning of interse comparison in

respect of Q51, Q221, Q226, Q310 and Q36 which have been

compared with S467 to S486. I may point out that the above

questioned writings are the handwriting in which the address is

written on the Bye Laws Ext.PW85/A6 and Ext.PW85/A7 and the

certificate at the end of these Bye Laws is written. The handwriting

in S467 to S486, admittedly are that of Mohan Lal. The relevant

CC No. 45/2010 Page 144 / 214


portion is reproduced as under:

Reasons for opinion as embodied in Para 4:Interse ................................................................................. characters.

Similarities are also been observed in the form and formation of various characters, their terminations and combinations. Some of them aremanner of execution of the buckle part of 'k'; habit of combining 'c' with the vertical part of the 'k', the formation of the loop/retrace in the vertical part; shape of the oval part of the 'p' along with the nature of the retrace in the vertical part; habit of combining 'e' and 't'; the nature of the loop in the vertical part of 't'; location of the tcross; nature of the retrace in the initial part of 'A' along with the inward termination of the terminal part, nature of the hook in the horizontal stroke; shape of the shoulder parts along with the nature of the retrace in the initial part of 'M'; shape of the oval part of 'a'; nature of the loop in the letter 'y'; manner of execution of 'V'; the rotundity in the curved part of 'G'; habit of combining idot with the succeeding letter 'h'; simplified manner of writing 's'. Similarities are again observed in the formation of letters 'h', 'D', 'r', 'u','W','S', 's', 'R', 'H', 'B', 'f', 'F', 'm', 'n'; combination of various letters int he words like 'Kumar', 'Devi', 'the', 'of', 'Cooperative', 'to', 'chair', 'committee' etc., and figures like '1', '4', '7', '2', '9', '6'.

In short, there are no basic differences in the writing habits of the questioned and the standard writings. During my examination I specifically searched for the differences but did not find any. The aforesaid similarities in the writing habits are significant and sufficient and their collective consideration leads me to the opinion of common authorship.

I have also perused the specimen handwriting and the

questioned handwritings as well as the reasons given by the expert

and I have no hesitation in holding that the opinion is correct and

these handwritings have been written by accused Mohan Lal. I may

point out here that fairness of the handwriting expert is reflected

from the fact that although the signatures of Deepak Kumar, a fake

Secretary are available on numerous documents but his handwriting

CC No. 45/2010 Page 145 / 214


has not matched with any of the accused persons. Had it matched,

this identity of the person acting as Deepak Kumar would have been

established.

Now I take up the import of the aforesaid documents. The

fact that the proceeding sheets of fake Rangmahal society were

written by accused Mohan Lal itself is a proof that he was involved in

the conspiracy of creating this fake society. A lot of arguments have

been made as to where are the originals of these registers in which

proceedings have been written. I would say that it has to be in

possession of those who were managing the society and these

persons are Sri Chand, Anna Wankhede, Sushil Kumar and Mohan

Lal. Special onus is upon accused Mohan Lal because it is he who

has written the proceedings, especially, when his previous rented

address has been used as the registered office of the society. Since

the original proceedings are in their possession and they being

accused cannot be compelled to produce the same, and only

photocopies of the proceedings attested by the person impersonating

as Deepak Kumar, the secretary of the society, are available to the

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/A42 dt. 20.08.1995 show that meeting of the managing

committee of Rangmahal CGHS was held on 20.08.1995 at 81,

CC No. 45/2010 Page 146 / 214


Sunder Nagar, New Delhi under the Chairmanship of Arun Kumar.

Vide these proceedings, the managing committee has resolved

unanimously “to shift the office address from 81, Sunder Nagar, New

Delhi to 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar PhaseIII, Delhi92.” The

photocopy of proceeding sheet is attested by Deepak Kumar and

bears a stamp of Rangmahal CGHS. It is pertinent to note that in fact

the land had already been allotted to the society in the year 1977 in

Pitam Pura and flats were allotted to the members on 23.1.93 by

draw of lots and therefore there is no question that in the year 1995

when this note sheet was written, the registered office of this society

would be present at 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. Interestingly, the

note sheet which is written in the hand of Mohan Lal gives the new

address of Mayur Vihar on which he used to reside from 1997 to

2002, as per the testimony of PW1. This fact proves the following

things: First, accused Mohan Lal has written these proceedings ante

dated. It is clear from the fact that he did not reside at Mayur Vihar

prior to the year 1997 whereas the note sheet shows the date as

20.08.1995. Secondly, this note sheet mentions name of Arun Kumar

and Deepak Kumar, the fake President and Secretary of the society.

Therefore, it is clear that by writing these proceedings, forged

documents of proceedings has been prepared. Thirdly, it proves that

he was in active collusion with the person who was representing to

be as Deepak Kumar in capacity of the Secretary of the society.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 147 / 214


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

allotment of land from DDA which has been intimated to the society

vide letter no. F47/152/H/East/2371 dt. 22.03.2004. It is further

mentioned that in proceedings of meeting dt. 04.03.2004

Ext.PW87/A22, it was proposed to call a General Body Meeting for

discussing the change of name and for this purpose the GBM was

called for 27.03.2004 from Rangmahal CGHS to any of the three

proposed names namely 1) The Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd.;

2) The Hill View Apartments CGHS Ltd. & 3) The Sky Blue

Apartments CGHS Ltd. Vide proceedings dt. 27.03.2004

(Ext.PW87/A41), the GBM has also resolved unanimously to type

the Model Bye Laws of CGHS and change of name. I may point out

that on the Bye Laws also the certificate at the end has been written

in the hand of accused Mohan Lal and it has been signed by the

President Arun Kumar, Secretary Deepak Kumar and the Treasurer

R.K. Singh. Therefore, these proceeding sheets proved that accused

Mohan Lal was involved in the operation of this fake society right

from initiating the change of address of the society upto the change

of the name of the society. Therefore, a cogent evidence has been led

by the prosecution that not only Mohan Lal has forged the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 148 / 214


proceeding sheets, but, also, by writing a certificate at the end of the

Bye Laws that all the members have signed in his presence who are

well known to him, he aided in forgery of the part of the Bye Laws

Ext.PW59/C i.e. a list of 120 members alongwith their signatures.

PW74 Sh. Gunveer Kumar Jain has testified that he and his family

members i.e. Member no. 4 Vijender Kumar Jain, Member no. 5

Devender Kumar Jain, Member No. 6 Sukhbir Kumar Jain had not

signed the 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

signatures in the column of signatures of members ar fake and by

writing this certificate accused Mohan Lal has created a part of the

false document. Accordingly, I hold accused Mohan Lal guilty of

forgery u/s 468 IPC and he is also in conspiracy with the other

accused persons for committing the offences of forgery and cheating

and therefore guilty u/s 120 IPC read with other provisions of law.

Common submissions made by the public servants i.e. A2, A3,

A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8

Some submissions have been made by Ld. Defence Counsels,

which are common to all the public servants facing trial herein. It is

argued by Ld. Defence Counsels for the aforesaid accused persons

that since no land had been allotted to the society, therefore there is

no loss to the Government. I agree with this submission of Ld.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 149 / 214


Defence Counsels. But this fact is of no help to these accused

persons because it is not a case of committing actual offence under

Section 13(1)(d). Rather these public servants have been accused

for of attempt to commit the aforesaid offence. Had this attempt

been successful, only then the fact of “no loss to the Government”

would have been relevant. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that

there is no blot on service of any of these accused persons. I agree

that no evidence contrary to this submission has been filed by the

prosecution. However in a criminal trial such a fact would not be

relevant. It is argued that CBI had not even recommended any

departmental inquiry against these accused persons despite the fact

taht as per their investigation these accused persons were found to

be indulging in criminal misconduct. It is argued by them that had

these accused persons been guilty, CBI must have proceeded against

them departmentally. I disagree with this submission and I am of the

opinion that whether or not any departmental inquiry has been

recommended against these public servants is not at all relevant to

the trial, where the court's job is focused only on the evidence

produced.

It is argued that no recovery of any incriminating document has

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


criminal misconduct by them has to be seen from the relevant

notings and the documents. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsels

that in the charge sheet there is mention of one dealing clerk Sh.

Sushil Kumar Sharma. To my mind it is a some clerical mistake and

does not go to the root of the case. It is argued that Investigating

Officer did not search for the Deepak Kumar, the Secretary of the

society, nor searched the address written by him in the applications

moved by him. Ld. Counsels for defence have drawn my attention to

the affidavit Ex.PW12/DA (at page no. 304/C of D9) of Deepak

Kumar S/o Sh. Anand Kumar, which shows his address as 1005, Gali

No.3, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi32. It is argued by Ld.

Defence counsels that the Investigating Officer has defaulted in his

duty to personally search Deepak Kumar at the Vishwas Nagar

address. Therefore it is presumed that Deepak Kumar is some real

person. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my

attention to the registered envelope (D127) through which a notice

was sent by the Investigating Officer to said Deepak Kumar at the

Vishwas Nagar address and submits that as per the report dated

15.2.2006 of the postman, no such number i.e. 1005 exists at the

given address. It is therefore submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that

when no such number exists at the address how can the Investigating

Officer search this place when such an address does not exit. Sh.

S.K. Bhatnagar, Adv. argues that the report of a postman on the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 151 / 214


envelope is not sufficient to prove that no such person resides at the

given address. It is argued that the Investigating Officer should have

gone to the spot with a view to verify as to whether the said address

exists or not. Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, Ld. Defence Counsel has referred

to M. Durga Prasad Vs. State of A.P. 2004 Crl. L. J. 242 in which

Hon'ble Single Judge of Andhra High Court did not favour the effort

of prosecution to rely on the evidence of postmen to prove the

factum of fictitious persons and those persons do not exit. Hon'ble

Judge was of the opinion that the prosecution ought to have adduced

positive evidence to prove that these persons are not at all in

existence by examining of authorities of municipality/Gram

Panchayat etc.

I disagree with the Ld. Defence Counsel. The case law cited by

him in this regard is also not applicable to the present facts of the

case. The perusal of the aforesaid authority would show that the

prosecution led the evidence of postmen and thereby seeking to draw

an inference that letters were delivered to fictitious persons. On

the other hand in the present case the letters sent at 1005, Vishwas

Nagar returned back with the report of postman that this address

does not exist. Therefore whereas Hon'ble High Court was of the

opinion that some more evidence was required to prove the delivery

of letter to fictitious persons, the case in hand is a case of

undelivered letter received back by CBI. This difference appears to

CC No. 45/2010 Page 152 / 214


be minor but takes to altogether different inference. If a letter is

delivered, it means some person had received the same and therefore

such receiver of the letter actually exists. Therefore prosecution in

that case was under an obligation to prove as to who was the said

receiver. In absence of this type of evidence, it was not possible to

hold that the receiver of the letter was a fictitious person.

However here the letter returned undelivered with the report

that no such address exists. This report on the undelivered letter

received back by CBI is made in regular discharge of the official duty

by the postman and the same has to be presumed to be true in view

of illustration “f” to Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The

accused persons were at liberty to rebut this presumption that such

address actually exits and one Deepak Kumar actually resides at this

address. None of the accused persons has preferred to bring any

material on record to show the existence of such address or the fact

that Deepak Kumar ever resided at this address. However all the

accused persons failed in this regard and therefore I reach only one

conclusion i.e. Deepak Kumar purporting to be the Secretary of

Rangmahal CGHS is a fictitious person and his address 1005, Gali

No.3, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi32 is a fake address. I would add that

same is the case in respect of all the 70 newly enrolled members at

whose addresses the CBI had sent the notices through speed post. All

these envelopes have returned undelivered either on the ground that

CC No. 45/2010 Page 153 / 214


no such person exists or on the ground that no such address exists.

This is sufficient to prove that all these members are fake members. I

may further point out that even CBI had sent the notices to the 50

promoter members at the address given in the affidavits (placed in

D9). All these notices also returned back. Reason was simple.

Some of them were fake members introduce by the accused persons

operating the fake society and remaining had shifted their residences

to the plot which was allotted to the original society. Therefore the

only inference of this situation is that if the plot were allotted by

DDA to this fake society, the builders would have built the flats and

would have sold them to the needy persons as per market rate by

showing the fake resignations of the fake members and introducing

new unsuspecting public persons.

The above mentioned inference will have to be kept in mind

while dealing the role of the public servants while discussing the

question of conspiracy and abuse of powers etc.

Jitender Singh Sharma (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. Ramesh Chandra (A2) was AR (East) at that

time. This letter is Ex.PW85/A14 and is placed at page no. 69/C in

D8. I would like to reproduce the said letter as under :

CC No. 45/2010 Page 154 / 214


“No.F.1./RCS/AUDIT/MISC/2003/150 Dated 31.12.03

To

THE ASSTT. REGISTRAR (EAST)OFFICE OF THE R.C.S.SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI01

SUB:REGRDINGAUDIT OF THE RANGMAHAL COOP. G/H SOCIETY LTD. (Regn. No. 152(H) dated 31.3.1973.

SIR

A letter has been received from sh. Deepak Kumar Hon, secretary of the Rangmahal coop. G/H Society Ltd. In which he has requested for the audit of the society since registration to 31.3.2003. As the audit of the society is pending since registration, it Is, therefore, requested to confirm the present status fo the society from your records at the earliest, so that further action in this regard will be taken accordingly.

(J.S. SHARMA)ASSTT. REGISTRAR (AUDIT)

The perusal of this letter would show that J. 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

appears from this letter that J. S. Sharma had ignored the fact that

the audit had been conducted in this society i.e. Rangmahal CGHS.

Although he has stated that a letter was received from Deepak

CC No. 45/2010 Page 155 / 214


Kumar, Honour Secretary of Rangmahal CGHS but in fact no such

letter is available in the records of audit branch. Accused J. S.

Sharma had tried to explain that all the records were seized by CBI

and this letter should be in possession of CBI. Prosecution has

proved the seizure memo Ex.PW81/A (D2), which mentions the

three files with their page numbers vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A

(D7) the audit report for the period 1.7.1970 to 31.3.2003 from

page 1 to 240 was seized from audit branch. Accused J. S. Sharma

has not been able to point out any such letter on the said record.

Therefore it is clear that if this letter exists, it should be in the audit

branch and not with the CBI. Accused J. S. Sharma did not lead any

evidence to prove that any such letter had existed. It is argued by Ld.

Counsel for accused J. S. Sharma that lot of records is not traceable

in the audit branch and therefore even the said letter is not available

there and now after so many years it is not possible to trace out this

letter. I am of the opinion that if letter has been received and the

same is not traceable due to some reason, its entry must be there in

some register. But this accused has been unable to show anything to

this effect. I may point out that the first letter written by said Deepak

Kumar is Ex.PW85/A8 (at page no. 322/C of D8) and this letter is

dated 29.12.2003. It was received by Accused Narayan Diwakar on

29.12.2003 itself, whereas the letter Ex.PW85/A14 written by this

accused to AR East is dated 31.12.2003. From this fact two

CC No. 45/2010 Page 156 / 214


inferences can be drawn. First that there were two letters written by

Deepak Kumar, one being Ex.PW85/A8 and another letter written

by Deepak Kumar prior in time to AR (East) by AR (Audit). Second,

that no such separate letter address to AR (Audit) exists. As already

discussed, the first inference cannot be accepted. In the letter dated

29.12.2003 Ex.PW82/A2 in which it is specially written that

upto date accounts of the society are ready for its audit. Since

there is no separate letter to AR Audit, therefore it is clear that A6 in

his letter Ex.PW85/A14 is referring to the request of Deepak Kumar,

which he made in the letter Ex.PW85/A8. It requires to be noted

specifically that the letter Ex.PW85/A8 written by Deepak Kumar is

addressed to the Assistant Registrar (East) and is dated 29.12.2003,

whereas the letter written by A6 to AR(East) is dated 31.12.2003. It

is pertinent to note that although this letter is addressed to AR (East)

but it was actually received by Narayan Diwakar (A8). The fact that

AR Audit i.e. A6 is acting on this letter which is still not received by

him, is one circumstance which points out that there was a

conspiracy between A6 and the persons, who fraudulently

represented himself as Deepak Kumar, the Secretary of the society.

That is the reason that without receiving the aforesaid letter, A6

proceeded on his own.

I refer to the testimony of PW68 Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh, the

Chartered Accountant in the firm M/s J. S. Johar & Associates and

CC No. 45/2010 Page 157 / 214


that this firm was appointed as auditor for conducting the audit of

Rangmahal CGHS vide letter Ex.PW68/A and that this firm had

conducted the audit of Rangmahal CGHS vide auditor's report dated

31.10.1991 for the period upto 31.3.1991. Further prosecution has

proved a copy of letter issued by A6 as AR Audit to the

President/Secretary of Rangmahal CGHS plot no.13 opposite

Saraswati Vihar, Pitam Pura. This letter Ex.PW90/A15 is placed at

page 101 of file no.13. The copy of this letter is marked to M/s H. L.

Madan & Company. This letter is placed in file no. 13 at page no.

101 and the file was seized from the actual Rangmahal Society,

which is situated at plot no.13 opposite Saraswati Vihar vide seizure

memo Ex.PW90/A4 from Ajay Kumar Maheshwari, the Secretary of

the society. A perusal of this seizure memo would show that CBI had

seized the audit reports in respect of Rangmahal CGHS from

31.3.1987 to 31.3.1992 apart from the other documents namely the

DDA letter dated 23.4.1990 for draw of plots and the letter

Ex.PW90/A15 as well as one letter at page 100, which is written by

M/s H. L. Madan & Company to the Rangmahal CGHS dated

20.2.2002. Ld. Defence Counsel has objected to these documents on

the ground that this letter was never issued by J. s. Sharma and that

Ex.PW90/A15 is not the original letter written to the society rather

it is the photo copy of the same.

On the other hand Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my

CC No. 45/2010 Page 158 / 214


attention to the original letter dated 20.2.2002 written by M/s H. L.

Madan & Company to the President Rangmahal CGHS in which it has

been informed to the President that their firm has been appointed as

auditors of the society to conduct audit for the period upto 200001.

He enclosed the copy of appointment letter and he requested the

president of the society as to when the audit can take place. Ld.

Public Prosecutor submits that the copy of the letter was sent to the

society by Sh. H. L. Madan & Company and it has come in ordinary

post to the society and therefore it is available on the file of the

society. It is argued that from this letter one thing is very clear that

the audit branch of RCS was having the proper records of Rangmahal

Cooperative CGHS upto the year 2002 when this letter was written

by A6 and also had the record that now this society is situated on

the plot allotted to it by DDA i.e. of plot no.13 opposite Saraswati

Vihar, Pitam Pura. Ld. Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that this

also proves that the office of RCS as well as its audit branch were

having complete record of the allotment of land to this society at

least upto 19.2.2002 and this proves that later on this record was

destroyed by the RCS official to create a fake and duplicate society.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties. I will

take the question as to whether D141 i.e. Letter dated 19.2.2002

written by AR Audit to the President of Rangmahal CGHS with its

copy to M/s H. L. Madan & Company stands proved or not. I refer to

CC No. 45/2010 Page 159 / 214


illustration 'f' to Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. The entire file

was seized by the Investigating Officer from the office of actual

Rangmahal society. This file contains this photocopy of letter along

with letter of M/s H. L. Madan & Co. The photocopy of the letter

dated 19.2.2002 written by AR Audit to President Rangmahal was

sent by H. L. Madan & Company along with their letter dated

20.2.2002. This is how the photo copy of the letter had reached to

the society. The perusal of this file would show that the records of

auditor's report, balance sheets and correspondence have been

maintained regularly by the office of the Rangmahal CGHs in the

regular course of business. Therefore it cannot been disbelieved that

the society had received the copy of the letter through H. L. Madan &

Company to it. Ld. Defence Counsel has taken the defence that this

letter was not signed by J. S. Sharma. On the other hand, Ld. Public

Prosecutor argues that the signatures on this photo copy matches

with the signatures of this accused available on judicial file as well as

other admitted documents proved in the court and one is left in no

doubt that it has been issued by accused J. S. Sharma. I have

perused this letter and I would only say that photo copy of this letter

has come in ordinary course of business to the office of Rangmahal

CGHS. There is no reason to believe that anyone would have forged

it. The contents of this letter makes it clear that it has been issued by

AR Audit. It is not disputed that J. S. Sharma was AR Audit at that

CC No. 45/2010 Page 160 / 214


time. Therefore it is clear that this letter proves that A6 as well as

the audit branch was in the knowledge of the fact that plot no.13,

Pitam Pura was alloted to Rangmahal CGHS and that is why the copy

of the letter is available on the records of Rangmahal CGHS. The

fact of availability of the letter Ex.PW90/A15 in the records of the

society proves beyond reasonable doubt that the fact of allotment of

land was in the knowledge of A6 and audit records of actual

Ranmahal CGHS were available in the audit branch.

In such circumstance let me take up the record of audit seized

by CBI from the audit branch of RCS. CBI had seized the complete

record and I have already discussed that no separate letter of Deepak

Kumar asking for audit is available on D11 (collectively exhibited as

Ex.PW2/A1) and D12 (collectively exhibited as Ex.PW87/A39).

Further in the letter dated 31.12.2003 Ex.PW85/A14 written to AR

(East), it is not written as to whether any effort to trace out the

previous audit was made, nor there is any noting to that effect in the

file D11. For sake of argument, it is presumed that A6 was not

having any knowledge that Rangmahal CGHS had already been

allotted land and audit was being conducted for previous years, still

A6 had to explain a lot. Unfortunately he is unable to explain any of

circumstances. I refer to Ex.PW5/A (D11). On this proforma A6

vide his order dated 28.1.2004 under the heading “approval of

Registrar Cooperative Societies”, AR (East) had approved audit for

CC No. 45/2010 Page 161 / 214


the year 197374 to 200203 i.e. for 30 years. A6 has been unable to

show that as to where in the approval of the registrar for ordering for

audit for more than three years. I may add that Rule 84(1) of the

Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 1973 “An auditor can undertake

the audit of the society for a maximum period of three years”.

The purport of Rule 84(4) is that registrar can order audit for the

audit of previous years even for more than three years. A6 has

argued that said approval was indeed taken and he has pointed out

the signatures of RCS at point 'C' of Ex.PW87/A17 beneath the note

sheet Ex.PW87/A30 already reproduced by me. I have read this

note sheet and it does not contain any order or approval permitting

the audit for 33 years for this society. At the cost of repetition, I am

reproducing the relevant note sheet as under :

“As discussed with worthy JRCS reg. Status of Rangmahal CooperativeGroup Housing Society Ltd. The Secretary of the society has applied for audit branch since registration of the society. (see at FlagB) As per record available the audit of the society is pending since registration and no list was sent to DDA for allotment of land till date and there is no liquidation order in the file.As per record available the status of the society is non functioned. Asstt. Registrar (Audit) has requested and asked for status of the society. If agreed we may inform to AR(Audit) accordingly and Sh. Faiz Mohamad may be appointed as inspector for

'A' conducting the inspection U/s 54 for present running condition of the society. Both letters are added for Signature please.

This note sheet was approved by Registrar but nowhere in this

note sheet, there is any mention of approval for conducting audit for

more than three years.

I will again revert the letter Ex.PW85/A14 by A6 to AR (East)

in which it is specifically written that audit of the society is pending

CC No. 45/2010 Page 162 / 214


since registration. A6 has been unable to explain as to how he

reached this conclusion. His submissions that he simply believed the

version of Deepak Kumar is not acceptable because the fact that the

society is coming suddenly after about 30 years itself is a cause of

serious suspicion. Further in the normal official course of business

on such application the dealing clerk would have written a note

about the status of the society and status of audit of the society. This

fact has been testified by DW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar, the Head Clerk of

audit branch. In cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor he

testified that the role of dealing assistant is that he will move the

application for verification of the working of the society by AR (East)

and if society is found functional, dealing assistant will propose to

permit the audit of the society for all the pending years. In nutshell

the dealing clerk of audit branch will make proper notings for

verification of status of the society and status of audit. The entire

audit records of Rangmahal CGHS in D11 and D12 does not show

any noting of dealing clerk in this regard nor there is any direction of

A6 to that effect. I have already discussed that he wrote the letter to

AR (East) even when this letter never reached him. I may point out

that the letter of Deepak Kumar reached AR (East) on 10.2.2004 as

reflected from his signatures at point A on this letter Ex.PW85/A8.

The arguments of A6 is that he was not in conspiracy with the

persons, who were operating the fake society and that he never met

CC No. 45/2010 Page 163 / 214


Deepak Kumar. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn

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

argued by Ld. Defence Counsel for A6 that the office bearers of the

society present this letter in the office and it comes in routine course

to AR audit but he does not meet the office bearers of the society in

person. Even if this arguments is accepted, A6 will have to explain as

how he proceeded to write as letter to AR (East). During trial he did

not summon any record from the office of audit branch asking for the

production of any such application of Deepak Kumar. These

circumstances have only one explanation that J. S. Sharma was

actively conspiring with the persons managing the society. Therefore

instead of asking the status of the society and status of audit from the

dealing clerk of his own branch, he is raising a query from AR (East).

I have already discussed that the audit of the society for the previous

years were done by a Chartered Accountant and photo copy of letter

issued from RCS office is available in the file of the original

Rangmahal CGHS at the address of the plot, which was allotted to it

by DDA. Had A6 ordered for verification of the status of audit and

status of society from his own dealing assistant, the report of dealing

assistant would have definitely come revealing the proper facts.

Hence prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the

records of audit of Rangmahal CGHS were very much available in

CC No. 45/2010 Page 164 / 214


audit branch and A6 had the knowledge of the same and he was

acting in collusion with the operators of fake society in this

conspiracy by abusing his official positions deliberately withholding

the actual audit of the society to which the land had been allotted.

Prahlad Kumar Thirwani (A5)

It is argued by Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv. that A5 had visited the

registered office of the society i.e. 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar. It

is submitted that A5 prepared his report as per the documents shown

by Deepak Kumar, the Secretary of the society and A5 had no reason

to believe that all the balance sheets are fake and forged. It is

submitted that A5 had also no reason to believe that the person, he

met, was not Deepak Kumar.

On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that evidence

has been brought on record to prove that no Deepak Kumar resides

at this address nor it is in evidence that office of society was ever

situated at this address.

It is argued by Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv. that Investigating

Officer never visited this place. Moreover PW1 has stated that he is

the owner of Flat No. 147G, Pocket8, Mayur Vihar. It is argued that

since this address is difference than the address where P. K. Thirwani

(A5) had visited, therefore the prosecution case must fail. On the

other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that it is typographical

mistake instead of “Pocket A2”, the typist had written “Pocket 8” due

CC No. 45/2010 Page 165 / 214


to phonetic similarity. I have considered the submissions. When this

fact was brought to the notice of court a further question under

Section 313 CrPC was put with the correct address. With a view to

see as to what is the correct address of this witness, I have seen the

list of witnesses attached to the charge sheet. At serial no.3, the

name of PW1 Ram Naresh Prasad is written and his address has been

written as 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vicar, New Delhi. Similarly in

his statement under Section 161 CrPC also, his address is written as

147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII. PW1 has specifically

testified that accused Mohan Lal was his tenant during the period

1997 to 2002. this fact is not denied by accused Mohan Lal in cross

examination. I have already discussed the role of accused Mohan Lal

and the address of the society in his hand writing on the bye laws

also show the address of Flat No. 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar,

PhaseIII Ex.PW85/A6. Therefore I am convinced that the mistake

in the testimony of PW1 is on account of phonetic similarity of “A2”

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. I refer to 1999 I AD (Delhi 853 Mohkam Singh Vs State

of NCT of Delhi wherein Hon'ble High Court took note of the fact

that typographical errors and accidental errors it appear but the same

cannot take away the substance of the evidence. In such

CC No. 45/2010 Page 166 / 214


circumstances, I am of the opinion that PW1 is the owner of 147G,

A2, Mayur Vihar and he has testified that no society has ever worked

on this address. Therefore the stand of the accused P. 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

cooperative society shall be conducted in the registered office of the

society, unless the registrar directs otherwise. Since the defence of

accused stands falsified and Deepak Kumar whom he states to have

met is found to be non existence person, not only it becomes a

clearcut case of abuse of his official position by him but also it proves

that he was in conspiracy with the person who were impersonating

as President, Secretary and Treasurer. This fact is revealed from the

“brief summary of the society” placed in D11 and D12, which show

the signatures of President, Secretary, Treasurer of the fake society

and the Auditor (i.e. A5). A perusal of this brief summary of the

society would show that it has column of names of managing

committee members present during audit period and in this column

name of Arun Kumar as President, Deepak Kumar as Secretary and

Rajender Kumar Singh as Treasurer have been written and at the

lower portion of the document the signatures of President, Secretary,

Treasurer as well as of A5 are present. This proves that a fake audit

was created in conspiracy with the persons, who were impersonating

as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society. I would add

CC No. 45/2010 Page 167 / 214


here that during investigation no such person namely Arun Kumar,

Deepak Kumar and Rajender Kumar Singh were found. I have

already discussed the question of Deepak Kumar of being a fake

person. On the envelope D130 addressed to Rajender Kumar Singh,

it is stated that no such person resides at the given address. Whereas

on the envelope D126 addressed to Arun Kumar, it is written that

despite going several times at this address, he could not meet

addressee. In his testimony the concerned postman i.e. PW51 has

stated that no such person resides at that address. I may further

point out that the address on the aforesaid envelopes are the same,

which are written in the affidavit Ex.PW66/6 of Arun Kumar and

Ex.PW66/02 of Rajender Kumar Singh, which are placed in D9.

Prosecution has examined PW78 Sh. Surender Kumar Abrol, an

Accounts Officer in Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Darya Ganj.

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 written by Manager Darya Ganj Smt. Shikha Verma to

the Investigating Officer of this case showing the status of account of

this society. Along with this letter a copy of statement of account was

also sent. As per the letter and statement of account, an amount of

Rs.50/ stood in the name of Rangmahal CGHS as on 31.12.1991 and

thereafter there was no transaction in this account. In the brief

CC No. 45/2010 Page 168 / 214


summary of the society he had written “nil” in the column of details

of bank A/c. It is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that when a

society is registered only when an account is opened by such society.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to Rule 6(1) of DCS

Rules 1973 and “form no.1” relevant to this Rule. A perusal of this

form no.1 would show that point no.12 there is a column “amount

deposited in these Delhi States Cooperative Bank Ltd.” I may point

out that form no.1 is a proforma for application for registration of

cooperative societies. In other words, the opening of an account in

Delhi State Cooperative Bank is a prerequisite for registration of the

society. Therefore it is clear that actual Rangmahal CGHS must have

opened such an account before its registration in the year 1973. I

have already discussed that PW78 has proved that in fact such an

account existed. Had auditor asked for the particulars of such an

account from the operators of the fake society i.e. fake President,

Secretary and Treasurer, such operators/managers of this fake society

would have been caught on wrong foot. But A5 despite being an

auditor, who has experience of auditing of large number of society

does not ask for particulars of such account and rather in the column

of details of the bank A/c he writes “nil”. This itself shows that the

element of mens rea of this accused that he was out to help the

accused persons in their illegal designs. I am of the opinion that he

is not only guilty of his official position to obtain the pecuniary

CC No. 45/2010 Page 169 / 214


advantage to the persons operating the fake society but was also

actively in conspiracy with them.

It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that had P. K. Thirwani

been in conspiracy with the operators of the fake society, he would

not have raised any objections in the audit. I have perused the

objections/suggestions and I reproduce the same as under :

1. Audit of the Society should be got done every year.2. AGM/Election of the society should be held every

year in accordance with Act, Rules & Byelaws.3. M.C. Meeting should be held once in every month.4. Approval of resigned/new enrolled members should

be taken from the RCS office.5. Share allotment register should be completed and

share certificates be issued to all the members of the society.

6. Cash retention limit should be fixed.7. Financial position should be improved to avoid losses

to the society.8. Compliance report as per proforma 16 must be send

to the RCS office.”

A perusal of above would show that these are not objections

rather these are innocuous suggestions. Had A5 not acted in

collusion with the persons dealing with the fake society and had in

honest discharge of his official duties actually visited the said

premises i.e. 147G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi, the

fake society would not have been successful in getting the audit of

more than 30 years accounts of the society. It is argued by Sh. S. K.

Bhatnagar, adv. that audit is not a precondition for approval of the

list of the members for the purpose of allotment of land. I disagree

CC No. 45/2010 Page 170 / 214


to this submission. I may point out that before sending the list of

members of society to DDA, it is the requirement that the society is

working as per norms. Regular audit is essential for that purpose.

Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv. argues that A5 had never suspected that the

persons who met him were impersonators and that A5 had no

knowledge of forgeries etc.

I disagree with this submission of Ld. Defence Counsel. When

it stands proved that the audit report prepared by P. K. Thirwani is a

false report because the office of Ranmahal CGHS never existed on

the aforesaid address of Mayur Vihar, where A6 has stated to have

visited, it leads to only one conclusion that he did so as he was mixed

with the persons operating the fake society and were impersonating

as Arun Kumar, Deepak Kumar and Rajinder Kumar Singh the fake

President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society. Therefore when A5

had indulged in fraudulent audit, he has aided in sending of list of

fraudulent members of the society to DDA for allotment of land and

thus he fully abused his official position in an attempt to obtain

pecuniary advantage to them pursuant to the conspiracy in question.

FAIZ MOHD. (A3)

Accused Faiz Mohd. was appointed as Inspector vide order

dated 21.01.2004 of RCS and vide letter dt. 27.01.2004 of Sh.

Ramesh Chandra, AR(East). This letter is marked as Ext.PW85/A13.

One copy of this letter was given to accused Faiz Mohd. and second

CC No. 45/2010 Page 171 / 214


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, he was informed from there that office of the

society had been shifted from 81 Sunder Nagar, Delhi to 147G

PocketA2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi. It is further written by him

that he visited at the office address of the society i.e. 147G Pocket

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

there are 120 members existing in the society and that list has not yet

been approved by the RCS for allotment of land.

I have already discussed the testimony of PW1. The

objections of this accused to the testimony of PW1 are same, as

raised by A5. I have already discussed that what actually PW1 has

testified is that he is a resident of 147G PocketA2, Mayur Vihar,

PhaseIII, Delhi, but, due to phonetic similarity, it was typed as 147

G Pocket8, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi. I have already discussed

that no society existed on this address, rather, this address was used

by accused Mohan Lal because from 1977 to 2002 he had been a

tenant at this place. Since it stands proved that the society never

worked at this place, the defence of this accused that he had actually

visited this place stands falsified. This false defence leads to an

CC No. 45/2010 Page 172 / 214


inference that accused Faiz Mohd. not only abused his official

position, but, also that he did so in conspiracy with the persons

dealing with the fake society.

ACCUSED RAMESH CHANDRA (A2) & ACCUSED RAKESH KUMAR HASIJA (A4)

Accused Rakesh Kumar Hasija is a dealing clerk who wrote

the note sheet dt. 13.01.2004 which I have already reproduced. It is

written in this note sheet that “As per record available the audit of

the society is pending since registration and that no list was sent to

DDA for allotment of land and that status of the society is non

functional.” He also proposed that AR(Audit) be informed about the

status of the society and accused Faiz Mohd. be appointed as

Inspector for conducting inspection u/s 54 of DCS Act for the present

running condition of the society. Accused Ramesh Chandra (A2),

AR(East) recommended that AR(Audit) be informed accordingly and

inspection for the status of the society may be proved.

It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that when a letter of

AR(Audit)which was PUC in this case was received, only a few note

sheets and correspondence were available in this file D8 and from

these notings and correspondence it was not possible to make out as

to whether the society was actually working or its audit was being

conducted regularly or the list of members for allotment had already

been sent or the land was alloted to the society. It is argued by Ld.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 173 / 214


Defence Counsel that in these circumstances, Dealing Assistant i.e.

A4 prepared this note and AR(E) i.e. A4 also wrote his noting in

routine manner and in good faith that the society was nonfunctional.

On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that these public

servants had removed the relevant note sheets and correspondence

from this file with a view to help the operators of the fake society for

getting the allotment of land. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my

attention to a letter dt. 26.05.1975 (Ext.PW52/G1) written by one

Sh. S.P. Jain, Treasurer of Rangmahal CGHS to AR(Cooperative

Group Housing Society). Ld. Public Prosecutor has also drawn my

attention to another letter dt. 27.05.1975 regarding the inspection of

the society. Another letter dt. 06.09.1975 is addressed by

Dharamprakash Garg, Secretary to AR vide which the copy of the

minutes of meetings held by the society in May, 1975 were sent to

the office of RCS. Similarly, other letters have been shown by Ld.

Public Prosecutor to prove that the society was actually interacting

with RCS even after the year 1973 but the note sheets after the year

1973 are not available. It is argued that as a normal working of a

Dealing Clerk, he should have made a note regarding the missing of

note sheets after the year 1973 or he should have noted that

although the correspondence is being made by the society with the

office of RCS, but, the relevant note sheets are not being written. It is

argued that infact the note sheets were being written properly but

CC No. 45/2010 Page 174 / 214


the RCS officials in conspiracy with the operators of the fake society

had removed those note sheets and correspondence showing

allotment of land. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that when there is

correspondence on file D8 upto the year 1975, the two fold options

were available to the RCS officials namely : (1) they could have

issued notice to DDA to inform as to whether the land has been

alloted to the society or not; (2) they could have asked information

from the Central New Delhi Zone in which the address 81, Sunder

Nagar, New Delhi which is the initial official address of the society is

situated.

It is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that it is very strange

that the file of Central New Delhi Zone is being taken up by the East

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, the builders mafia had adopted the method of changing the

society's particulars to East Zone where accused Ramesh Chandra

was posted as AR and thereafter in collusion with Ramesh Chandra

and higher officials, they were able to get the entire file processed.

In this case also, this happened.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the last

noting available on this file which is Diary no. 1873 and written on

27.08.1973. It reads as under:

CC No. 45/2010 Page 175 / 214


“Prastut Patra Samiti ke varsh 197273

ke lekha nirikshan ke bare mein hai.

Lekha Nirikshak ne samiti ka lekha

nirikshan karne mein kuch ek kamiyun

ka vivran diya hai.

Yadi sehmat ho to in kamiyun

ko dur karne ke liye samiti ke

nirikshak ko patra likh kar bhej diya jave.

Swach Patra hastakhsar hetu prastut hai.”

This note can be translated in English as under:

“The PUC is in respect of the audit of the society for the year 197273. The auditor while auditing the society has mentioned a few deficiencies.

If agree, a letter may be written to the society and the auditor for removing the deficiencies.

The fair letter is ready for the signatures please.”

A perusal of this note sheet itself shows that audit for the

year 197273 had been done by the auditor. Therefore, it is clear

that the Dealing Assistant Rakesh Kumar Hasija has written a wrong

fact in this note sheet that “As per record available, the audit of the

society is pending since registration.” Instead, I would like to add

here that when this note sheet was written, it was not a bulky file

because the note sheets are from page no. 1 to 8 and the documents

and correspondence are from page 1 to 68 of correspondence

portion. The bulk of the documents placed in this file in year

20032004 was not available on this file at that time. Therefore, it

CC No. 45/2010 Page 176 / 214


cannot said that due to bulk of file, the Dealing Assistant might have

been lost in the volume of the file. The very last notings available on

file speaks clearly that audit for the year 197273 had been

conducted. This fact must have been noted by the dealing clerk in

normal course of official duty.

The same is the case with AR(East). In view of the missing

note sheets, either he should have asked for tracing of the note sheets

or he could have requested the Central/New Delhi zone as to

whether any portion of the file is available with them. Infact,

Ramesh Chandra has not been able to convince this court as to how

the file of the Central/New Delhi zone has reached the East Zone. It

is pertinent to note that there was nothing in the note sheets

available to Dealing Assistant and AR(East) to show the change of

address. This fact came to their knowledge only when letter of

Deepak Kumar Ext.PW85/A8 reached Ramesh Chandra on

10.02.2004. Therefore, the Dealing Assistant and Assistant Registrar

(East) could have known the address of this society as 81, Sunder

Nagar, Delhi. I may point out that DW2 R.K. Mudgil was examined

as defence witness by accused Ramesh Chandra and in cross

examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor he admitted that Sunder Nagar

is situated in the jurisdiction of Central/New Delhi zone. Therefore,

this evidence is enough to prove that in no way the file of Rangmahal

CGHS could be available in East Zone over which Ramesh Chandra

CC No. 45/2010 Page 177 / 214


and Rakesh Hasija had jurisdiction. I would refer to the evidence of

Ms. Sunita Nagpal (PW85). She is also a dealing assistant in East

Zone during the relevant time. Although, this witness has turned

hostile but in cross examination she testified that she had not

handed over the documents of the society to Rakesh Kumar Hasija as

she was not knowing the whereabouts of the society but when the

documents of the said society were handed over to her by

Ramesh Chandra the then AR(East), only then, she came to know

about the possession of these documents. This evidence proves

that accused Ramesh Chandra was in active possession of this file. I

may add here that when Ramesh Chandra passed formal order after

approval from RCS, appointing Faiz Mohd. u/s 54 of DCS Act as

inspecting officer to find out the factual position of the society and to

verify the records, he sent one copy of this order to Rangmahal CGHS

with the address 81, Sunder Nagar, Delhi. From all this evidence, it

is clear that the file belonged to Central/New Delhi Zone whereas it

was taken up by Rakesh Kumar Hasija and Ramesh Chandra without

any jurisdiction. No explanation has given from their side as to why

the file of this society which should have been lying in Central/New

Delhi Zone has reached East Zone. I may further add that this

conduct should be seen in view of the subsequent facts that they did

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


further note sheets are not available nor asked the AR(Audit) to get

searched from his own branch as to whether the audit for further

years has been conducted or not. As regarding the question of

allotment of land and sending of list, they should have raised query

from the Central/New Delhi Zone informing them about the missing

note sheets and making a query if they have any record regarding the

sending of list and allotment of land. Further, they could have also

seen a letter or made a query from the Policy Branch about this fact

as well as made the enquiry from the DDA.

I agree that the officials sometimes act very rashly and

even blunders are committed during discharge of official duties but

when the officials are experienced persons, they acquire an eye for

details. In this case, none of the officials is a new entrant in service.

However, at the same time overall circumstances of a case would also

speak loudly as to whether it is a pure case of negligent working or a

case of dishonesty. Wrong noting on the file of another zone means

that they had somehow got the said file, in execution of a conspiracy.

This is coupled with the fact that the audit of the year 197273 and

missing of subsequent note sheets has not been highlighted. I would

add further that when JR(East) wrote a note “Pl. Spk.” (Please

Speak), the Dealing Clerk reproduced the same note sheet except the

first line in noting dt. 20.01.2004 and the same was recommended by

Ramesh Chandra. The first line of this note sheet dt. 20.01.2004

CC No. 45/2010 Page 179 / 214


reflects that JR(East) had discussed the status of Rangmahal CGHS,

but, thereafter, neither the Dealing Clerk nor Ramesh Chandra have

written as to why and how they confirmed the status of Rangmahal

CGHS as non functional. Instead, the previous note sheet dt.

13.01.2004 was reproduced verbatim. This is a clear cut chain of

abuse of official position and conspiracy of Dealing Clerk and

AR(East) with the operators of the fake society. True, that no

evidence has been brought on record to show that Ramesh Chandra

had personally met Deepak Kumar, but, the detailed note sheet dt.

19.03.2004 typed by the Dealing Clerk bears the signatures of

Deepak Kumar and at the end of this note sheet, it is written that

society has produced/submitted all relevant documents pertaining to

the verification of official list of 120 members for onward

transmission to DDA for allotment of land and the same has been

examined and got verified and that in view of this fact, a

recommendation was made to approve the list of 120 members for

onward transmission to DDA for allotment of land. While preparing

this note sheet, no objection was raised as to how the society

suddenly woke up after 30 years. No query was raised as to why the

society had not informed the change of address to the RCS. I may

point out that society submitted the copy of resolution dt. 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


PhaseIII, Delhi92. It is nowhere asked as to why this intimation

was not sent to the society in the year 1995. I may point out that as

per Section 84 of DCS Act, 1972, the Cooperative Society must

inform to the Registrar about the change of the address of the

cooperative society within 30 days. Similarly, at page 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. Neither Dealing Clerk nor Ramesh Chandra AR(E) raised any

objection as to why the office of RCS was not informed by society

about the inclusion of the new members. I may point out that PW77

V.K. Bansal has testified that the enrollment of any new member can

be done by way of resolution of the society to that effect and it

should be conveyed to the office of RCS after its enrollment. The

intimation from time to time regarding enrollment of new members

is required because the RCS is able to authenticate the list of

members to be sent to DDA for allotment of land. Neither accused

Rakesh Kumar Hasija nor Ramesh Chandra raised any objection as to

why the society did not intimate the RCS about the enrollment of

new members. All these circumstances are enough to prove that the

Dealing Clerk and the AR(E) has not only hand in glove with each

other as well as with the persons who were operating the fake society

CC No. 45/2010 Page 181 / 214


but also a clear proof of abuse of powers.

Jasbir Singh Sindhu (A7)

It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel for A7 that there is no

sanction under Section 197 CrPC and the sanction under Section 19

of Prevention of Corruption Act is not proved. Ld. Defence Counsel

has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW91 sh. Rajnish Tingal.

It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that this witness was Under

Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs during the relevant period

and he testified that an investigation report along with statements of

witnesses and documents was received from CBI for according

sanction for prosecution of A7. He testified that the file was

processes in MHA and was to be put through proper channel before

competent authority for according sanction for prosecution. He

testified that sanctioning authority in this matter was President of

India. The file received back from the competent authority, who had

accorded sanction for prosecution against this accused. He further

testified that Ministry of Home Affairs of Union of India was

delegated with the powers on behalf of President of India for

according sanction in the instant matter. The same was accorded by

Minister of Home Affairs and he being competent authority to

convey the sanction for prosecution to CBI had conveyed the

same accordingly. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to

the cross examination and submits that this witness has not brought

CC No. 45/2010 Page 182 / 214


the file in which the Director, Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary

and Home Minister had put their notings. Ld. Defence Counsel has

drawn my attention that although the sanctioning authority was the

President of India but this witness had testified that the file had not

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

sanction to CBI. It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that on

the sanction order Ex.PW91/A, the signatures of Home Minister are

not present. He also admitted that file was not sent to the President

and President of India had not examine any document sent by CBI.

Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of this

witness where he states that he had dictated the order of sanction on

the basis of record. In such circumstances, it is argued that although

PW91 was only competent to convey sanction, it is surprising that he

himself dictated the order of sanction. It is further argued that the

prosecution has nowhere proved that the President of India or the

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

prosecution to prove the application of mind on their behalf. It is

argued that the sanction order specifically mentions that

“President .......... has carefully examine the material”. It is submitted

CC No. 45/2010 Page 183 / 214


that there is no evidence to prove that the President of India had

delegated powers to accord sanction to prosecute a public servant to

the Home Minsiter. It is therefore argued that prosecution has been

unable to prove as to who was the competent authority to accord

sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Further prosecution has been unable to prove that the competent

authority had applied mind on the question of according sanction.

Ld. Public Prosecutor had referred to the notification of

Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the 3rd November 1958 (as

amended dated 24.5.1974) S.O. 2297 in which it is notified that vide

order dated 25.10.1958 the President of India in the exercise of

powers confer by Clause II of Article 77 of the Constitution is pleased

to make the authentication (order and other instructions) Rules 1958

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

KANT L. J. 17 wherein an authorized Government officer issued the

Government order under the name of Hon'ble Governor Karnataka,

but under his signatures as the concerned Under Secretary. It was

held to be a valid sanction.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has also referred to Pullanje Urs Vs State

CC No. 45/2010 Page 184 / 214


of Karnataka 2003 Crl. L. J. 1148. Ld. Public Prosecutor has also

referred to state, CBI Hyderabad Vs Edwin Devasahayam 2007 Crl.

L. J. 3536 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the

sanction orders signed by Secretary was proved by a Joint Director,

Railway Board and the same was held to be valid.

I have considered the submissions. I am of the opinion that the

sanctioning authority is the President of India. The witness has

testified that Minister of Home Affairs of Union of India was

delegated with the powers on behalf of President of India. He also

testifies that after receiving the investigation report, the file was

processes in MHA and was put though proper channel before the

competent authority for according sanction. In cross examination he

disclosed that channel of submissions is through Director, Joint

Secretary, Additional Secretary and Home Minister. It is argued by

Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, adv. for this accused that prosecution should

have produced and examined Home Minister to prove the application

of mind. I disagree with this submission. I am of the opinion that

for proving the application of mind, the court has to see the reasons

given in the sanction order. I have perused the sanction order, it

mentions the facts as well as the reasons as to why the sanction has

been accorded. Therefore, the sanction does not suffer from non

application of mind. I refer State of Rajasthan Vs Tara Chand AIR

1973 Supreme Court 2131 in which it was held by Hon'ble Supreme

CC No. 45/2010 Page 185 / 214


Court that fact of according sanction can be proved by a

subordinate officer and if the sanction order is a speaking order,

then the matter ends there. Otherwise evidence should be adduced

to prove that the sanctioning authority has proved material before

according sanction. In the present case also the sanctioning

authority had accorded the sanction, which is a speaking order. It

mentions the facts and the reasons for according sanction. 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

prosecution to adduce further evidence on this point. Regarding the

question of competency of the authority. I take note of notification

and judgements referred to Ld. Public Prosecutor and I am of the

opinion that PW91 was competent to convey and to prove the order

on behalf of President of India.

It is further argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that at the time of

investigation accused J. S. Sindhu was not posted as Joint Registrar

Cooperative Societies. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention

to Abhay Chautala Vs. CBI 2011 III AD (Crl.) (SC) 389 in which

Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the decision of Prakash Singh

Badal Vs. State of Punjab and held that where a public servant had

abused an entirely difference office than the one which he was

holding on the date on which cognizance was taken, there was no

necessity of sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption

CC No. 45/2010 Page 186 / 214


Act. Admittedly J. S. Sindhu was not posted in the office of RCS

when the cognizance was taken. Accordingly I am of the opinion

that no sanction to prosecute this accused is required under Section

19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Now coming to the facts of this case. It is argued by Ld.

Defence Counsel that A7 remained posted in the office of RCS only

for seven months and he has been involved as accused only in two

cases of society scam. It is further argued that he has been cited by

CBI has prosecution witness as many as in sixteen cases of society

scam. Therefore, these facts show that he was only a victim of

circumstances and that his innocence is proved from the fact that he

raised an objection by writing “pls spk”. It is argued that the next

note sheet dated 20.1.2004 would show that this query on part of A7

was in respect of “status of Rangmahal CGHS”. It is argued that due

to this reason the file remained stalled for about a week. It is argued

that had A7 being the part of conspiracy, it would have been smooth

sailing without any objection or query on the part of A7. It is argued

that even in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court Dr.

Subramanyam Vs. A. Raja (in SLP (Crl.) no. 1688 of 2012

decided on 24.8.2012) it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that

criminal conspiracy cannot be presumed on the mere fact that there

were official discussions between the officers. It was held that

suspicion, however strong, cannot take place on legal proof and the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 187 / 214


meeting between P. Chidambaram and A. Raja would not by itself be

sufficient to infer the existence of a criminal conspiracy.

I have considered this case law and I am of the opinion that

each case has to be decided on its own merits. A lot of arguments

have been addressed on the point of the query of this accused

regarding the status of society. On being specifically asked by this

court during the final arguments as to how a question about the

status of the society arose in the mind of A7, it was argued by Ld.

Defence Counsel that it was just by way of caution that such a query

was raised. I disagree with his submission. While discussing the role

of accused Rakesh Kumar Hasija and Ramesh Chandra, I have

reproduced the last note sheet in which it has been stated that audit

of the society was conducted in the year 197273 and there were

some deficiencies and it was proposed to write a letter to the society

to remove those deficiencies. Therefore it was clear that there would

be further note sheets and communications in this file, which are not

available. Further there are many correspondences between the RCS

and the society upto the year 1975 regarding which there is no note

sheet available. Therefore a reasonable person on seeing this

situation on the file would naturally reach to the conclusion that the

note sheet after 1973 are missing from the file. Either something is

being concealed or something is being removed from the file or there

is something which is not on the file. This is the reason that a

CC No. 45/2010 Page 188 / 214


question about status of this society arose and discussed by this

accused with his subordinates i.e. Rakesh Kumar Hasija and Ramesh

Chandra. But despite his having seen the clear deficiencies in the

file, the previous note sheet dated 13.1.2004 was reproduced

verbatim.

It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused J. S. Sindhu

only had supervisory role. It is submitted that J. S. Sindhu was

appointed under Section 3(1) of DCS Act but Lt. Governor did not

make any delegation powers upon J. S. Sindhu under Section 3(2) of

DCS Act. It is argued that the role of A7 was only supervisory in

nature and there were several branches and zones under the

supervision of J. S. Sindhu J. R. (East). Not only that J. S. Sindhu

was having a heavy work load and there are only two joint registrars

at that time. It is further argued that Joint Registrar cannot be

expected to visit the field to personally cross check the records.

I agree that no powers under Section DCS Act were delegated

to J. S. Sindhu. However presuming that he was the supervisory

authority over many branches and that he was having a heavy work

load, it must not be forgotten that a file where list of members of a

society is to be recommended to DDA for allotment of land was not a

routine matter. As per the submissions of accused, he used to deal

with 50 to 60 files per day and in such circumstances he will have to

have faith in his subordinate staff. Ld. Counsel of this accused has

CC No. 45/2010 Page 189 / 214


argued vehemently that only a few notesheets were available on

record from which it could not be made out as to what is the status

of the society. I have already stated that there was something

manifest on record, which this public servant could not ignore.

When this accused wrote “pls spk” on the note on 16.1.2004, there

existed definite material on record that something very important

was amiss in the file. This is the reason that he felt it necessary to

discuss the issue of status of the society. I have also discussed earlier

while dealing the role of A2 and A4 that the last note sheet dated

27.8.1973 expressively mentions that the audit for the year 197273

had been done by the auditor and the society had been asked to

remove the deficiencies. Further there are letters/correspondence on

the record showing the communications between society and the

assistant registrar upto the year 1975. No public servant could have

ignored this fact because it is a clearly pointer that subsequent note

sheets are missing. In such circumstances it is natural for J. R. (East)

to raise a query. However, he did not object to the noting dated

20.1.2004 in which it is written that “as per the record available the

audit of society is pending since registration”. It is argued on behalf

of this accused that he had only approved portion “A” of this note

sheet whereby Faiz Mohd. was proposed to be appointed as Inspector

for conducting inspection under Section 54 of the present running

condition of the society. True, but he cannot wriggle out of

CC No. 45/2010 Page 190 / 214


mentioning of a false fact about audit and the fact that note sheets of

the file were missing. On having seen the few papers available on

this file, it becomes manifest that the proceedings were continued

even after the year 1973. The note sheet dated 20.1.2004

specifically mentions that the issue of status of Rangmahal CGHS was

discussed by A. R. (East). This is an evidence that J. R. (East) knew

the fact of missing portion of this file, otherwise this query would not

have arisen. However the dealing clerk and A. R. (East) reproduced

the previous note sheet verbatim (except the first line in which there

is a mention of discussion regarding status of the society). The J. R.

(East) now closes his eyes and does not ask as to how A. R. (East) or

dealing assistant came to the conclusion that land was not allotted

and the society was non functional, even though the file speaks

volumes that the note sheets after 1973 are missing. J. R. (East)

could have asked for confirmation from DDA regarding the status of

the society. He could have proposed the physical identification and

verification of a few members randomly.

The things did not stop here. When a detailed note of about

twelve pages was typed by dealing assistant, it had a smooth sailing.

In fact it was approved with a great speed. The note was typed by

dealing assistant on 19.3.2004. It was signed by A. R. (East), J. R.

(East) (i.e. the present accused) and Narayan Diwakar, the Registrar,

on the same day. None of them raised a query about the change of

CC No. 45/2010 Page 191 / 214


address by the society on 20.8.1995 without informing the office of

RCS, no one raised the objections as to why the enrollment of 70

fresh members was not intimated from time to time despite the fact

that the they have been shown to have been enrolled from the year

1976 to the year 1978. The arguments that once Faiz Mohd. had

given the report verifying the documents and the new address of the

society and the auditor had audited the 33 years records does not

hold good in view of the fact that no one including J. R. (East) raised

a query as to how the society had woken up after such a long period

of hibernation. There is no explanation why J.R. (East) had closed

his eyes to the mentioning of a wrong fact in respect of the audit.

The only explanation is that on seeing that the note sheets of the file

were missing, J. R. (East) raised an objection but thereafter marched

along with the train of the conspirators. A lot of arguments have

been addressed that there is no evidence of conspiracy and Ld.

Defence Counsel has referred to Runu Ghosh case and Chidambaram

Case to buttress the point that simply on the basis of noings and

meetings, a conspiracy cannot be presumed. I am of the opinion that

each case has to be seen in the perspective of its own facts. The role

of this accused can be understood by the following paragraph (para

69) of 2000 CrLJ 976 of Andhra Pradesh High Court which is

reproduced as under :

“It is true that the conspiracy may be a chain, where each party performs even

CC No. 45/2010 Page 192 / 214


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 smuggled goods for sale in different parts of the globe? In such a case, these smugglers, middlemen, retailers are privies to a single conspiracy to smuggle and distribute narcotics. These smugglers know that the middlemen must sell to retailers and the retailers know that the middlemen must buy from importers. Thus the conspirators at one end at the chain know that the unlawful business would not, and could not, stop with their buyers, and those at the other end know that it had not begun with their settlers. The action of each has to be considered as a spoke in the hubthere being a rim to bind all the spokes together in a single conspiracy.”

Sh. J. S. Sindhu is situated similarly as in the above stated

illustration. The same speed is visible in the processing of the

application for change of name of the society. It is pertinent to note

that the list was approved by the RCS on 19.3.2004 and shortly

thereafter an application for change of the name on the basis of a

GBM meeting on 27.3.2004 was moved and was approved by A. R.

(East), J. R. (East) and the registrar on the same day i.e. on

29.3.2004. The speed is such that none of them even noticed that

CC No. 45/2010 Page 193 / 214


the fresh byelaws of the society with the new name does not even

contain the fresh name of the society in Clause1 of the byelaws

(D8). It appears that the operators of fake society were confident

that whatever would be presented, the same would be accepted

approved and would be forwarded. The duty of a very senior officer

is not just to forward a proposal to higher authorities. His duty is to

thoroughly read the file and give his independent opinion on a

particular note moved by his subordinate. The purpose of hierarchy

is to guide and control subordinates and to check their wrong doings

and further to assist his superior by performing the work assigned to

him. It must not be forgotten that it was not a routine file. This

accused may be dealing with larger number of files every day but all

these files do not pertain to allotment of the land. He was dealing

with a case which involved public interest. The last note sheet dated

27.8.1973 clearly reflects that the further communications for

removing the deficiencies pointed out by the auditor must have been

made between the office of RCS and the society. Therefore there

were all the “reasons to believe” that the society might not be “non

functional” as mentioned in the note sheet dated 13.1.2004 and

20.1.2004, prepared by dealing assistant and A. R. (East). I have

already discussed that this accused closed his eyes to a wrong

mentioned in these note sheets as discussed above. All this has been

done with a view to aid and abet the recommendation of list of fake

CC No. 45/2010 Page 194 / 214


members of the fake society. I agree that no evidence has been

brought on record to show that this accused had met Deepak Kumar

or any other person operating the fake society. But there is evidence

that he had discussions with Ramesh Chandra and Rakesh Kumar

Hasija (i.e. A2 and A4) as reflected in the noting dated 20.1.2004. 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

dishonest and I am convinced that not only he has abused his official

position to obtain pecuniary advantage to the fake operators of the

society and had also acted against the public interest by

recommending for the approval of the list of members in question.

The fact and circumstances clearly show that he was part of the

entire conspiracy. Though he only conspired with his subordinates

and superiors, and his role was only that of an intermediatory but

his role was important. Had he not been in league, he would have

definitely pointed out the fact of the possibility of the society still

being functional and the fact of audit having been conducted for the

year 197273.

Narayan Diwakar(A8)

As discussed earlier, I would take up the issue as to what

meant as “reason to believe” in the present set of circumstances. In

1987 Cr.L.J. 1061, it was held that the issue of reason to believe on

CC No. 45/2010 Page 195 / 214


part of a public servant has to be viewed from the angle that a public

servant with his experience and eye for details would catch up a

culprit even though there is no concrete evidence available with him.

A public servant is supposed to be endowed with an authority and

experience to see through the files and frauds being committed, if

any. Although, the court cannot substitute its wisdom when the

question of “reason to believe” is to be ascertained. However, when

there is manifest disregard to the facts available on record, the public

servant will have to show as to why he had to believe certain facts

despite material to the contrary Ld. Counsel for accused argues that

what a Registrar could have done when a matter has been thrashed

at the level of Dealing Clerk, AR and JR and when he had appointed

an inspecting officer to inspect the records and the status of the

society. It is argued that Narayan Diwakar had acted in good faith in

approving the list of members of Rangmahal CGHS and that he never

had any reason to believe that the society, its members and office

bearers as well as the documents produced by the society are fake.

Ld. Counsel for accused Narayan Diwakar has referred to

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's case would override the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi

High Court in Runu Ghosh's case. I have perused the Subramaniam

CC No. 45/2010 Page 196 / 214


Swamy's case. Hon'ble Supreme Court has not touched the question

of mensrea in Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

So far as the question of conspiracy is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that there is no evidence to that effect and a wrong

judgment or an inaccurate approach or poor management by

itself cannot be said to be a product of criminal conspiracy.

On perusal of the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that

entire set of the facts are altogether different in two cases. Each case

is to be seen on its own merits. However, the Principles of Law

would not change.

Now I take up the issue as to what is the role of a Registrar

in RCS in approving the list of members. I have already stated that

land in Delhi is a most precious commodity because of its scarcity

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. To say that when the entire hierarchy before him had

approved a note, what he had to do would be an argument which

defeats the entire purpose of bureaucratic hierarchy. In the present

case, a society was coming after 30 years of its registration. In the

application, it has stated that it had changed its address. In this

application, they also stated that they had introduced 70 more

members in it. The record shows that the facts mentioned in the

CC No. 45/2010 Page 197 / 214


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' by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which says that effect of

approval of the list is that the Registrar signified the correctness of

the list, as filed by the society. I may point out that the above stated

facts were enough to lead through a conclusion that there is some

fraud involved in this application. However, apart from it, it has to

be seen as to in what circumstances, the things had happened.

I would refer to the 120 affidavits of the fake members

placed in D9. All these affidavits have been purchased on

29.12.2003, as is clear from the date stamp impression on the back of

these affidavits. Deepak Kumar had moved an application received

by Narayan Diwakar on 29.12.2003 itself as is clear from the date

put by him as signature at point B on the said application

Ext.PW85/A8. These are 120 affidavits in number and all of them

are attested by Oath Commissioner on 01.01.2004 and thereafter

were presented in the office of RCS. This application Ext.PW85/A8

dt. 29.12.2003 is in three pages. On page no. 2 of this application, it

is specifically mentioned as to what documents have been enclosed

with the application for approval of the final list of members. As per

the contents of page 2, these documents were filed in 2 volumes.

Under heading 'VolumeI', there is heading 'Enrollments' at point 6.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 198 / 214


Under this heading, there is a reference of 'original affidavits of 120

members for which approval is required.' It has only one meaning

that although the affidavits are shown to have been attested on

01.01.2004 but infact the said date is a fake date. I may point out

that PW66 Sh. Sudhir Mittal, Adv. the Oath Commissioner whose

stamp appears on these affidavits categorically denied having

attested these affidavits. Therefore, there is forgery of attestation on

these affidavits. It appears that date 01.01.2004 is shown because

the forgerers were aware that it would not be believable that stamp

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

attestation after about the three days was forged on these affidavits.

Otherwise, there is no explanation as to when these affidavits

annexed with the application received by RCS on 29.12.2003, how

they stand attested on subsequent dates by Oath Commissioner. Ld.

Public Prosecutor submits that this forgery of attestation appears to

have taken place in the office of RCS. I agree that this is also one

possibility. These circumstances are a definite pointer to the fact that

the perpetrators of fake society got a nod from the person who

mattered and as soon as they got this nod, they started the process

with full speed fully noting that whatever they would file would get

through passing all the hierarchical levels of the RCS. It does not

CC No. 45/2010 Page 199 / 214


need to be point out that the only person empowered to approve

these lists was Sh. Narayan Diwakar (the then Registrar) and no one

else. Therefore, I am not left in any doubt that the “go ahead” is

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) writes a letter to AR(East) dt. 31.12.2003 Ext.PW85/A14,

although the letter had not yet reached him. I may point out that the

letter of Deepak Kumar Ext.PW85/A8 reached AR(E) on 10.02.2004.

However, in anticipation of the said letter, a note proposing the

appointment of Faiz Mohd. was written by Dealing Assistant and

AR(East) for appointing of Faiz Mohd. to appoint an inspector for

conducting the inspection. Otherwise, there was no reason for

appointing such an inspector. I may point out that AR(Audit) had

only asked information regarding status of the society from the

records. The work of AR(East) would have ended by simply

informing as to what was the status of the society. All this conduct of

the persons who had presented the application and affidavits to the

Registrar, conduct of AR(Audit) and conduct of AR(East) and

preparation of fake audit and fake inspection report by RCS officials

supports the inference that there was a signal of 'go ahead' by none

other than the Registrar.

Though, the file was held up for about one week on an

CC No. 45/2010 Page 200 / 214


inquiry by JR(E), but thereafter, there was unbelievable speed with

which the list was approved. Same is true about the change of name

of society. I may add here that all these forgeries on the affidavits of

120 members were done on the very date i.e. 29.12.2003 on which

application was filed by Deepak Kumar. I may add here that in the

detailed note dt. 19.03.2004 at page 17 , it has been mentioned that

this society has also mentioned the submission of affidavits in

original but it is nowhere mentioned that the same were furnished on

19.03.2004. On the other hand, page 2 of the application

Ext.PW85/A8 dt. 29.12.2003 specifically mentions that these

original affidavits were enclosed with the said application.

As discussed above, the circumstances speak volumes as to

on whose instructions all the RCS officials were acting superbly in

unison. Sh. J.S. Sindhu JR(E) had put a query but he too fell in line

very soon as I have already discussed. Therefore, I am of the opinion

that the act of accused Narayan Diwakar in approving the list of

members of the society and forwarding it to DDA is not only abuse of

official position in attempt to obtain pecuniary advantage to the

persons operating the fake society but also I am in no doubt that he

was acting in conspiracy with them. A chain which started from the

fake operators of the fake society, completely joins all the accused

persons in the present case. I may add here that all acts held to be

joined altogether to see as to what actual picture is emerging. The

CC No. 45/2010 Page 201 / 214


approval of change of name of society has been done with a view to

avoid detection because the actual Rangmahal CGHS had already

been alloted a piece of land. Even Faiz Mohd. in his report had note

that the last election of the society was conducted on 28.12.2003 i.e.

only one day prior to the filing of the application by the said Deepak

Kumar before RCS at the cost of reiteration. I would say that all the

officials subordinate to Registrar draw their powers from him. No

powers of DCS Act have been delegated to them. Therefore, not a

leaf would move in the office of RCS without the approval of the

Registrar. Therefore, the circumstances leave show that it was with

the prior agreement with Narayan Diwakar that everything started

suddenly and with a great speed.

It is a case of bad faith as there is total abuse of powers by

the Registrar and the circumstances are sufficient enough to hold all

the accused persons guilty in abuse of powers for abuse of official

position as well as for conspiring with each other.

OVER ALL SCENARIO

I have discussed above the role of each accused separately.

Now their role has to be seen in reference to the entire web of

circumstances. This is necessary because the role of each accused, if

seen in isolation, may not constitute any offence but if seen in totality

it becomes clear that he was an active participant in such offence. In

CC No. 45/2010 Page 202 / 214


Ajay Aggarwal vs Union of of India, 1993 AIR (SC 1637) Hon'ble

Supreme Court cited 1970 (2) SCR 760 of the constitution bench of

Supreme Court before whom it was contended that several acts

which constitute to make an offence u/s 120B IPC should be split up

in parts and the criminal liability of an accused must only be judged

with regard to the part played by him. The arguments before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court was that the accused in question had a role

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 of an

accused should be seen in view of the entire conspiracy and it cannot

be seen in isolation.

In view of above case law the court is to see as to what

picture finally emerges. The prosecution has proved that all the 120

members of this alternative society are fake. Even “Deepak Kumar”

the person appearing before the RCS officials and interacting with

them is a fake person and in fact does not exist. The affidavits of all

the 120 members are forged affidavits. All the copies of the

proceedings of the society presented to the office of RCS are forged.

The address, where the office of society was shown to have been

shifted, in fact is a fake address in the sense that the office of society

never existed at this address. The inspector namely Faiz Mohd. gives

a false report about meeting of Deepak Kumar at this new address

CC No. 45/2010 Page 203 / 214


and having verified the documents of the society. Auditor P. K.

Thirwani prepares false audit for more than 30 years. Sh. Jitender

Singh Sharma (AR Audit) falsely mentions in his letter to AR (East)

that till date no audit of the society had been conducted. Dealing

Assistant namely Rakesh Kumar Hasija and AR (East) namely

Ramesh Chandra also write falsely in their note sheets that no audit

of the society had been conducted since the time of inception.

Neither dealing assistant namely Rakesh Kumar Hasija, nor AR (East)

namely Ramesh Chandra, nor JR (East) J. S. Sindhu, nor Narayan

Diwakar, the Registrar, noted that the last noting of the year 1973

and the letters of the society upto 1975 reflect that the society was

functional at least upto the year 1975. None of them noted in their

official notings that the note sheets after the year 1973 were missing

from the file. The glaring fact is that the official file of the society

should have been in CentralNew Delhi Zone. However the file is in

hands of Ramesh Chandra AR (East) Zone. This explains the reason

as to why in the application dated 29.12.2003 as well as in the ante

dated and forged resolution of the society, the new address of the

society has been shown in Mayur Vihar which fell in the jurisdiction

of Ramesh Chandra. It does not require any fertile imagination to

understand as to why the fake secretary of the fake society is

appearing in response to a letter Ex.PW85/A9 addressed to such

fake society at a fake address. It needs to be understood that accused

CC No. 45/2010 Page 204 / 214


Sri Chand, Sushil Kumar Sharma, Anna Wankhede and Mohan Lal,

who have been proved to be the operators of the fake society, were in

possession of all the particulars of original Rangmahal Society i.e. its

name, registration number, original official address, names of the 50

promoter members etc. Due to possession of all this information,

they were able to get the fake affidavit etc. prepared. But the

question is as to from where these operators of the fake society got

all these particulars. There is no possibility of their having it got

from the original society. Therefore the only place from where they

could have got is from the RCS officials. This proves as to how the

RCS officials were in league with these conspirators. Sh. J. S.

Sindhu, who was the Joint Registrar (East), had actually seen

through the file. But thereafter he conveniently ignored the fact of

missing note sheets and the fact that the society was still operational

after 1973 and did not put a note as to why dealing assistant and AR

(East) did not raise the objection as to why the society did not

intimate RCS about change of address and as to why the enrollment

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, none of the officials reacted to the fact as to how suddenly

after more than 30 years, a society has woken up and had moved an

application for sending the list of members. I may point out that the

RCS officials were so eager in this case that although the letter dated

CC No. 45/2010 Page 205 / 214


29.12.2003 had not reached AR (East) or AR (Audit), still AR (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

than 30 years. This shows that AR (Audit) was confident that his act

would not meet any objection from the registrar. I have already

discussed that fact of the society having been audited for the year

197273 which is clearly reflected in the last order sheet available on

D8. But the dealing clerk and AR (East) made a wrong noting that

as per available record, the audit of the society had not been

conducted since inception. I have already discussed that this fact was

also noted by J. S. Sindhu but still he did not correct his subordinates

on this point. I have already discussed that the manner in which the

operators of the fake society had suddenly became active in forging

120 affidavits of fake members on 29.12.2003 and on that very day,

these affidavits were submitted along with the application dated

29.12.2003 before the Registrar, it leaves nothing to the imagination.

This proves beyond reasonable doubt that as soon as Narayan

Diwakar, the then RCS, fired the shot, the relay race began. In view

of these over all circumstances, the question of protection of Section

197 CrPC is to be considered. The facts mentioned by me as above

clearly show that the official act of the public servants here is only

the tip of the conspiratorial iceberg. The actual conspiracy in which

CC No. 45/2010 Page 206 / 214


these public servants have participated is quite big and beyond the

official business. Therefore no protection under Section 197 CrPC

would be available to any of the accused persons for the purpose of

their prosecution as well as conviction. The role of each public

servant as well as the other accused persons would show that all of

them had acted in conspiracy with each other. If even one of them

had acted honestly, the scam would not have happened. For

example, had P. K. Thirwani or Faiz Mohd. reported that no society

existed at the given address, had dealing clerk Rakesh Kumar Hasija,

AR (East) Ramesh Chandra, JR (East) J. S. Sindhu had noted that the

pages are missing from the file and that there was evidence on the

file to show that it was functional even after 1973 and therefore

there was need to take further steps to verify as to whether the land

has been allotted to the society or not, the scam would not have

happened. I may point out that the land was allotted to the actual

society in the year 1977. Had any of these officials made an inquiry

from DDA, the true picture would have come. Had JR (East) raised a

query as to how a file of CentralNew Delhi Zone has come to the

East Zone, the conspiracy would not have been successful. The

lightning speed with which the affidavits of 120 members were

prepared and annexed with the application dated 29.12.2003 and the

lightning speed with which the proposal for sending list of members

was recommended and approved on 19.3.2004 on which dealing

CC No. 45/2010 Page 207 / 214


assistant, AR (East), JR (East) and Registrar put their signatures on

this note and the great speed shown by these public servants in

changing the name of the society further shows that it met no hurdle

because all of these public servants knew that the change of name of

this society would facilitate in allotment of the land. All of them

were aware of the extremely high value of the land, which they were

going to recommend for. It was not a routine and ordinary file.

None of these public servants have stated or brought on record that

they used to deal with large number of such type of files everyday.

The over all circumstances exhibit it a total and dishonest failure of

entire bureaucratic machinery in the office of RCS. Not only these

public servants have abused their official position making an attempt

to obtain pecuniary advantage for the other accused persons namely

Sri Chand, Sushil Kumar Sharma, Mohan Lal and Anna Wankhede

within the definition of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) but also their act is fully

covered under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) because they attempted to obtain

the pecuniary advantage to the aforesaid persons without public

interest. By now it is a settled law that a conspirator may not know

as to what the other conspirators are doing but if he aids or abets in

any manner commission of the said crime, he would be equally liable

for the acts committed by the other conspirators. It has been argued

that the RCS does not allot the land. However, it must not be

forgotten that DDA is bound by the directions of Hon'ble High Court

CC No. 45/2010 Page 208 / 214


to allot the land as per the seniority of the society by the date of

registration maintained by the office of RCS. When Registrar

authenticates the list of members of the society, the DDA has only to

see its seniority while allotting the land. Therefore, authentication of

list of members by the Registrar is the most important act which

leads to allotment of land by DDA. Therefore, Registrar has to take

his independent decision after thoroughly going through the file as to

whether everything is alright or not. I have discussed that even

though P.K. Thirwani and Faiz Mohd. had given their reports, but, still

the file itself spoke volumes about the fraud being perpetrated. His

plea that he acted in routine manner cannot be accepted because

higher is the authority, the greater is responsibility. In the present

case, all the public servants have intentionally aided in carrying out

the purpose of the conspiracy hatched by Sri Chand, Sushil Kumar

Sharma, Anna Wankhede and Mohan Lal. Therefore Section 120B

IPC takes into its sweep all the accused persons. Not only all these

public servants abused their official positions in attempt to obtain

pecuniary advantage to Sri Chand, Anna Wankhede, Mohan Lal and

Sushil Kumar Sharma, but, also had attempted to procure

pecuniary advantage without the public interest. The gravity of

the offence in the present case can be understood by the situation

which would have arisen, if the land to this fake society would have

been allotted by DDA. This possibility was real because in every

CC No. 45/2010 Page 209 / 214


Government Department the corruption has taken deep roots. Had

the land been allotted to the fake society, the entire land would have

come in the hands of Sri Chand etc., who would have sold the flats at

the market value and had earned immense wealth illegally to the

great disadvantage to the public as well as to the State.

Accordingly, I convict all the accused persons for the

offences u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 420/468/471 IPC and also r/w

Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

I further convict accused Ramesh Chandra, Rakesh Kumar

Hasija, J.S. Sharma, Jasbir Singh Sindhu, P.K. Thirwani, Faiz Mohd.

and Narayan Diwakar for the offences u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)

(d) r/w Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

I further convict accused Anna Wankhede and Mohan Lal

for the offences u/s 468 IPC.

Announced in the open

court on 29.8.2012.

(VINOD KUMAR)

Special JudgeII, CBI,

Rohini Court, Delhi

CC No. 45/2010 Page 210 / 214


IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMARSPECIAL JUDGEII (PC ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI

ID No. 02404R0649862007RC 22(E)/2005/EOWII/DLICC No. 45/2010 (Rangmahal CGHS)CBI Vs 1. Sri Chand

S/o Late Sh. Hari SinghR/o 274A, PocketC, Mayur Vihar, PhaseII,Delhi.

2. Ramesh ChandraS/o Late Sh. Agya RamR/o CD/52F, DDA Flat Hari Nagar, New Delhi64.

3. Faiz Mohammed,S/o Sh. Ghulam Mohammed,R/o 4794, Haata Kedara, Pahari Dharaj, New Delhi.

4. Rakesh Kumar HasijaS/o Sh. Udho Dass,R/o Flat No. 1113, TypeII, Delhi Admn. Flats Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.

5. Prahlad Kumar ThirwaniS/o Late Sh. Moti Ram ThirwaniR/o 348E, Pocket2, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi91.

6. Jitender Singh SharmaS/o Sh. Narayan SinghR/o 1073/A3, Ward No.1, Mehrauli,New Delhi30.

7. Jasbir Singh SindhuS/o Dr. Bharat SinghR/o A315, Meera Bagh, New Delhi.

8. Narayan DiwakarS/o Late Sh. Chatti LalR/o G30, Masjid Moth, New Delhi48.

9. Sushil Kumar SharmaS/o Sh. Madan Lal SharmaR/o Vill. Lalsa, P.O. Dansa, Tehsil Rampur Bushar,

CC No. 45/2010 Page 211 / 214


Distt. Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.10. Anna Wankhede

D/o Late Sh. ParunjiR/o 148E, PocketII, Mayur Vihar, PhaseIII,Delhi91.

11. Mohan LalS/o Late Sh. Ajmeri LalR/o F228/3, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi49.

ORDER ON SENTENCE

3.9.2012Present: Sh. A. P. Singh, Ld. P. P. for CBI.

SI Chander Bhan and ASI Om Prakash, Pairvi Officer for CBI.All the convicts are present on bail.Convicts Sri Chand (A1) and Mohan Lal (A11) on bail with

Sh. Vijay Pal Singh, adv. (Amicus Curie).Convicts Ramesh Chandra (A2), Rakesh Kr. Hasija (A4) and P.

K. Thirwani (A5) on bail with counsel Sh. S. K. Bhtnagar, adv..Convict Sushil Kr. Sharma (A9) on bail with counsel Sh. S. K.

Bhatnagar, adv., Ld. Amicus Curie.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.

Convict J. S. Sindhu (A7) on bail with counsel Sh. Birender Bhatt, adv.

Convict Narayan Diwakar (A8) on bail with counsel Dr. Sushil Gupta, adv.

Convict Anna Wankhede (A10) on bail with counsel Sh. Abhishek Prasad, adv.

Arguments on sentence heard. The circumstances of this case show that had the conspiracy been successful, its huge benefits would have been earned by convicts Sri Chand (A1), Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9), Anna

CC No. 45/2010 Page 212 / 214


Wankhede (A10) and Mohan Lal (A11), who have been held as the operators of the fake society.

Keeping in view this fact, I sentence the convicts as under :

Convicts Sri Chand (A1). Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9), Anna Wankhede (A10) and Mohan Lal (A11)

I award all of these convicts a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ each under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420/468/471 IPC and also read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprison for one month each.

I further sentence the convicts Anna Wankhede (A10) and Mohan Lal (A11) for rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ each under Section 468 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period, which they have already undergone during trial, would be set of against the sentence.

Convicts Ramesh Chandra (A2), Faiz Mohd. (A3), Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4), P. K. Thirwani (A5), J. S. Sharma (A6), Jasbir Singh

Sindhu (A7) and Narayan Diwakar (A8)

Considering all facts and circumstances, I sentence all of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ each under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420/468/471 IPC and also read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

I further award a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ each to all the aforesaid convicts under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 15 of

CC No. 45/2010 Page 213 / 214


Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period, if any, which they have already undergone during the trial, would be set of against the sentences awarded to them as above.

File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the opencourt on 3.9.2012.

(Vinod Kumar)Spl. JudgeII, CBI,

Rohini Courts, Delhi

CC No. 45/2010 Page 214 / 214