Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Rajan Chopra Ors on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SUSHANT CHANGOTRA, SPECIAL
JUDGE (P.C. ACT) (CBI)-22, ROUSE AVENUE COURT
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
CC No. : 42/2019
CBI Vs : Rajan Chopra & Ors
RC No. : RC No. 7 (S)/2006/CBI/SCRIII/ND
U/s : u/s 120 B, r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC & u/s
13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,
1988
CNR No. : DLCT11-000237-2019
Date of Institution : 19.05.2008
Date of Judgment reserved on : 11.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 16.02.2026
Brief Details Of The Case
Offences complained of
: 120B/420/465/468/471 IPC
& 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of
PC Act
Name of the accused :
1 Rajan Chopra S/o Late 2 Ashok Kumar Handa
Sh. D. N. Chopra S/o Sh. C. L. Handa
R/o A-39, 2nd Floor, R/o J-2/3, Flat no. 3,
Ashok Vihar-I, New Kisan Nagar, Delhi-51
Delhi-52. (Proceedings Abated)
3 Bhoodev Prasad Mahaur 4 R. K. Srivastava
@ B. P. Mahaur S/o Late Sh. G. S.
S/o Late Sh. Ved Ram Srivastava
Mahaur R/o House no. 105-A,
R/o C-7/202, Sector-8, 2nd Floor, Ram Mandir
Rohini, Delhi Road, Shanti Kunj
Main Vasant Kunj,
Near Fortis Hospital,
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 1 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Vasant Kunj, New
Delhi.
5 Dilip Singh Negi @ D. S. 6 Sandeep Sahni S/o Sh.
Negi C. L. Sahni
S/o Late Sh. G. S. Negi R/o 34/13, East Patel
R/o D/40, Mayur Vihar, Nagar, New Delhi-8
Phase- II, Pocket-B,
Delhi-91
7 S. P. Saxena
S/o Late Sh. R. B. Saxena
R/o 664, Princes Park,
Sector-6, Dwarka, New
Delhi-75
(Proceedings Abated)
Plea of the accused : All accused pleaded not
guilty.
Final order : All accused are acquitted
of the charges framed
against them.
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts: –
1. The brief facts of the case as stated in the charge-
sheet are that preliminary enquiries in matters relating to Co-
Operative Group Housing Societies were conducted by CBI in
pursuance of directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in CWP No. 10066/2004 vide its order dated 13.02.2006.
Accordingly, Preliminary Enquiry no. 1 (S) / 2006/SCR-III/ New
Delhi was registered with respect to present case and FIR bearing
no. RC-7(S)/2006/CBI/SCR/III/ND u/s 120-B r/w 420/ 468/471
IPC and u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 2 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Act, 1988 was registered.
2. During investigation, it was found that the
employees of State Bank of India vide resolution dated
06.10.1983 resolved to form a Co-operative Group Housing
Society with the name of Bankmen’s CGHS Ltd. (hereafter
referred to as society) under the chairmanship of Sh. Deepak
Khanna. The Society was registered in the office of Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Delhi (hereafter referred to as RCS) u/s 9
of the DCS Act, 1972 on 19.12.1983 vide Registration no.1081-
GH having registered office at 21, Inder Enclave, Rohtak Road,
New Delhi with 65 promoter members.
3. On 31.07.1985, the secretary of the society i.e. Sh.
R.K. Mangla requested RCS, Delhi for approval of list of 74
members for forwarding the same to DDA for allotment of land
alongwith required affidavits of all the members enrolled after
registration. In response thereof, the Assistant Registrar, RCS as
per section 30 (2) of the DCS Act, 1972, directed the society to
appear before him on 16.02.1988 alongwith its record. However,
the society did not comply with said notice. It was followed by
subsequent correspondence from the office of RCS from time to
time for production of record, but the society did not respond to
any of the said correspondence. Accordingly, vide order dated
30.03.1992 the then Deputy Registrar placed the society under
liquidation as per section 63 (2) (b) of the DCS Act, 1972. Later
on vide order dated 08.03.1995, Faiz Mohammad was appointed
as liquidator of society, but the liquidator did not take over
possession of record of the society. Thereafter, there was no
correspondence between the society and the office of RCS till
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 3 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
11.11.1999.
4. It was found that a person namely R.P. Dhingra i.e.
employee of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority, New
Delhi used to visit various branches of SBI and he came in
contact with Deepak Khanna, Mukesh Khanna and R.K. Mangla.
Thereby R. P. Dhingra came to know that the society was
inactive. He came in contact with accused Rajan Chopra and
gave details of Bankmen’s CGHS Ltd as the accused wanted to
get details of defunct cooperative group housing societies. Then,
R.P. Dhingra discussed the matter with Deepak Khanna and R.K.
Mangla for passing on the society to accused Rajan Chopra and
Deepak Khanna handed over records of the society to Rajan
Chopra after collecting the same from Deepak Khanna and R.K.
Mangla.
5. It is alleged that accused Rajan Chopra approached
P. R. Nair for preparation of fake records of society. P. R. Nair
and his wife Smt. Mariamma Raghu prepared the false
documents at the instance of accused Rajan Chopra which are as
follows:
(i) List of members;
(ii) Applications of enrolled members;
(iii) Annual general body meetings proceedings;
(iv) The proceedings of MC meetings; &
(v) Receipt and disbursement account, income &
expenditure account & balance sheet for the financial
years 1990-91 to 1998-1999.
6. It was discovered that accused Rajan Chopra had
filed an application dated 11.11.1999 in the office of RCS, Delhi
for intimating the change of address of the society to 44/7-B,
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 4 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Regal Bldg. Connaught Palace, New Delhi. Thereafter, accused
Rajan Chopra vide another letter dated ‘nil’ requested the office
of RCS to conduct audit of the society.
7. In pursuance of the aforementioned letters, the Area
Inspector namely Sh. S.D. Sharma was directed to conduct
verification of the changed address. He submitted reports dated
03/01/2000, 17/01/2000 and 21/01/2000 informing that the office
of society did not exist at the given address and he did not
recommend revival of the society, but he asked the society to
submit NOC of the occupant of the address i.e. M/s V. G. & Co.
Accused Rajan Chopra submitted a fake No-Objection Certificate
dated 29.12.1999 in the office of RCS which was purportedly
issued by Sh. Vipin Gandotra, Proprietor of M/s V.G.& Co.
8. It is alleged that despite the aforementioned facts,
accused Ashok Kumar Handa i.e. dealing assistant dishonestly
initiated a false note dated 07.02.2000 for revival of society
which was processed by accused B.P. Mahaur who also
dishonestly recommended the revival of society.
9. As Inspector S.D. Sharma had mentioned in his
report that the society did not operate or function from the
changed address, therefore, a false undated report was obtained
from accused D.S. Negi indicating that the society was
functioning from the said address. On 13.07.2000, accused R.K.
Srivastava passed order for revival of the society by deliberately
relying on false reports submitted by D.S. Negi and B.P. Mahaur
by ignoring the reports of Inspector S.D. Sharma. The accused R.
K. Srivastava also ignored the note dated 28.03.2000 prepared by
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 5 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Sh. D.S. Nijjar, the then Joint Registrar, wherein he had raised
number of issues that were required to be looked into for revival
of the society. Thereby on 13.07.2000 freeze list of 74 members
was approved.
10. After the approval of freeze list, accused Rajan
Chopra was not able to collect the required money i.e. payment
of 35% cost of the land to be paid to DDA from the enrolled
members. Therefore, a builder group consisting of accused S.P.
Saxena and Sandeep Sahni took over the control of society. A
payment of Rs.67,38,800/- was made to DDA from joint saving
bank account of Sandeep Sahni and S.P. Saxena bearing A/c. no.
18699, Central Bank of India, South Extension, Part-II, New
Delhi. The said amount was paid back to accused Sandeep Sahni
from various accounts and S.P. Saxena paid Rs.15 lakhs from the
joint account of M/s Prime Towers which was a concern of
Sandeep Sahni and S.P. Saxena.
11. It was also found that accused S.P. Saxena played
active role in the revival of society. During this period, new
members were inducted by forging the resignation letters of the
then existing members. The accused persons in furtherance of
their criminal conspiracy induced DDA to issue allotment order
of a plot in favour of the society, but its possession was not
handed over to the society. Therefore, accused persons had
attempted to induce DDA for giving possession of the land and
thereby they attempted to cheat DDA /GNCTD.
12. In the course of investigation, the IO sent several
documents to GEQD, Hyderabad for comparison with the
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 6 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
admitted as well as specimen signatures obtained by him. The
handwriting expert of GEQD opined that most of the documents
i.e. consisting of resignation letters, membership forms, affidavits
and proceedings register etc. were found to have been forged. IO
recorded statements of several members who stated that their
signatures had been forged on the resignation letters/ affidavits /
proceeding registers / membership register etc.
13. Therefore, it was alleged that in the year 1999-2000,
accused Rajan Chopra alongwith S. P. Saxena and Sandeep Sahni
as well as the officials of Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
New Delhi namely Ashok Kumar Handa, Bhoodev Prasad
Mahaur, D. S. Negi and R.K. Srivastava had entered into a
criminal conspiracy for illegal revival of “Bankmen’s CGHS
Ltd”. In pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, accused Rajan
Chopra and others enrolled numerous new persons as members
on the basis of forged application forms and fake proceedings.
They also forged resignations with respect to certain members
and fake elections were shown to have been held on the basis of
forged documents. Thereby, they got the society revived and the
land was allotted in favour of society by DDA.
14. It is alleged that afore-stated officials of RCS,
dishonestly and fraudulently by abusing their official position,
without conducting verification, in pursuance of their criminal
conspiracy entertained the requests /documents submitted by the
co-conspirators knowing well that the same were forged and fake
documents.
15. The sanctions for prosecution of accused A.K.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 7 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Handa, D.S. Negi and R.K. Srivastava were granted by the
respective competent authorities. Accused B.P. Mahaur had
retired from service due to which prior sanction qua him was not
obtained.
16. During investigation, no criminality was found to
have been committed by other accused who were named in the
FIR i.e. Vikas Jain, Harish Sharda and Karan Tejpal. Accordingly
they were not arrayed as accused in the chargesheet. The
chargesheet was presented against accused Rajan Chopra, Ashok
Kumar Handa, B.P. Mahaur, R.K. Srivastava, Dilip Singh Negi,
Sandeep Sahni and S.P. Saxena.
17. The ld. predecessor of this court vide order dated
16.09.2010 took cognizance of offences and subsequently
compliance of section 207 Cr.PC was done. Vide detailed order
dated 20.05.2019 charge for commission of offences u/s 120 B,
r/w sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and u/s 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences punishable u/s 420
r/w Section 511, 468 & 471 IPC were framed against accused
Rajan Chopra (A-1). Vide same order, charge for the offences
punishable u/s 120 B, r/with 420, 468, 471 IPC and u/s 13 (2) r/w
Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences
punishable u/s 15 r/w section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act
were framed against accused namely Ashok Kumar Handa (A-5),
B.P. Mahaur (A-6), Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (A-7) and D.S.
Negi (A-8). The charge for the offences punishable u/s 120 B,
r/with 420, 468, 471 IPC and u/s 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of
PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences punishable u/s 420 r/w
Section 511 IPC were also framed against accused Sandeep Sahni
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 8 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
(A-9) and S.P. Saxena (A-10). All the accused pleaded not guilty
to the aforesaid charges and claimed trial.
18. Accused Ashok Kumar Handa (A2) and S. P. Saxena
(A7) died during the course of trial and proceedings qua them were
abated.
Prosecution Evidence: –
19. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined a
total of 92 witnesses. A brief account of the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses is given herein below:-
Witnesses Who Were Falsely Shown As Members :
20. All the witnesses examined by prosecution who are
alleged to have been falsely shown as members of the society
deposed on the same lines i.e. they had neither applied for the
membership of Bankmen’s CGHS nor they had signed any of the
documents purported to have been signed by them.
21. PW-2 Kamal Kumar Anand deposed that in the year
1980, he became a member of group housing society namely
Thakural CGHS. He never took membership of Bankmen’s
CGHS. He did not submit and sign on application dated
06.12.1991 (Ex. PW2/A), affidavit (Ex. PW2/B), resignation letter
dated 12.12.2003 (Ex. PW2/C) and voucher of Rs. 100/- (Ex.
PW2/D). The signatures appearing on the said documents were
not done by him. He further deposed that the signature appearing
against his name in the membership register Ex. PW2/E was not
his genuine signature. He had not gone to the said society nor he
had attended any of its meetings.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 9 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
22. PW-3 Sh. Ajay Sawhney deposed that he did not
take membership of Bankmen’s CGHS. He did not submit or sign
on the application dated 06.02.1991 (Ex. PW3/A), affidavit (Ex.
PW3/B), resignation letter dated 24.04.2003 (Ex. PW3/C) and
voucher of Rs. 100/- (Ex. PW3/D). The signatures appearing on
the said documents were not appended by him. The signature
appearing against his name in the membership register Ex. PW3/E
was not his genuine signature. He had not gone to the said society
and did not attend any of its meetings.
23. PW-4 Sh. Sanjay Bajaj deposed that he did not take
membership of Bankmen’s CGHS. He never remained the
President or Secretary of the said society. He did not submit or
sign on the application dated 03.11.1990 (Ex. PW4/A), affidavit
(Ex. PW4/B), affidavit dated 28.07.2000 (Ex. PW4/C) and
affidavit dated 17.07.2000 (Ex. PW4/D. The signatures appearing
on the documents were not appended by him. He had not
participated in proceedings of the society conducted on
21.11.1999, 13.03.1990 and 11.04.1999 (Ex. PW4/E to Ex.
PW4/G respectively). He did not sign on the documents i.e.
register MR No. 389 (Ex. PW4/H), register MR no. 385 (Ex.
PW4/I), register MR no. 383 (Ex. PW4/J), register MR no. 381
(Ex. PW35/C), register MR no. 382 (Ex. PW4/K), register MR no.
377/2006 (Ex. PW61/A, colly), register MR no. 378 (Ex. PW41/A,
colly), register MR no. 101 (Ex. PW4/L) and register Mr no. 111
(Ex. PW4/M). His signatures appearing on above-said documents
were not his genuine signatures.
PW-4 also deposed that he had heard name of Rajan
Chopra. The grandfather of said Rajan Chopra had a factory near
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 10 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
the factory of his father at GI-10, G.T. Karnal Road Area, Delhi.
He did not visit the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies
and did not become member of any CGHS society.
24. PW-6 Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal deposed that he did not
take membership of Bankmen’s CGHS. He did not submit or sign
the application dated 01.02.1991 (Ex. PW6/A), affidavit (Ex.
PW6/B), resignation letter (Ex. PW6/C) and receipt of Rs.100/-
dated 06.12.2003. The signatures appearing on the said documents
were not his signatures. The signature appearing against his name
in the membership register Ex. PW2/E was not his genuine
signature. He had not gone to the said society and did not attend
any of its meetings.
25. PW-7 Praveen Malhotra deposed that he did not take
membership of Bankmen’s Co-Op Group Housing Society Ltd. He
did not submit or sign the application (Ex. PW7/A), affidavit (Ex.
PW7/B), resignation letter dated 07.12.2003 (Ex. PW7/C) and
receipt of Rs.100/- (Ex. PW7/D). The signatures appearing on the
said documents were not his signatures. He had not gone to the
said society and did not attend any of its meetings.
26. PW-11 Sh. Dinesh Gupta deposed that he did not
take membership of Bankmen’s Co-operative Group Housing
Society Ltd. He did not prepare, submit or sign the application
dated 01.02.1991 (Ex. PW11/A). His name and particulars were
misused and the signature appearing on the said application was
not his genuine signature. He did not submit or sign affidavit (Ex.
PW11/B). He admitted that his particulars were correct but denied
his signatures on it. He did not submit or sign resignation letter
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 11 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
dated 10.01.2003 (Ex. PW11/C) and receipt of Rs.100/- dated
11.03.2003 (Ex. PW11/D). The signature appearing against his
name in membership register Ex. PW2/E was not his genuine
signature. He had not gone to the said society and did not attend
any of its meetings.
The said witness did not fully support the case of
prosecution. He was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI. In his
cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he knew accused
Rajan Chopra or that the said accused was his childhood friend.
He also denied the suggestion that he knew Rajat Kapoor and
Rakesh malhotra. He also denied having made statement i.e. Mark
PW11/PX.
27. PW-13 Sh. Vishal Tandon deposed that he had never
been a member of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing Society
Ltd. He did not apply for its membership nor attend any of its
meetings or proceedings. His nick name was Sonu Tandon and his
father’s name was Sh. Jasbir Singh Tandon. His father’s name
mentioned in application Ex. PW13/A was incorrect. In the year
1990 he was 15 years old as he was born on 12.12.1975, whereas
in the application it was written that he was 23 years old. He did
not submit affidavit Ex. PW13/B and the said affidavit was not
genuine and was fabricated. He further deposed that his age and
father’s name in membership register Ex. PW2/E at entry no. 92
were incorrect and it did not bear his signature. The proceedings
in membership register regarding acceptance of his resignation i.e.
Ex. PW13/C were fabricated as he was never member of the
society. He did not submit any resignation letter and did not
receive any fund receipt of Rs.100/- i.e. Ex. PW13/D.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 12 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
28. PW-24 Sh. Satish Kamra deposed that in the year
1983-84 he was working in East Patel Nagar Branch of State Bank
of India. He was not a member of Bankmen’s Co-operative Group
Housing Society. His particulars mentioned in membership
register at serial no. 68 were not in his handwriting. He identified
his particulars in proceeding register Ex. PW15/B1 at serial no. 51
but denied his signatures on the same. He denied his handwriting
and signatures on resignation letter Ex. PW24/A and affidavit
dated 18.08.2000 Ex. PW24/B. He also stated that he had given
his specimen signatures i.e. Ex. PW24/C (colly).
29. PW-27 Sh. Navneet Ahuja deposed that he had no
concern with Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing Society and
he never became its member. He denied his signatures in
membership register at serial no. 101. He also denied his
signatures in proceeding register Ex. PW27/A and stated that he
had not attended any such meeting. He denied his handwriting and
signatures on resignation letter Ex. PW27/B, receipt voucher dated
29.10.2001 Ex. PW27/C, application form Ex. PW27/D and
affidavit Ex. PW27/E.
30. PW-28 Sh. Rakesh Malhotra deposed that he had
never been a member of any Cooperative Group Housing Society.
He denied his signatures and handwriting on application Ex.
PW28/A and affidavit Ex. PW28/B and stated that the affidavit
was not genuine. He also denied his signatures on resignation
application dated 14.11.2003 Ex. PW28/C and refund receipt Ex.
PW28/D. He further stated that his particulars in list of approved
members Ex. PW28/E at Sl. No. 55 were not genuine. He also
denied his signatures in membership register Ex. PW2/A at serial
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 13 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
no. 95.
PW-28 further denied his signatures and handwriting
on proceedings dated 10.08.1996 and 30.06.1997 Ex. PW28/F and
Ex. PW28/G and stated that he had not attended any such meetings
and the records were false and not genuine. He also denied his
signatures on proceedings dated 01.08.1999 Ex. PW28/H and in
proceeding register Ex. PW27/A at serial no. 48. He also denied
having attended annual general body meeting dated 20.08.2000
Ex. PW28/J and denied proceedings regarding acceptance of his
resignation Ex. PW28/K.
31. PW-29 Sh. Tarun Arya deposed that he had never
been a member of any Cooperative Group Housing Society. He
denied his signatures and handwriting on application Ex. PW29/A
and affidavit Ex. PW29/B and stated that the affidavit was not
genuine. He denied his signatures on resignation application dated
27.08.2001 Ex. PW29/C and refund receipt Ex. PW29/D and
stated that these documents were not genuine. He also denied that
his particulars in list of approved members Ex. PW29/E at Sl. No.
66 were genuine as he was minor at that time. He further denied
his signatures in membership register Ex. PW2/A at serial no. 106.
He also denied his signatures and handwriting on proceedings
dated 21.11.1999 and 20.08.2000 which were part of Ex. PW27/A
and Ex. PW28/J and stated that he had not attended any such
meetings and the records were false and not genuine. He denied
proceedings dated 02.09.2001 Ex. PW29/G regarding acceptance
of his resignation.
32. PW-30 Sh. Kiran Kumar deposed that he had retired
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 14 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
from Union Bank of India and was a member of Divya
Cooperative Group Housing Society, Dwarka. He was not a
member of any other Group Housing Society. He denied having
filled application form Ex. PW30/A and denied his signatures on
it having name of “Kiran Kakkar” written on it. He denied having
sworn affidavit Mark PW30/B and denied his signatures on it. He
also denied his signatures on resignation letter and refund voucher
Ex. PW30/C (colly) and stated that he had never given any such
resignation. He also denied his signatures in membership register
Ex. PW3/E at serial no. 100 and in proceeding register Ex. PW28/J
at serial no. 18 and 17.
33. PW-38 Sh. Thulasedharan Pillai deposed that he was
working as Manager in Southern Star Cooperative Urban Thrift
and Credit Society and had no connection with Bankmen’s
Cooperative Group Housing Society. He denied his signatures on
application form Ex. PW38/A and affidavit Ex. PW38/B. He also
denied his signatures on resignation letter and receipt Ex. PW38/C,
in membership register Ex. PW29/F at serial no. 112 and in
proceeding register Ex. PW38/D. He stated that he did not know
how his name appeared in the said records.
34. PW-40 Sh. Devender Kumar deposed that he did not
know anything about Bankmen’s Group Housing Society and
denied having any connection with membership form in his name.
He stated that he had been called by CBI for investigation and after
seeing the document stated that it did not pertain to him. He stated
that though the signatures resembled his signatures, but he had not
affixed said signatures.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 15 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
This witness was declared hostile and was cross-
examined by ld. PP for CBI. In his cross-examination he denied
having made statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW40/C.
35. PW-62 Sh. Puneet Bhatia deposed that he did not
know anything about Bankmen’s Co-operative Group Housing
Society. He stated that in membership application form part of Ex.
PW16/L his name was written incorrectly as “Punit”. The address
mentioned was his address but his father’s name was incorrectly
written as V.N. Bhatia and no person by that name had ever resided
there. He also stated that the signature on the document was not
his signature. He denied his signatures on affidavit Ex. PW62/A,
resignation letter and receipt Ex. PW62/B and in membership
register Ex. PW16/H at serial no. 91. He stated that he had not
become member of the said society nor had attended any of its
proceedings.
36. PW-64 Sh. Vikas Kant deposed that he did not know
anything about Bankmen’s Co-operative Group Housing Society
and he had never been its member. He stated that he had not signed
the proceedings recorded. The resignation letter and receipt Ex.
PW64/A were issued in his name but signatures were not his. He
also denied having submitted affidavit Ex. PW64/B and denied his
signatures on it.
37. PW-66 Sh. Rajat Kapoor deposed that he did not
know anything about Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing
Society and had not been its member. He stated that the address
mentioned in the record was not his address and the application
did not bear his signature. He further stated that he had not
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 16 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
submitted affidavit Ex. PW6/A and it did not bear his signature.
He also stated that he did not give resignation letter Ex. PW57/EE
and receipt Ex. PW57/DD and these documents did not bear his
signature. He also denied his signatures in proceedings register
Ex. PW35/B.
38. PW-67 Sh. Nitin Batra deposed that he did not know
anything about Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing Society
and he had not remained its member. He had not filled
membership form, submitted affidavit or paid any fee and had
not attended any meeting or had resigned from its membership. He
denied his signatures on application Ex. PW67/A and stated that in
the year 1991 he was about 15/16 years old. He also denied his
signatures on affidavit dated 18.08.2000 Ex. PW67/B. He stated
that details mentioned in Ex. PW27/E were incorrect. He denied
his signatures on resignation letter and receipt Ex. PW57/H and
Ex. PW57/G and also denied his signatures in membership register
entries Ex. PW3/E, Ex. PW67/C and Ex. PW35/B.
39. PW-69 Sh. Hari Mohan Sharma deposed that he had
not been a member of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing
Society Ltd. He denied his signatures on application Ex. PW69/A
and affidavit Ex. PW69/B. He denied his signatures on minutes of
meetings Ex. PW60/E, Ex. PW28/H, Ex. PW27/A and Ex.
PW35/B and stated that he had not attended any of those meetings.
He also denied his signatures on resignation form and receipt Ex.
PW57/P and Ex. PW57/M and stated that he was never member of
the society.
40. PW-83 Sh. M.P. Singh deposed that he was not a
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 17 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
member of Bankmen’s CGHS and did not attend any of its
meetings. He denied his signatures and handwriting on application
Ex. PW60/L and stated that his father’s name mentioned therein
was incorrect. He further deposed that though the address
mentioned was his earlier residence, he never applied for its
membership. He denied his signatures and handwriting on
affidavit Ex. PW83/A and stated that father’s name mentioned
therein was incorrect. He deposed that entry in membership
register Ex. PW83/B contained his correct particulars but signature
was not his. He also denied his signatures on resignation letter Ex.
PW83/C and stated that he had not resigned from any society and
did not know how such documents were prepared.
PW-83 further denied his signatures on proceedings
Ex. PW28/G, Ex. PW28/H and Ex. PW67/C and stated that he had
not attended any such meetings and did not know how his name
appeared in those proceedings.
41. PW-89 Sh. Deepak Tyagi deposed that he had not
applied for membership of any Cooperative Group Housing
Society. He denied his signatures on application Ex. PW89/A. He
stated that though his name and father’s name were correct, the
address mentioned was not his address. He admitted his particulars
in affidavit Ex. PW89/B but denied his signatures on it. He also
stated that resignation letter dated 16.10.2003 Ex. PW89/C was
not issued by him and signatures on it were not his. He also denied
his signatures on refund voucher dated 02.12.2003 Ex. PW89/D
and stated that he had never received any refund. He further
deposed that entry in membership register Ex. PW89/E contained
his correct name and parentage but wrong address and stated that
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 18 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
all his information was with Rajan Chopra who might have used
his particulars.
PW-89 further denied his signatures on proceedings
Ex. PW60/B and stated that he did not attend annual general body
meeting or election meeting. He further denied his signatures in
proceedings Ex. PW35/C and Ex. PW89/F and stated that he did
not attend those meetings. He also denied his signatures on
minutes of managing committee meetings dated 20.04.1997,
30.06.1997, 20.10.1997, 25.01.1998, 29.06.1998, 13.09.1998 and
14.02.1999.
Original Members of the Society :
42. PW-8 Sh. Vimal Kapoor deposed that in October,
2015 he had retired as Deputy Manager from State Bank of India.
Before the year 1990, he along with other employees of State Bank
of India had formed a Group Housing Society by the name of
Bankmen’s Co-operative Group Housing Society and he was
President of said society. He knew Lalit Kumar Gulati and Rajesh
Mangla as they were members of the above-said society. In
January, 1990, he got promoted and was transferred from Delhi to
Rishikesh due to which he lost connection with the affairs of
society. The above-said society became defunct. No proceedings
or meetings of the society were conducted after the year 1990 in
his presence. He also deposed that he had not resigned from the
post of President or from membership of the society. He further
deposed that he had submitted an affidavit Ex. PW8/A to the
society as per rules and procedures. He did not submit the
resignation letter dated 28.11.1990 Ex. PW8/B. He also stated that
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 19 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
the signature on the documents i.e. resignation letter Ex. PW8/B
and receipt dated 10.01.1991 of Rs. 100/- Ex. PW8/B1 were not
his signatures.
PW-8 Sh. Vimal Kapoor also deposed that only the
officials of State Bank of India could have become members of the
society. He remained the President of society from the year 1983.
Mr. Gulati was Vice-President of the society, Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Mangla was the Secretary and Sh. H.P. Sharma was the Treasurer
of the society at that time. He identified the members register of
Bankmen Cooperative Society i.e. Ex. PW14/B and also identified
his signature in it.
PW-8 deposed that he had deposited a sum of Rs.
110/- in the society as membership fee and it was not returned to
him. He also identified the original register of Intensive Enquiry
Proforma of Society Ex. PW9/C and the handwritten note and
signature of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Mangla, the then Secretary. He
identified the proceedings register of society Ex. PW9/H, his
signature and signature of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Mangla on it. He also
identified share certificates of society Ex. PW72/6 and balance
sheet from 1983-84, profit & loss account and receipt and payment
account for the year 1985 Ex. PW8/C. He identified his signatures
and signature of Sh. Rajesh Mangla on these documents. He also
identified audit report Ex. PW72/10 and balance sheets of the year
1985, profit and loss account of the year 1984 and receipt &
payment account of the year 1984 Ex. PW9/K1 & Ex. PW9/K2.
He stated that Bankmen Cooperative Group Housing Society was
having a bank account in Cooperative Bank, Jantar Mantar, New
Delhi. He also proved receipt dated 25.11.1991 of Office of
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 20 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Registrar, Cooperative Society alongwith copy of receipt of the
bank as Ex. PW8/D.
43. PW-9 Sh. Sudesh Kumar Sud deposed that in the
year, 2016 he retired as Deputy Manager from State Bank of India.
In the year 1982-83, he along with other bank officials had formed
a Co-operative Group Housing Society namely Bankmen’s Co-
operative Group Housing Society and it was registered in the
office of RCS. In the year 1986, he got promoted and was
transferred from Delhi to other States. Thereafter he discontinued
with the affairs of the society.
PW-9 proved application for registration of the
Bankmen’s Co-operative Group Housing Society Ex. PW9/A,
bye-laws of the said society Ex. PW9/B and the intensive inquiry
proforma Ex. PW9/C. He stated that he had submitted affidavit
dated 30.09.1983 Ex. PW9/D to the society. He denied having
submitted the affidavit Ex. PW9/E and also denied his signature
on it. He identified his signatures on the proceedings register Ex.
PW9/F at page nos. 15-18, 20-23, 25 and 27 and stated that he had
signed upon it after attending the meetings of society. However, he
denied his signatures on proceedings Ex. PW9/G and stated that
he had not attended the meetings on the dates mentioned therein.
He further identified his signatures on the proceedings register Ex.
PW9/H (colly) which he had signed during the meetings of the
society. However, he denied his signature on document i.e. Ex.
PW9/J.
PW-9 Sh. Sudesh Kumar Sud also identified /
proved audit reports of the Bankmen’s Co-operative Group
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 21 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Housing Society Ex. PW9/K, Ex. PW9/K1 and Ex. PW9/K2. He
stated that he had signed the said audit reports on behalf of Sh.
Lalit Kumar Gulati who was not present as the reports were to be
submitted in the office of RCS. He stated that he had resigned from
the society on the asking of Sh. Deepak Khanna, who came to his
office for taking his resignation on the ground that the society had
become defunct. He also stated that Sh. Deepak Khanna had taken
an active part at the time of formation of the above-said society. He
proved his resignation letter and receipt of Rs. 100/- as Ex. PW9/L.
44. PW-10 Sh. Bishamber Kumar Kapoor deposed that
he had retired as Senior Special Assistant, CCPC, State Bank of
India, New Delhi. In the year, 1983 he along with other bank
officials had formed a Co-operative Group Housing Society
namely Bankmen’s Co-operative Group Housing Society. In the
year 1997 he had resigned from the membership of society as he
had got transferred out of Delhi. He had resigned from the society
on the asking of Deepak Khanna as the society had become
defunct. He identified his signatures on the documents exhibited
as Ex. PW9/A, Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW9/C. He proved his
affidavit dated 30.09.1983 (Ex. PW10/A) which was submitted by
him to the society. He also identified his particulars and signatures
in the membership register i.e. Ex. PW10/B.
PW-10 Sh. Bishamber Kumar Kapoor identified his
resignation letter and receipt of Rs. 100/- as Ex. PW10/C.
However, he clarified that the date “09.02.2001” mentioned in the
said resignation letter was not written by him nor the said date was
noted when he signed the same. He also denied having signed or
submitted the affidavit Ex. PW10/D drawn in his name. He stated
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 22 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
that the signatures appearing on the said affidavit were not his
signatures and the same were forged. He also deposed that he had
never held any post in the Bankmen’s Co-operative Group
Housing Society during his membership. During the relevant
period, he was residing at A-22, Double Storey Quarters, Motia
Khan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. He also stated that he had furnished
his specimen signatures to the CBI officials i.e. Ex. PW10/E.
45. PW-12 Sh. Navin Kumar Gosain deposed that in the
year 2017, he retired as Senior Assistant from the State Bank of
India. He had joined a Group Housing Society formed by bank
officers in the year 1983-84. He identified his signatures on the
documents i.e. Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C. He also
identified his signatures on his affidavit Ex.PW12/A. He denied
his signatures in the membership register on page no. 29 i.e. Ex.
PW12/B and stated that these were not his genuine signatures. He
also denied his signatures on the documents Ex. PW12/C1 to Ex.
PW12/C5 and documents Ex. PW12/D1 to Ex. PW12/D6. He also
stated that these were not his genuine signatures. He had not
attended any of the meetings of the society mentioned on above-
said documents. However, his signatures were taken by the office
bearers of the society.
PW-12 Sh. Navin Kumar Gosain further deposed
that he had resigned from the membership of Bankmen’s
Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. on the asking of one Mr.
Deepak Khanna, who had told him that there was no chance of
getting land from DDA. He had resigned from the society in the
year 1999-2000 and the date ‘15.08.2001’ mentioned on the
resignation letter Ex. PW12/E was not written by him and the
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 23 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
particulars in the receipt were not in his handwriting. He further
stated that he had signed Ex.PW12/E without date in good faith.
He also stated that he had not filed affidavit dated 18.08.2000
and signatures appearing on the said affidavit were not his
signatures. He also stated that his specimen signaturesEx. PW12/G
(colly) were taken by CBI.
46. PW-14 Sh. Mahesh Kumar Gambhir deposed that he
had retired from State Bank of India in March, 1994 . In the year
1983-88, he was posted at SBI Overseas Branch, Parliament
Street, New Delhi and a group housing society was formed at the
instance of Ashok Khanna. He also became one of the members of
said society. He gave his affidavit Ex. PW14/A to Deepak Khanna.
He identified/ admitted his signatures on the documents Ex.
PW9/A to Ex. PW9/C. He also identified/ admitted his particulars
and signatures in the membership register of the society and
proved his entry as Ex. PW14/B. He denied his signature in the
proceeding register on page no. 1 & 9. He deposed that in the year
December, 1988 he was transferred from Delhi and then he got
disconnected from the affairs of society. He also denied having
signed the documents Ex. PW14/C and Ex. PW14/D.
47. PW-15 Sh. Vijay Kumar Girdhar deposed that in the
year 2006, he retired as Deputy Manager, State Bank of India. In
the year 1982, employees of State Bank formed a group housing
society and he was one of the members of that society. He
identified /admitted his signatures on the documents Ex. PW9/A
to Ex. PW9/C. He had submitted an affidavit dated 30.09.1983
Ex. PW15/A for purpose of membership of the society. He further
identified his signatures on the documents Ex. PW15/B1 and
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 24 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Ex.PW15/B2. Thereafter, he was transferred out of Delhi and then
he did not inquire about the affairs of the society. He had not
resigned from the society at any point of time. He also denied
having signed resignation letter and receipt Ex. PW15/C.
48. PW-16 Sh. Mahender Kumar Khurana deposed that
in the year 1984, he became a member of Bankmen’s Co-operative
Group Housing Society. He did not resign from the said
membership. He identified / admitted his registration application
form of the society Ex. PW16/A. He denied having signed
proceeding register on pages Ex. Ex.PW12/D1, Ex.PW16/B,
Ex.PW12/D2, Ex.PW12/D3, Ex.PW12/04, Ex.PW9/G and
Ex.PW12/D6 and stated that those were not his signatures. He did
not attend any such proceedings of the society. He also denied his
signatures his affidavit dated 18.08.2000 Ex. PW16/C and stated
that his signature on the said affidavit was not his signatures. He
further denied his signatures on resignation cum receipt letter
Ex.PW16/D. He admitted his signature in the list of promoter
member at serial no. 35 i.e. Ex.PW16/E and also in the intensive
inquiry proforma at serial no. 35 Ex.PW16/F.
49. PW-18 Sh. Ved Prakash Rajpal deposed that in the
year 1982, he became member of Bankmen’s Society. He denied
his signature in the membership register. He admitted his
signature in the proceedings register at serial no. 40 i.e. Ex.
PW15/B1 as he had attended those proceedings. He also
admitted / identified share certificate of Bankmen’s CGHS in his
name. He denied his signature at page no. 9 of register. He also
admitted / identified his signatures on the documents i.e.
application for registration of Co-Operative Society Ex. PW9/A,
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 25 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Bye Laws of society Ex. PW9/B and intensive proforma Ex.
PW9/C. He proved his affidavit dated 30.09.1983 Ex. PW18/A.
He denied having issued letter for withdrawal of his membership
Ex. PW18/B and receipt dated 16.10.2000. He also stated that said
letter did not bears his signatures and he did not receive any
money. He did not file affidavit dated 18.08.2000 and denied his
signature on it.
50. PW-19 Sh. Avinash Kumar Malhotra deposed that he
became member of Bankmen’s Society. He identified / admitted
his signature in the membership register at serial no. 27
Ex.PW19/A. He admitted his signature at serial no. 19 in the
proceeding register Ex.PW9/H as he had attended the said
proceeding. He stated that though his name is mentioned at serial
no. 33 of Ex. PW18/B2, but the signature appearing on it was not
his signature. He identified share certificate of Bankmen’s CGHS
in his name. He also identified his signatures on the documents
i.e. application form for registration of Co-operative Society
Ex.PW9/A, Bye Laws of Co-operative Group Housing Society
Ex.PW19/B and intensive proforma Ex.PW9/C. He proved his
affidavit dated 30.09.1983 Ex.PW19/C. He denied having issued
letter for resignation from membership Ex.PW19/D and receipt
dated 30.09.1986 and denied his signatures on the said documents.
He also stated that he had given his specimen signatures
Ex.PW19/E to CBI in presence of witnesses.
51. PW-20 Smt. Jatinder Bedi deposed that she was
working in State Bank of India and she had retired from service in
the year 2001. She deposed that she might have been a member of
Bankmen’s CGHS Society. She identified her signature in the
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 26 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
membership register Ex.PW14/B at serial no. 36. She also
admitted her signatures in the proceeding register Ex.PW9/H. She
further admitted/ identified her signatures in the proceeding
register Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PW20/C respectively.
She denied her signatures in the said register on the pages
Ex.PW20/D. She also admitted /identified her signatures on the
documents i.e. Bye Laws of Co-operative Group Housing Society
Ex.PW19/B and intensive proforma Ex.PW9/C. She proved her
affidavit dated 30.09.1983 Ex.PW20/E and letter for withdrawal
of membership Ex.PW20/F.
PW-20 Smt. Jatinder Bedi was cross-examined by
ld. PP for CBI. In her cross-examination, she admitted that since
she had not resigned from the membership of the society,
therefore, she had not given any resignation and she was not able
to differentiate her signature in letter for withdrawal of
membership Ex. PW20/F. She also admitted that affidavit dated
18.08.2000 Ex. PW20/G did not bear her signature.
52. PW-21 Sh. Deepak Khanna deposed that in the year
1983-84 he was working in SBI Overseas Branch. The members
of State Bank of India formed a group housing society named
Bankmen’s Co-operative Group Housing Society and he too
became its member. The witness identified his signature in the
membership register and proceeding register Ex.PW21/A and
Ex.PW20/A respectively. He denied his signatures in the
proceedings dated 19.01.1992 to 01.07.1994 Ex.PW21/B. He
however admitted/ identified his signature on the audit report of
society i.e. Ex.PW21/C. He also identified his signature on his
resignation letter, but stated that the date mentioned therein had
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 27 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
been altered and he had resigned prior to the said date. He also
identified his signature on the copies of Bye Laws of the society
Ex.PW16/E.
PW-21 Sh. Deepak Khanna denied his signature on
affidavit dated 18.08.2000 Ex.PW21/D and stated that he had not
sworn said affidavit. He further deposed that the office bearers of
the society used to call members of society for its meetings, but no
one used to attend the meetings and the society became defunct. In
the year 1997-98, one of his colleagues Mr. Mukesh Verma
introduced him to Sh. R. P. Dhingra who offered a sum of Rs.
2,500/- per member for tendering their resignations from the
society’s primary membership, however, after discussion they
found that it was a fake deal. They asked Mr. Dhingra to return
original society documents which they had handed over to him.
However, Mr. Dhingra told them that the documents had already
been handed over to somebody else. Then they were left with no
alternative, but to get the resignations signed from the members of
society. Mr. Dhingra gave Rs. 50,000/- upfront for 20
resignations, but they succeeded in obtaining resignations from
12-14 members only. Mr. Dhingra also told them that the members
who were not interested in giving resignation will keep their
memberships alive and they will be a part of the allotment of
flats.
53. PW-22 Ramesh Kumar deposed that he was member
of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing Society. He denied his
signature in membership register and proceeding register Ex.
PW22/A and Ex. PW15/B1. He also identified/ admitted his
signatures on the bye laws of society Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW19/B.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 28 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
He did not resign from the membership of society nor he got
refund and he also did not give affidavit. The resignation letter
Ex. PW22/B and affidavit Ex. PW22/C purported to be in his name
did not bear his signature.
54. PW-23 Sh. Rakesh Bhargava deposed that he was a
member of Bankmen’s Co-operative Group Housing Society. He
identified his signature in the membership register of society and
proceedings dated 06.10.1983 (Ex. PW15/B1), 19.04.1986 and
proceeding dated 19.04.1988. He denied having signed the letter
of resignation from membership of the society Ex. PW23/B. He
denied his signatures and handwriting on affidavit purported to be
sworn in his name i.e. Ex. PW23/C. He further admitted /
identified his signatures on documents i.e. application for
registration of Co-operative Society Ex. PW9/A, Bye-Laws of Co-
operative Group Housing Society Ex. PW9/B and share certificate
issued by the society in his name Ex. PW23/D. He also stated that
his specimen signatures were taken by the IO during investigation
i.e. Ex. PW23/E (colly).
55. PW-25 Sh. Sanjeev Lal deposed that in the year
1983-84, he was working in Service Branch of SBI, Parliament
Street, New Delhi and was a member of Bankmen’s Co-operative
Group Housing Society. He admitted / identified his signatures in
the membership register Ex. PW25/A and in the proceeding
register Ex. PW9/H. He also identified his signatures in the
document i.e. Bye-laws of Co-operative Group Housing Society
Ex. PW19/B. He stated that handwriting and signature on letter of
resignation Ex. PW25/B were not written by him. He had not
resigned from the membership of society.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 29 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
56. PW-26 Sh. Shiv Shankar deposed that in the year
1983-84, he was working in SBI, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. He was
not a member of the Bankmen’s Co-operative Group Housing
Society. He denied his signature in the membership register and
proceeding register Ex. PW15/B1. He also denied his signatures
in the bylaws of the Co-operative Group Housing Society Ex.
PW19/B (D-19) where his name was mentioned. He denied his
handwriting and signatures on the letter of resignation from the
membership of the society purported to be in his name i.e. Ex.
PW26/A. He had not resigned from the society.
The said witness also did not fully support
prosecution’s case and he was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI.
In his cross-examination, he denied that he had told the CBI that
he was the promoter member of the Bankmen’s Co-operative
Group Housing Society. He further denied the suggestion that he
had told CBI officials that his signatures appeared at sl. no. 58 of
the proceeding register and on the byelaws of society.
57. PW-31 Sh. C. P. Saxena deposed that he was a
member of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing Society. He
too identified his signatures in the membership register Ex.
PW25/A, in the proceeding register Ex. PW9/H and in the
proceeding register Ex. PW31/A. He denied having signed in the
proceeding register at serial no. 23. He identified his signatures
on the documents i.e. application for Registration of the
Cooperative Society Ex. PW9/A, original bye-laws Ex. PW29/B
and the intensive proforma Ex. PW9/C. He did not sign and
write the letter of resignation and receipt dated 02.08.1991 and
30.10.1991 Ex. PW31/B. He stated that he had not given
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 30 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
resignation nor he had received money.
58. PW-32 Ms. Usha Kumari deposed that she had
retired as Senior Assistant from State Bank of India, Main Branch,
Parliament Street, New Delhi and she was a member of Bankmen’s
Cooperative Group Housing Society. She identified her signatures
in the membership register Ex. PW21/A and in the proceeding
register, but the signature at serial no. 8 of the same register was
not her signature. She also stated that signatures on the resignation
letter Ex. PW32/A, on voucher dated 05.03.2001 for Rs.100/- Ex.
PW32/B and on affidavit dated 18.08.2000 Ex. PW32/C were not
her signatures.
59. PW-33 Sh. Ram Lal deposed that he had joined State
Bank of India in the year 1983 and was a member of Bankmen’s
Cooperative Group Housing Society. He identified his signatures
on the documents i.e. application for registration of CGHS i.e. Ex.
PW9/A, bye-laws Ex. PW9/B and Intensive Proforma Ex. PW9/C
(D-19). The signatures and handwriting on resignation letter and
receipt Ex. PW33/A were not written and signed by him. He stated
that he had not resigned from the society. He stated that signatures
in the membership register Ex. PW22/A were not his signatures.
He identified his signatures in the proceeding register Ex.
PW15/B-1.
60. PW-34 Sh. Surya Kant Sharma deposed that he was
a member of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing Society, but
the signatures in the membership register Ex. PW34/A and in the
membership form Ex. PW34/B were not his signatures. The
address mentioned in it was not his correct address. The signatures
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 31 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
on resignation form and receipt dated 13.09.1990 Ex. PW34/C
were not done by him and he had not resigned from the society.
He identified his signatures on his affidavit Ex. PW34/D and stated
that the affidavit was sworn by him at the time of joining the
society.
61. PW-35 Sh. Rahul Setia deposed that his deceased
father Sh. Mohan Lal Setia was employee of State Bank of India,
Parliament Street and he was not a member of any Housing
Society. He identified his father’s signatures in the application for
registration Ex. PW9/A (D-19). The signatures on resignation
letter, receipt and affidavit dated 18.08.2000 were not of his father.
He identified his father’s signatures in the proceeding register Ex.
PW15/B-1 at serial no. 43, but stated that signatures at serial no.
42 Ex. PW35/A and at serial no. 38 (Q-1443) Ex. PW35/B were
not of his father. He also stated that signatures against his father’s
name in proceeding register Ex. PW35/C were not of his father.
62. PW-36 Sh. Sanjay Kumar deposed that he was a
member of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing Society and
had joined in the year 2000 at the instance of Sh. Ravinder Viz. He
became Vice-President of society after 1 & 2 years of its
formation. His brother Sh. Vikas Jain was its President. After
becoming the office-bearer of society, he had received records of
the society along with resignation letters from Sandeep Sahni
whom he identified in the court. He stated that he had received
resignation letters of various membership numbers from accused
Sandeep Sahni. Later on he resigned from the society due to illness
and gave his resignation to Sh. Ravinder.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 32 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
63. PW-37 Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta deposed that he
had retired as Deputy Manager (Grade-II) from State Bank of India
and was a member of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing
Society. He identified his signatures in the membership register
Ex. PW37/A, proceeding register Ex. PW15/B-1, application for
registration Ex. PW9/A and original bye-laws Ex. PW9/B. The
signatures on resignation letter Ex. PW37/B, voucher dated
14.06.2001 Ex. PW37/C and affidavit dated 18.08.2000 Ex.
PW37/D were not his signatures and he had not resigned from the
society.
64. PW-39 Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta deposed that he
had retired from SBI, Parliament Street Branch in 2003 as Deputy
Manager and did not know about Bankmen’s CGHS. He identified
his signatures in the proceeding register Ex. PW31/A and on
affidavit Ex. PW39/A. He stated that his signatures at serial no.
22 in the said register, in the membership register Ex. PW34/A at
serial no. 73, on application for membership Ex. PW39/B,
resignation letter and receipt Ex. PW39/C were not his signatures.
65. PW-56 Sh. Vinod Swaroop Gosain deposed that his
father Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Gosain had worked in the State
Bank of India as an Accountant. He had joined the membership
of Bankmen’s Co-operative Group Housing Society. He identified
his signatures appearing in the membership register Ex. PW12/B.
His father did not attend any meeting of the society. He had filed
affidavit Ex. PW56/A at the time of joining Bankmen’s Co-
operative Group Housing Society Ltd. The signatures on the
application form Ex. PW56/B, resignation letter and refund receipt
Ex. PW56/C were not his father’s signatures. His father did not
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 33 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
resign from the membership of Bankmen’s Co-operative Group
Housing Society Ltd.
66. PW-65 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Mangla deposed that he
had retired from State Bank of India. In the year 1983, he along
with other colleagues had formed Bankmen’s CGHS. He was one
of the initial promoters of the society and its registered address
was 21, Inder Enclave, Rohtak Road, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. He
remained member of the society till the year 1993-94 and
thereafter he had resigned from the society. Later on he came to
know that the society had been declared defunct by the Registrar,
Cooperative Societies.
PW-65 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Mangla further deposed
that one of the office bearers namely Sh. Deepak Khanna and H.
P. Sharma had informed him that a person namely Mr. Dhingra had
contacted them for revival of the society and offered Rs. 2,500/-
as parting money to members who were willing to resign. He
received Rs. 2,500/- for his resignation and Sh. Deepak Khanna
had handed over the documents of society to Mr. Dhingra. After
some time they realized that they had committed a mistake by
handing over the documents to Mr. Dhingra. Mr. Deepak Khanna
contacted Mr. Dhingra to take back the society documents but
Mr.Dhingra told Mr. Deepak that documents had already been
given to the concerned person.
PW-65 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Mangla identified his
signatures on the application for registration of Cooperative
Society Ex. PW9/A, bye-laws Ex. PW9/D, intensive proforma Ex.
PW9/C and on the affidavit dated 30.09.1983 Ex. PW65/A. He
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 34 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
also identified his signatures on the list of members and letter
dated 31.07.1985 Ex. PW65/B. The said letter was forwarded to
Registrar, Cooperative Societies with request for forwarding the
list of members to DDA for allotment of land. He identified his
signatures in the membership register Ex. PW65/C, proceeding
register Ex. PW20/A to PW20/D (colly), Ex. PW65/D and Ex.
PW9/F.
PW-65 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Mangla stated that
signatures on the minutes of meeting dated 20.06.1989 Ex.
PW12/D-2 and pages of proceeding register Ex. PW60/G were not
his signatures. During investigation he gave his specimen
handwriting and signatures to the IO and identified the same from
S-270 to S-279 i.e. Ex.PW65/E.
67. PW-68 Sh. Prem Kumar Makkar deposed that he
became a member of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing
Society in the year 1984-85. He was still the member of
society,but did not know about its present affairs. He identified his
signatures on the affidavit dated 27.06.1984 Ex. PW68/A, the
proceedings register dated 19.04.1986 Ex. PW31/A and in
membership register Ex. PW34/A. The membership register
Ex.PW34/A did not bear his signature at serial no. 76. The
documents i.e. the membership application form Ex. PW68/B,
resignation letter and receipt dated 14.10.1991 and 14.12.1991 Ex.
PW68/C also did not bear his signatures. He further stated that he
did not receive money from the society as shown in the receipt.
68. PW-71 Sh. Sunil Sethi deposed that he became
member of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing Society in the
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 35 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
year 2003 and was elected as its President in the year 2004. Prior
to him, Sh. Vikas Jain was the President of the society. He
identified his signatures on the documents i.e. application for
becoming a member of Bankmen’s CGHS dated 14.04.2003 Ex.
PW71/1, record of General Body Meeting held on 22.06.2003 Ex.
PW71/2, Annual General Body Meeting held on 13.06.2004 (Ex.
PW71/2).
69. PW-72 Sh. Rajiv Bajaj deposed that he became a
member of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing Society in
the year 2004. He identified his signatures on the documents i.e.
application for becoming a member of Bankmen’s CGHS dated
19.04.2003 Ex. PW72/1, record of the General Body Meeting held
on 22.06.2003 Ex. PW71/2, Annual General Body Meeting held
on 13.06.2004 Ex. PW71/2. He stated that vide meeting dated
13.06.2004, he was elected as Vice President of the society. He
also identified his signatures and particulars in the register of
members Ex. PW72/2.
PW-72 Sh. Rajiv Bajaj further deposed that vide
production-cum-receipt memo dated 05.06.2006 Ex. PW72/3, CBI
had seized certain documents enumerated therein. He also stated
that CBI had seized the documents i.e. RCS file Ex. PW72/4
(colly), Bridge loan file Ex. PW72/5 (colly), Share certificate file
Ex. PW72/6 (colly), Resignation files Ex. PW72/7 & PW72/8,
Application file of members Ex. PW72/9, Audit files Ex.
PW72/10, Ex. PW61/A & Ex. PW41/A, proceedings registers Ex.
PW72/11 to Ex. PW72/13.
70. PW-78 Sh. Rajesh Thukral deposed that he became a
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 36 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
member of a Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing Society in
the year 1983 and had paid Rs.100/- as membership fees. He
identified proceeding register Ex. PW15/B-1. He stated that
signature at serial no. 66 were not his signature. However, he
identified his signature at serial no. 27 of the proceeding register
Ex. PW15/B-2 and stated that he would have had attended the
meeting dated 19.04.1988. He also identified his signature at serial
no. 37 of the proceeding register Ex. PW31/A and stated that he
had attended the meeting dated 19.04.1986. However, he denied
his signature at serial no. 15 of proceeding Ex. PW9/J and also
denied his signature on the list of promoter members at serial no.
66 of the bye-laws Ex. PW9/B. He identified his signatures on the
documents i.e. intensive inquiry proforma for registration of the
society Ex. PW9/C and on the affidavit dated 30.09.1983 Ex.
PW78/A.
PW-78 Sh. Rajesh Thukral further identified his
share certificate of Rs. 100/- No. 9 issued by Bankmen’s CGHS
Ex. PW78/B and stated that he had not resigned from the
membership of the society. He denied his signature and
handwriting on the resignation letter dated 02.11.1990 (Mark
PW78/1) and on receipt dated 10.01.1991 and stated that he did
not receive Rs. 100/- as alleged in this receipt.
71. PW-79 Sh. Harish Chand Sharma deposed that he
became member of a Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing
Society in the year 1983 and had paid Rs. 100/- as membership
fees. He identified signatures in the proceedings register dated
06.10.1983 Ex. PW15/B-1. He identified his signatures on the
documents i.e. application form for registration of cooperative
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 37 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
society against membership and list of members Ex. PW9/A and
Ex. PW16/A respectively as well as on the bye-laws Ex. PW9/B.
However, he deposed that though his details were correctly
mentioned, but the signatures on the membership register
Ex.PW22/A were not his signatures.
PW-79 Sh. Harish Chand Sharma also identified his
signature in the intensive inquiry proforma Ex. PW9/C. He further
stated that he did not resign from the membership of Bankmen’s
CGHS. He denied having signed or written the resignation and
refund receipt Ex. PW57/R and stated that the signatures at
Q-1805, Q-1806 and Q-1808 were not his signatures nor it was in
his handwriting. He stated that the said resignation letter and
receipt dated 25.08.2001 were forged and he had not received any
refund amount. He also denied having submitted affidavit Mark
PW79/1 and denied having signed on it.
72. PW-80 Sh. S.K. Madan deposed that he became
member of a Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing Society in
the year 1982-83 and paid approximately Rs. 1000/- as
membership fees. He identified his signatures in the membership
register Ex. PW23/A. He also identified his signatures on the
documents i.e. bye-laws Ex. PW9/B and intensive inquiry
proforma Ex. PW9/C. He denied his signature on the list of
promoter members enclosed with the application for registration
Ex. PW9/A. He identified his signatures on minutes of meetings
dated 15.11.1983 Ex. PW20/A and dated 12.01.1984 Ex. PW20/B.
He further stated that the signature at Q-1725 and Q-1727 on
resignation letter and refund receipt Ex. PW57/D were not his
signature. The affidavit dated 18.08.2000 marked as PW80/1 did
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 38 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
not bear his signatures nor it contained his handwriting and he did
not file this affidavit. He mentioned that the address in said
affidavit was one he had left in the year 1996. He had resigned
from the membership of the society in the year 1984-85 and had
received refund of about Rs. 700-800/-.
73. PW-81 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sharma deposed that he
became member of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing
Society in the year 1984 and paid about Rs. 100/- or Rs. 1000/- as
its membership fee. He was still a member of the society. He
remained posted as Treasurer in the Managing Committee for
some time. He denied his signature in the membership register.
He further identified his signatures on minutes of meetings dated
05.06.1986 Ex. PW9/F, 24.04.87 Ex. PW81/A, 20.07.89 Ex.
PW81/B, 08.10.87 Ex. PW81/C, 09.01.88 Ex. PW81/D, 07.04.88
Ex.PW81/E, 28.07.88 Ex. PW81/F, dated 07.11.88 Ex. PW81/G,
11.02.89 Ex. PW12/D-1 and 23.05.89 Ex. PW16/B.
PW-81 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sharma denied his
signatures on the documents i.e. minutes of meetings dated
20.06.1989 Ex. PW12/D-2, 21.07.89 Ex. PW12/D-3, 05.09.89 Ex.
PW12/D-4, 09.12.89 Ex. PW12/D-5 and 03.01.90 Ex. PW12/D-6,
13.02.90 Ex. PW81/H, 20.03.90 Ex. PW81/J. He also denied his
signatures on the minutes of meetings dated 10.04.1990 (Ex.
PW60/G), 01.07.1990, 13.09.1990, 28.11.1990, 06.02.1991,
21.04.1991, 27.08.1991, 24.10.1991 (Ex. PW67/D), 19.01.1992,
15.03.1992 (Ex. PW21/B), 10.04.1992, 01.07.1992, 20.09.1992,
28.11.1992, 06.02.1993, 17.04.1993, 29.07.1993, 13.10.1993,
15.01.1994, 15.03.1994, 10.04.1994 and 01.07.1994.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 39 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
He identified his signature on minutes of meetings
dated 19.04.1986 Ex. PW31/A and denied his signatures in
minutes of meetings dated 15.09.1994 and 20.10.1994 Ex.
PW60/B, Ex. PW38/D and Ex. PW60/C as he was not the
chairman at that time. He denied his signature and handwriting
on application form Ex. PW81/K. He also identified his affidavit
dated 03.04.1984 Ex. PW81/L, denied his signature on the
affidavit dated 18.08.2000 Ex. PW81/M as he was not in Delhi and
was posted at Roorkee.
PW-81 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sharma further denied
his signatures on resignation dated 29.08.2001 and voucher dated
20.10.2001 Ex. PW81/N stating that he had not resigned from the
society nor he had received refund amount and he came to know
about the status of the society only after receiving summons from
CBI.
74. PW-82 Sh. D.K. Awasthi deposed that in the year
2013, he became member of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group
Housing Society and paid approximately Rs.100/- as membership
fee. He identified his signatures in the list of promoter members
enclosed with application form Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW16/A. He
identified his signatures in the list of promoter members on the
bye-laws of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group Housing Society Ex.
PW9/B and Ex. PW82/A. He also identified his signatures in the
intensive inquiry proforma Ex. PW9/C.
PW-82 Sh. D.K. Awasthi identified his particulars,
signatures and handwriting in his affidavit dated 30.09.1983 Ex.
PW82/B. He denied having signed the resignation letter dated
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 40 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
27.08.1991 and receipt dated 30.10.1991 Ex. PW82/C and stated
that he had not resigned nor he had received any refund. He
identified his signature on the membership register Ex. PW82/D,
but denied the endorsement in green ink showing “resigned on
27.08.1991” at point Y2 stating that he had not resigned from the
society. He identified his signatures at serial no. 56 on proceedings
of General Body Meetings dated 06.10.1983 Ex. PW9/H (colly)
and dated 19.04.1986 Ex. PW31/A. He stated that he did not
receive the certificate. He identified his signatures on the
documents i.e. list of promoter members on the bye-laws of
Bankmen’s CGHS Ex. PW16/A, intensive inquiry proforma Ex.
PW82/F, minutes of meetings of managing committee on various
pages of proceeding register Ex. PW20/A to Ex. PW20/D (colly)
and Ex. PW65/D.
75. PW-87 Sh. Banwari Lal Gupta deposed that he had
retired from State Bank of India, Gonda Branch, Delhi in the year
2006. In the year 1980, he became member of a newly formed
Cooperative Group Housing Society by paying Rs.100/- or
Rs.200/-. After becoming member he did not take interest in the
affairs of society. He knew Sh. R.K. Mangla who was posted as
Clerk in Overseas Branch. One Mr. Awasthi who was posted in
his branch had asked him to become a member of society. He
further deposed that he did not know Sh. Deepak Khanna. He
identified his signature on the membership register Ex. PW87/A.
He stated that he had not resigned from the society and denied the
signatures on the proceedings register vis-a-vis First General Body
Meeting dated 06.10.1983 and also denied his signatures on the
minutes of meeting dated 19.04.1988.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 41 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
76. PW-87 Sh. Banwari Lal Gupta admitted his
signatures on the affidavit dated 30.09.1983 Ex. PW87/B, but
denied his signatures on the application form for registration of
Cooperative Society. He also admitted his signatures on Ex.
PW16/A and denied his signatures on the bye-laws Ex. PW82/A as
well as on the intensive inquiry proforma Ex. PW9/C. He further
denied his signatures on the resignation letter, refund receipt dated
29.08.2001 Ex. PW57/S and on the affidavit dated 18.08.2000
Mark PW87/1.
77. PW-90 Sh. Subhash Chandra Gupta deposed that in
the year 2012, he had retired as Special Assistant, State Bank of
India, Overseas Branch, Janpath. Around the year 1982-1983,
they established Bankmen Group Housing Society and he was still
the member of said society. After the year 1990, the main office
bearers of society i.e. President and Secretary got transferred and
he lost touch with the activities of society. He admitted his
signatures on the application for registration of Cooperative
Society Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW16/A. He also identified his
signatures on the bye-laws of the Society Ex. PW9/B and Ex.
PW19/B (also exhibited as Ex.PW82/A) and on the intensive
inquiry proforma Ex. PW9/C. He had executed affidavit dated
30.09.1983 Ex. PW90/A and he denied his signatures and
handwriting on the resignation letter dated 02.10.2000 Ex.
PW90/B and on the refund voucher dated 06.01.2001 Ex.
PW90/C. He also denied his signatures and handwriting on the
affidavit dated 18.08.2000 Ex. PW90/D.
PW-90 Sh. Subhash Chandra Gupta deposed that he
had signed the proceedings of General Body Meetings dated
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 42 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
06.10.1983, 19.04.1986 and 19.04.1988 i.e. Ex. PW9/H (colly),
Ex. PW31/A and Ex. PW15/B-2. He denied his signatures on
share certificate Ex. PW90/F issued in his name and stated that
perhaps Sh. Rajesh Kumar Mangla had signed on it. He identified
his signature on the original bye-laws submitted to the Registrar of
Cooperative Society i.e. Ex. PW16/E and on the carbon copy of
intensive inquiry proforma Ex. PW90/G. He deposed that he had
no communication regarding the society’s activities since long.
Subsequent Members of Society :
78. PW-88 Sh. Uma Shankar deposed that he knew Sh.
Sandeep Sahni through one Sh. Saxena, who was in the business
of building construction. Sh. Saxena told him to become member
of Cooperative Group Housing Society so that he could get a flat
and also do some construction work. Sh. Saxena gave him a form
to open a bank account for the society’s purpose and he signed the
form. After opening the account, a cheque book was issued and he
signed some cheques and handed over the same to Sh. Saxena. He
identified specimen signature card of Central Bank of India Ex.
PW88/A and his photograph as well as photograph of Sh. Sandeep
Sahni. He identified his own signature, but could not identify
signature written as “Sandeep Sahni” on it. He denied that
signatures on cheque no. 568182 dated 26.02.2002 for Rs.10 lakhs
drawn on Central Bank of India in favour of M/s Prime Towers
and the pay slip for deposit of the same amount in account no.
18699 of M/s Bankmen’s CGHS Mark PW88/1 and PW88/2 were
done by him. He also denied that signatures on cheque no. 568187
dated 24.04.2002 for Rs.10 lakhs drawn on Central Bank of India
in favour of self Mark PW88/3 were his signatures. He also denied
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 43 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
that signatures on cheque no. 568181 dated 26.12.2001 for
Rs.67,40,169/- drawn on Central Bank of India in favour of DDA
and the corresponding pay slip i.e. Mark PW88/4 and Mark
PW88/5 were appended by him.
PW-88 Sh. Uma Shankar had turned hostile and he
was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI. In his cross-examination
by ld. PP for CBI, The witness stated that his statement u/s 161
Cr. PC i.e. Ex. PW88/B given to IO was almost similar. He denied
the suggestions given by the ld. PP for CBI.
Officials of RCS Office :
79. PW-41 Sh. Prahlad Kumar Thirwani deposed that
from May 2000 to October 2004, he was posted as Senior Auditor
in the Audit Branch of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Parliament
Street, Delhi. He had conducted the audit of Bankmen’s
Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. He proved the audit file
of the said society as Ex. PW41/A (Colly). In the said audit file,
he identified checklist of the documents and enclosures, Option-
cum-Appointment Letter and brief summary of the society. He
also admitted/ identified audit report submitted by him. He further
identified signatures of Sh. J. S. Sharma, the then AR Audit and
signatures of Sh. S. K. Sharma, the then Dealing Assistant on the
checklist. He admitted / identified his signatures on the documents
i.e. appointment letter and the balance sheet. He also stated that
during investigation, his specimen signatures, initials and
handwriting i.e. Ex. PW41/B (Colly) were taken by the IO.
80. PW-42 Sh. Devinder Singh Nijjar deposed that he
remained posted as Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies w.e.f.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 44 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
03.02.2000 to 30.07.2001 and his duties as Joint Registrar
involved assisting the Registrar. Inspector H. S. Sachan, CBI had
contacted him in relation to the investigation of this case and had
inquired regarding the revival of Bankmen’s Cooperative Group
Housing Society. The file relating to Bankmen’s Cooperative
Group Housing Society was maintained in the office of Assistant
Registrar by the Dealing Assistant concerned. He identified his
endorsement dated 17.02.2000 Ex. PW42/A. He stated that this
endorsement was regarding the revival of Bankmen’s Cooperative
Group Housing Society, but there was no recommendation on his
behalf. He identified his noting dated 15.03.2000 Ex. PW42/B and
stated that as per this endorsement, the Deputy Registrar had
recommended revival of the society and he had sought certain
clarifications as mentioned in his note. He identified typed noting
dated 28.03.2000 Ex. PW42/C and stated that he had not made any
recommendation for revival, but had recorded that RCS may like
to give the management and if possible, the members a hearing
before a decision was taken.
PW-42 Sh. Devinder Singh Nijjar identified his
initials dated 30.03.2000 on the document Ex. PW42/D and Ex.
PW42/E. He also proved noting dated 31.05.2000 written in his
own handwriting Ex. PW42/F and confirmed the contents of the
note. He also confirmed the contents of note dated 20.06.2000 Ex.
PW42/G. He identified signatures of Sh. R. K. Srivastava, the then
RCS on the said note and stated that he had put his initials dated
21.06.2000 on the note i.e. Ex. PW42/H.
PW-42 Sh. Devinder Singh Nijjar further deposed
that after the note of Assistant Registrar, the file was put up before
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 45 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
him on which he had recorded “Pl. Spk” under his signatures Ex.
PW42/J. He proved note dated 07.07.2000 Ex. PW42/K and stated
that vide this note, he had recorded that RCS may like to take a
view, in view of the clarifications given by AR (C/ND). Thereafter,
RCS took a decision vide note from portion G to G at page 44/N
to 45/N and file was marked to him vide orders dated 13.07.2000.
He further stated that he had marked the file to Deputy Registrar
(C/ND) vide his signature dated 14.07.2000 Ex. PW42/L. He
further identified his note dated 19.07.2000 Ex. PW42/M and note
dated 26.07.2000 as well as his initials dated 25.07.2000 Ex.
PW42/P. He identified his initials marked on page 47/N of D-18
Ex. PW42/Q and Ex. PW42/R respectively.
81. PW-17 Sh. Saroj Chandra Pradhan deposed that in
the year 2006, he was posted as a system analyst in the office of
Registrar Co-operative Societies, Parliament Street New Delhi.
Sh. M. S. Sharma was posted as Assistant Registrar
(computerization) at that time. Upon asking of the CBI, he
provided list of office bearers and members of the Bankmen’s
CGHS to the CBI vide letter dated 23.10.2006 Ex.PW17/A. He
also proved list of office bearers and members Ex. PW17/B.
82. PW-61 Sh. Amar Nath deposed that he had worked
in the office of Registrar Co-operative Societies (RCS) from 1998
to 1999 as UDC and he had also conducted audits of various Co-
operative Housing Societies. He identified the audit file of
Bankmen’s Co-operative Group Housing Society Ex. PW61/A. He
identified his signatures on the documents available in the said file
i.e. brief summary of the society, the letter of appointment for
conducting statutory audit, checklist for submission of audit report
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 46 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
and the audit report for the years 1991 to 2000. The above-said
audit report was prepared by him on the basis of documents
supplied to him in his office and he had not visited the spot for
preparing the said audit report. He also stated that he had
conducted the said audit under the instructions of the Assistant
Registrar.
83. PW-75 Sh. M.D. Sharma deposed that in the year
2000, he was posted as Assistant Registrar in the Cooperative
Societies Department at Parliament Street (West Zone) and was
also given additional charge of other zones and the Policy Branch.
At that time, Sh. R.K. Srivastava was the Registrar, Cooperative
Societies. He identified his noting dated 18.11.1999 Ex. PW75/A.
He also identified signatures of Sh. N.K. Sharma, the then Joint
Registrar and the signature of Sh. R.K. Srivastava on the said
noting. The said noting portion was exhibited as Ex. PW75/A. He
identified the noting dated 18.01.2000 Ex. PW75/B and signatures
of Sh. A.K. Handa (Dealing Hand), Sh. R.K. Srivastava and
signature of Sh. Krishan Kumar (the then Joint Registrar-II) on the
said noting. He further identified noting Ex. PW75/C and
signatures of Sh. A.K. Handa and Sh. P.D. Sharma, the then Dy.
Registrar.
PW-75 Sh. M. D. Sharma also identified the noting
Ex. PW75/D and signatures of Sh. A.K. Handa and Sh. P.D.
Sharma. He also identified notings Ex. PW75/E and signatures of
Sh. A.K. Handa, Sh. P.D. Sharma and Sh. D.S. Nijjar, the then Joint
Registrar. He further identified notings Ex. PW75/F and
signatures of Sh. A.K. Handa and Sh. P.D. Sharma.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 47 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
PW-75 Sh. M. D. Sharma also deposed that he held
additional charge as Assistant Registrar of the Central Zone till
27.03.2000. He correctly identified accused R.K. Srivastava in
court and stated that he was the Registrar Cooperative Societies
during that period. He stated that normally the President,
Secretary, or other members of the managing committee of a
society used to bring records to the office. He identified accused
R. K. Srivastava present in the court, but he failed to identify
accused Rajan Chopra in the court.
84. PW-77 Sh. Handu Baa deposed that in March, 2006
he joined the Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies as
Assistant Registrar. The revival proceedings were initiated on
application received on behalf of the defunct society and thereafter
the Registrar appointed an Inspector to inspect and furnish a report
on the basis of which further decision was taken. He was
summoned by CBI officials at the CBI office where he was asked
for certain documents relating to cooperative societies and he
provided those documents to the CBI. He identified letter dated
08.03.2006 Ex. PW77/A vide which he had handed over four
original documents of the office of Registrar of Cooperative
Societies to CBI. He deposed that bunch of original documents
were handed over by him to CBI vide Ex. PW77/A to Ex. PW77/E.
Postal Witnesses :
85. PW-43 Sh. Umed Singh, Postman deposed that in
the year 2007, he was posted at Market Road Post Office, Bhai
Veer Singh Marg, New Delhi and used to circulate the posts in the
Panchkuiya Road area. He proved the envelope of Speed Post No.CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 48 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
ED232178169IN addressed to Sh. S. K. Sinha S/o Sh. G. Sinha,
R/o 243/48, Panchkuiya Road, Delhi as Ex. PW43/A. He also
identified endorsement regarding regarding “house lock” and “no
such person at such address” made by another postman namely
Azad Singh on the backside of said envelope.
86. PW-44 Sh. Tejbhan, Postman deposed that in the
year 2007, he was posted at Samay Pur Badli Post Office, New
Delhi and used to circulate the posts in the Swaroop Nagar area.
He proved the envelope of Speed Post No. ED232173087IN
addressed to Sh. Vinit Dangi (MS No. 121), S/o Sh. Abhay Raj
Dangi, R/o 123, Gali No. 8, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi i.e. PW44/A.
He also identified endorsement “bina block number ke adhoora
pata” made by him on the said envelope.
87. PW-45 Sh. Satpal Mann, Postman deposed that in
the year 2007, he was posted at the Post Office of Burari, Delhi.
He proved the envelope addressed to Shri Partosh Tyagi (MS
No.103), S/o Shri Umesh Tyegi, R/o House No.22, Village Burari,
Delhi-110084, having Speed Post No. ED232155843IN i.e. Ex.
PW45/A. He also identified his endorsement regarding “no such
person at this Burari Village” on the said envelope.
88. PW-46 Sh. Satyender Kumar, Postman deposed that
in the year 2007, he was posted in the same post office and Rajouri
Garden area used to come in his beat. He proved the envelope
addressed to Shri R. L. Bhatia, R/o Telephone Exchange, Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi, having Speed Post No. ED232147396IN i.e.
Ex. PW46/A. He also identified his endorsement to the effect that
“incomplete address without H. No.” on the said envelope.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 49 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
89. PW-47 Sh. Minhaj Uddin, Postman deposed that in
the year 2007, he was posted at Post Office Punjabi Bagh. He
proved the envelope addressed to Shri Vikram Chawla, S/o Late
Shri T. R. Chawla, R/o H. No. 4, Road No. 20, East Punjabi Bagh,
Delhi, having Speed Post No. ED232155809IN i.e. Ex. PW47//A.
He also identified the endorsement to the effect that “receiver is
not residing at the said address therefore returned”. He further
identified the stamp of Punjabi Bagh Post Office dated 02.03.2007.
90. PW-48 Smt. Saroj, Postman deposed that in the year
2007, she was posted at Branch Office Amarahi. She proved the
envelope addressed to Shri Yudishtar, S/o Shri Dhan Singh, R/o
Amber High, Plot No.36, Dwarka, Sector-19, Delhi, having Speed
Post No. ED232177438IN i.e. PW48/A. She also identified her
endorsement to the effect that “is number mai is naam ka aadmi
nahi mila, atha vaapis”.
91. PW-49 Sh. Rajender Singh, Postman deposed that in
the year 2017, he was posted as Postman at New Sabzi Mandi,
Azad Pur, Delhi-110033 and Beat No. 16 was under his
jurisdiction, which included Vijay Nagar area. He proved the
envelope addressed to Sh. Narender Kumar Malik, S/o Sh. J.P.
Malik, R/o D-13, Vijay Nagar, Delhi-110007 i.e. Ex. PW49/A. He
identified his his endorsement to the effect that “no such person at
this address, D-13 B” and the same was returned by him to the
sender.
92. PW-50 Sh. Ishwar Singh deposed that in the year
2007, he was posted as Postman at Ramesh Nagar Head Post
Office, New Delhi-110015. He proved the envelope addressed to
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 50 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Sh. Pavitra Satbir Singh, S/o Sh. Ram Kumar, R/o F-86, Bali
Nagar, New Delhi i.e. Ex. PW50/A. He identified his endorsement
to the effect that “F-86, Bali Nagar, New Delhi-110015, plot khali
pada hai, koi nahi rehta.” He stated that the envelope was returned
to the sender as undelivered.
93. PW-51 Sh. Navneet Kishore deposed that in the year
2007, he was posted as Postman at Vasundhra Enclave Post Office,
Delhi-110096 and the area of New Ashok Nagar used to come
under his jurisdiction. He had seen the envelope addressed to Sh.
Umesh Singh S/o Sh. Maheshwar Singh, R/o B-1/313, Gali No.
10, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110016 i.e. Ex. PW51/A. He
identified his endorsement to the effect that “no such person in this
address” and stated that the said envelope was returned to the
sender as undelivered.
94. PW-52 Sh. Om Prakash deposed that in the year
2007, he was posted as Postman in the Post Office of Nand Nagri,
C Block, Delhi-110093 and the area of GTB Enclave used to come
under his beat/jurisdiction. He proved the envelope addressed to
Sh. Umesh Sachdeva, S/o Sh. Charanjeet, R/o 1854, GTB Enclave,
Delhi i.e. Ex. PW52/A. He identified his endorsement on the said
envelopei.e. “as the addressee was not found at the said address”
and stated that he had returned the said envelope to the sender.
95. PW-53 Sh. Jai Bhagwan deposed that in the year
2007, he was posted as Postman in the Post Office, Malka Ganj,
Delhi-110007 and the area of 6/24, Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj
used to come under his beat/jurisdiction. He proved the envelope
addressed to Sh. Ashok Kumar, S/o Sh. Jagan Nath, R/o 6/24,
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 51 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj, Delhi i.e. Ex. PW53/A. He
identified his endorsement at portion A on the said envelope. He
also stated that he had returned the said envelope to the sender.
96. PW-84 Sh. Ram Udgar Dass, Postman deposed that
he was allotted Beat No. 1 falling within the Tilak Nagar Post
Office. He identified notice dated 27.02.2007 alongwith the
envelope addressed to Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, S/o Sh. P.I. Sachdeva,
R/o G-2, Mukhram Garden Post Office, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
in the additional documents already Ex. PW74/G (colly). He
identified endorsement on the above-said envelopein his
handwriting with his signatures dated 01.03.2007. He stated that
he had reported “no such person G-2 in Mukhram Garden.” He
deposed that he had personally visited the aforesaid address but
did not find any such person residing there. He proved said
envelope as Ex. PW84/A.
97. PW-85 Sh. Kawal Prasad, Postman deposed that he
was allotted Beat No. 4 falling within the Kashmere Gate Post
Office. He identified notice dated 27.02.2007 along with envelope
addressed to Sh. Ravinder Kumar Gupta, S/o Late A.S. Gupta, R/o
3043, Sushila Street, behind Kali Masjid, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi
Ex. PW74/G (colly). He identified his endorsement in his
handwriting with his signature dated 28.05.2007 on the above-said
envelope(Ex. PW85/A). He stated that vide the said endorsement,
he had reported “no such person reside, so return to centre.” He
had personally visited the aforesaid address but did not find any
person of such name residing there.
98. PW-86 Sh. Bijender Kumar, Postman deposed that
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 52 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
he was posted as Postman in Safdarjung Enclave Post Office and
was allotted Beat No. 4 in the year 2007. He identified notice dated
27.02.2007 along with envelope addressed to Sh. Pal Verma, S/o
Sh. A.C. Verma, R/o G-31, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-29 Ex.
PW74/G (colly). He identified his handwriting with his signature
dated 02.03.2007 on the above-said envelope(Ex. PW86/A). Vide
said endorsement, he had reported “no such person at this
address.” He stated that he had personally visited the aforesaid
address and did not find any person of such name residing there.
Public Witnesses Relating To Fabricated Documents :
99. PW-55 Sh. Vipin Gandotra deposed that he was
retired Chartered Accountant and had remained in practice from
the year 1977 to 2016. He had his office under the name and style
of M/s V.G. and Company at 44/7B, Regal Building, Connaught
Place, New Delhi and he had not opened any other office except
it. The letter Ex. PW55/A contained the name and address of his
office but did not mention the words “Chartered Accountants.” He
stated that the said letter was signed by one Vivek Gandotra. He
also stated that although the letter mentioned that “The Bankmen’s
Group Housing Society is properly working with us,” but no such
society was ever working with his firm at the said address.
100. PW-57 Sh. Mohit Saxena deposed that he came to
Delhi in 1997 and his uncle accused S. P. Saxena was a property
dealer having his office at C-34-D, Madhu Vihar, Patparganj,
Delhi and was dealing in sale and purchase of flats. He worked
with him till 2005. He further stated that he had heard about
Sandeep Sahni from S. P. Saxena. He identified several documentsCC No. 42/2019 Page no. 53 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
which were in his handwriting. He stated that documents i.e.
(Resignation-cum-Receipt Letters Ex. Ex.PW57/A to Ex.PW57/H,
Ex.PW57/J to Ex.PW57/N, Ex.PW57/P to Ex.PW57/EE and Ex.
Ex.PW14/C (D-9), Ex.PW18/B (D-9), Ex.PW16/D (D-9),
Ex.PW20/F(D-9), Ex.PW29/D (D-9), Ex.PW29/C (D-9),
Ex.PW27/C (D-9), Ex.PW27/B (D-9), Ex.PW13/B (D-9),
Ex.PW3/D (D-9), Ex.PW3/C (D-9), receipt Ex.PW28/B,
Ex.PW28/C (D-9), Ex.PW6/C (D-9), Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW7/C
(D-9), Ex.PW30/C, Ex.PW30/C (D-9), Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/C
(Colly) (D-9)) were in his handwriting except for dates, signatures
or numerals. He also stated that he might have filled all these
Resignation-cum-Receipt Letters and Receipts at the instance of
S. P. Saxena.
101. PW-58 Sh. Ashutosh Pant deposed that in the year
1999-2000, he was doing part-time accountancy work besides his
LIC job. He stated that he knew Ashwani Sharma since 1999-2000
as both were LIC Agents in the same branch. He further stated that
he knew accused S. P. Saxena (expired) since 2006 as he was co-
accused with him in several other cases and that he also knew
Navin Kaushik as he too was co-accused with him in other cases.
PW-58 Sh. Ashutosh Pant had turned hostile and he
was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI. In his cross-examination,
he denied all the suggestions given by ld. PP for CBI.
102. PW-59 Sh. Ashwani Sharma deposed that during the
period from 1996 to 2005, he was doing the work of accountancy
as well as working as an LIC Agent. He stated that he knew
accused S. P. Saxena (expired) since the year 2000 and that he was
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 54 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
doing the work of accountancy in Anjuman Cooperative Group
Housing Society where accused S. P. Saxena was the President.
PW-59 Sh. Ashwani Sharma had turned hostile and
he was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI. In his cross-
examination, he denied all the suggestions given by ld. PP for CBI.
103. PW-60 Sh. P. R. Nair, President of Southern Staff
Cooperative Urban Thrift and Credit Society deposed that he had
retired from MTNL, Delhi from the post of Chief Accounts
Officer. He stated that during the year 1999-2000, he was working
with the Department of Telecom, Sanchar Bhawan. He alongwith
his wife Mariamma Raghu and her niece Shiny Mathew used to
reside together. In the year 1999, one Rajan Chopra approached
him for preparation of records of Bankmen’s Co-operative Group
Housing Society and he had prepared the documents and handed
over the same to him. He identified the proceedings Ex. PW-28/H
and Ex. PW-60/A and stated that these pages were in his
handwriting and the minutes pasted on these pages were prepared
by him on his computer. He further stated that he had signed the
document as Election Officer. The proceedings dated 15.09.1994
Ex. PW-60/B, 10.08.1996 Ex. PW-60/D, dated 30.06.1997 Ex.
PW28/G, PW60/E & F respectively were in the handwriting of his
wife Mrs. Mariamma Raghu. He further stated that the records of
meetings of 1994, 1996 and 1997 were actually prepared in the
year 1999 at the instructions of Mr. Rajan Chopra and he was not
aware if any such meetings had actually taken place.
PW-60 Sh. P. R. Nair further deposed that the
proceedings recorded in register Ex. PW-35/C pertaining to the
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 55 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
years 1990 to 1999 were in the handwriting of his wife Mrs.
Mariamma Raghu, except for the pages Ex. PW-12/C-1 to Ex.
PW-12/C-5. All these proceedings were written in the year 1999
on the instructions of Mr. Rajan Chopra. In the membership
register, entries from Serial No. 66 to 116 (Ex. PW-60/H) were
made by his wife Mrs. Mariamma Raghu and the handwriting in
green colour was his own. These entries were also made in the
year 1999 on the instructions of Mr. Rajan Chopra. He had
prepared the list of members on his computer i.e. Ex. PW-60/J
(colly).
PW-60 Sh. P. R. Nair also deposed that in the
proceedings register Ex. PW-12/D-2 the handwriting in green ink
was his. The resignation letters were written by his wife Mrs.
Mariamma Raghu and the dates mentioned on the stamp
“resignation accepted by the MC on” were written by him. All
these resignation letters were prepared in the year 1999 as per the
instructions of Mr. Rajan Chopra. He did not know the signatories
of those letters and that the dates were written according to the
minutes of meetings. He stated that the application forms for
membership in file D-15 (Ex. PW-60/L) were in the handwriting
of his wife Mrs. Mariamma Raghu and the dates on the stamp
“application accepted by the MC on” were written by him. All
these application forms were prepared in the year 1999 on the
instructions of Mr. Rajan Chopra.
PW-60 Sh. P. R. Nair also deposed that Mr. Rajan
Chopra had told him that society was required to be revived and
that these documents were necessary for that purpose. He stated
that Rajan Chopra had promised to pay Rs. 5,000/- to him but he
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 56 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
did not pay the amount stating that the records prepared by him
had not been used. He had signed Ex. PW-60/A as Election Officer,
whereas, no such election proceedings had taken place before him
and the record was prepared by him at the instructions of Rajan
Chopra. He further stated that the signatures at Q-1315, Q-1316
and Q-1317 were not made in his presence. He stated that his
statement had been recorded during investigation as well as before
the court. He identified his signature on his statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW-60/M). However, when it came to identifying the
accused, the witness failed to identify accused Rajan Chopra in the
court.
PW-60 also denied that accused Rajan Chopra had
signed on Ex. PW60/A in his presence. He also also stated that he
did not tell the IO during recording of his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC
Ex. PW60/N that Mr. Rajan Chopra had also signed on the election
proceedings in his presence.
104. PW-63 Smt. Mariamma Raghu w/o Sh. P. R. Nair
deposed that she knew about Bankmen’s Co-operative Group
Housing Society as one person had brought the work of said
society for her husband. She further stated that she had prepared
the minutes of meeting and other documents of said society. She
identified page no. 29 (Ex. PW-28/H), 30 and 31 (Ex. PW-60/A)
of the proceedings register and stated that pages 29 and 30
contained the handwriting of her husband. She also identified page
nos. 20 to 22 of the proceedings register Ex. PW-38/D and Ex.
PW-60/B & C and deposed that the proceedings dated 15.09.1994
were written in her handwriting. She also identified pages no. 23,
24 and 25 of Ex. PW-60/D of the proceeding register which is the
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 57 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
proceeding dated 10.08.1996 and stated that these porceedings
were written in her handwriting.
PW-63 Smt. Mariamma Raghu also deposed that the
pages 26, 27 and 28 of Ex. PW-60/E & F and Ex. PW-28/G i.e.
minutes of meeting dated 30.06.1997 were in her handwriting.
The said records pertained to the minutes of meetings of the years
1994, 1996 and 1997 and were prepared in the year 1999 as per
instructions of her husband. She identified proceeding register Ex.
PW-35/C, Ex. PW-60/G, Ex. PW 12/C-1 to PW12/C-5 and the
proceeding dated 10.04.1990, 01.07.1990, 13.09.1990,
28.11.1990, 06.02.1991, 21.04.1991, 27.08.1991, 24.10.1991,
19.01.1992, 15.03.1992, 10.04.1992, 01.07.1992 Ex. PW-12/C-1,
20.09.1992 Ex. PW-12/C2, 28.11.1992, 06.02.1993, 17.04.1993
Ex.PW-12/C-3, 29.07.1993, 13.10.1993, Ex.PW-12/C4,
15.01.1994, 15.03.1994 Ex.PW-12/C5, 10.04.1994, 01.07.1994,
15.09.1994, 28.11.1994, 06.02.1995, 17.04.1995, 10.06.1995,
17.08.1995, 20.01.1996, 10.05.1996,10.08.1996, 20.04.1997,
30.06.1997, 20.10.1997, 15.04.1998, 29.06.1998, 13.09.1998,
14.02.1999 and stated that these proceedings were in her
handwriting and the signatures on the said documents were not
made by her. The said proceedings were written in the year
1999.
PW-63 Smt. Mariamma Raghu deposed that the
membership register and entries Ex. PW60/H, Ex PW12B, Ex
PW34A, Ex PW24, EXPW34, EXPW29/F containing name,
father’s name, address and profession from SI No 66 to 116 Ex.
PW-12B, Ex.PW-34A, Ex.PW-2F, Ex.PW-3F were made by her in
the year 1999. She also identified file D-10 Ex. PW60/K, Ex.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 58 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
PW34/C Ex PW39/C, PW56/C, PW26/A, Ex. PW33/A. Ex.
PW15/C. Ex. PW8/B, EX.PW1/9D. EX. PW31/B and Ex.
PW25/B containing the resignation letters and handwriting. She
stated that all these resignation letters were prepared in the year
1999.
PW-63 Smt. Mariamma Raghu further stated that
file D-15 Ex. PW-60/L, Ex. PW38/A, Ex. PW27/D. Ex. PW30/A,
Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW28/A, Ex. PW6/A. Ex. PW13/A,
Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW34/B, Ex. PW39/B and Ex. PW56/B and that
the application forms for membership of Bankmen’s CGHS and
the hand writings in it were written by her. These application
forms were prepared in the year 1999.
PW-63 Smt. Mariamma Raghu also deposed that
during investigation she had given her specimen handwriting and
signatures i.e. marked Ex. PW-63/A (colly). She also stated that
her statement u/s 164 Cr. PC was also recorded before the court.
She stated that one Rajan Chopra had visited her
house and the said accused asked her husband to prepare above-
mentioned documents. However, subsequent to these aspects she
turned hostile. In her cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI, she
stated that she did not remember whether she had stated in her
statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC that Rajan Chopra visited her
house at the above-mentioned address and the said accused had
stated to her that she had to record some proceedings. She also
failed to identify accused Rajan Chopra in the court.
105. PW-91 Sh. Naveen Kaushik deposed that he had
completed M.Com and he was CA (Intermediate) qualified. He
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 59 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
came to Delhi around the year 2001 for completion of CA and for
doing part-time job. He joined the office of Sh. Ashwani Sharma
around the year 2002-03 where he looked after income-tax work
and Sh. Ashwani Sharma used to do accounting work. He came to
know about Sh. S.P. Saxena or Sh. Gokul Chand Aggarwal only
after registration of some cases against them. He was paid Rs.
4000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month by Sh. Ashwani Sharma for the
work he used to perform in his office. He identified his
handwriting in photocopy of minutes of proceedings in file D-29
Ex. PW91/A (colly). He deposed that he was not an office bearer
of Bankmen Group Housing Society. One Mr. Jain from Bankmen
Group Housing Society used to visit him for income-tax work and
perhaps the said minutes of proceedings Ex. PW91/A (colly) were
written during that period.
PW-91 Naveen Kaushik turned hostile and he was
cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI. In his cross-examination by ld.
PP for CBI, he stated that first para of his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC
Ex. PW91/B was correct, but he denied remaining contents of his
statement.
Public Witness of Investigation/ Specimen Signatures :
106. PW-70 Sh. Pardeep Kumar Saroj deposed that in the
year 2006 he was posted as Officer in the Official Language
Department of Punjab National Bank, Rajendra Place, Delhi. On
the directions of his senior officers, he had reported to the CBI
Office for one week where specimen signatures and handwritings
of about 14-15 persons were taken in his presence without any
force and coercion. Proceedings to this effect were reduced into
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 60 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
writing and signed by him. He also identified specimen signatures
and handwriting of those persons i.e. Ex. PW70/A (Colly).
107. PW-73 Sh. Deepak Gautam deposed that in the year
2007, he was posted as Stenographer in Punjab National Bank,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. As per the instructions of his
seniors, he had visited the office of CBI for verification of
signatures of one person, where the specimen signatures of that
person were taken by CBI officials in his presence and he had
signed the same papers as a witness. He identified his signatures
on the specimen signatures/handwriting of Sh. Sandeep Sahni
from S-560 to S-569 Ex. PW73/A (colly) and stated that these
documents were prepared in his presence.
108. PW-54 Sh. Ram Prakash Dhingra deposed that he
had retired from the post of Personal Secretary in the Ministry of
Finance, Government of India. During the period from 1997 to
2000, he was working in the Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers.
He did not know anything about Bankmen’s Cooperative Group
Housing Society. He also stated that he was once called by the
CBI during investigation of the present case.
PW-54 Sh. Ram Prakash Dhingra turned hostile and
he was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI. In his cross-
examination, he denied the contents of his statement Ex. PW54/X.
He stated that he did not remember if he had stated to CBI that he
knew Mukesh Sharma, Deepak Khanna and R. K. Mangla who
were employees of SBI. In his cross-examination, he stated that he
did not remember if he had stated to the CBI that one Rajan Chopra
once told him to inform about any non functional CGHS. He
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 61 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
further stated that he did not remember if he had stated to the CBI
that since he was already having knowledge about the society
namely Banksmen CGHS Ltd., which was lying defunct, he told
Mr. Chopra about this society and Mr. Chopra then directed him to
bring all records from the society people and he will get it
functional. He further stated that he he did not remember if he had
stated to CBI that the settlement was that Mr. Chopra would
initially give Rs.25,000/- to Shri Deepak Khanna at the rate of
about Rs.2000/- per resignation and the records of the society
would be handed over to Mr. Rajan Chopra after initial payment
of Rs.25,000/- and Mr. Chopra had assigned this task to him to pay
the amount to Mr. Deepak Khanna and collect the records. He did
not remember whether he had stated to the CBI that he explained
the proposal to Mr. Deepak Khanna and Mr. R.K. Mangla and both
agreed upon the proposal and he accordingly collected sum of
Rs.25,000/- from Mr. Rajan Chopra and paid it to Mr. Deepak
Khanna and R.K. Mangla and the records of the society were
collected by him from the residence of Mr. R.K. Mangla from
Paschim Vihar and according to the deal he had handed over the
records to Mr. Rajan Chopra. He also did not remember whether
he had stated to CBI that after few days, Mr. Deepak Khanna had
given resignations of members to him which he had collected from
his office and then were handed over to Mr. Rajan Chopra and in
this context he had several meetings with Mr. Deepak Khanna and
R.K. Mangla. He also did not remember whether he had stated to
CBI that he had mediated the deal between them and thereafter Mr
Rajan Chopra had not asked him to collect any more resignations
and also Deepak Khanna and R.K. Mangla did not hand over any
resignations to him. PW-54 also failed to identify accused Rajan
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 62 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Chopra in the court.
Expert Witnesses :
109. PW-76 P. Vijaya Shankar deposed that he had retired
as Director from CFSL, Pune. He was a Post Graduate in
Chemistry and had joined the Laboratory of GEQD, Hyderabad in
the year 1989 as Assistant Intelligence Officer, Grade-I
(Documents). He had received three years in-service training in
handwriting examination and detection of forgery under document
related problems. He had 34 years of experience in the field of
document examination and had worked in various capacities in
GEQD laboratory at Hyderabad. During his service, he had
examined more than 2000 cases referred by various investigating
agencies, Hon’ble Courts, Vigilance Departments, Central Govt.
Organizations and Public Sector Undertakings.
The witness stated that the documents pertaining to
this case were received in GEQD, Hyderabad in the year 2007 and
this case was marked to him for examination and opinion. He
identified letters dated 19.03.2007, 19.12.2007 and 13.11.2007
alongwith annexures which were received in his office i.e. Ex.
PW76/A, Ex. PW76/B and Ex. PW76/C. He also identified his
report dated 27.07.2007 Ex. PW76/D and Ex. PW76/E.
PW-76 P. Vijaya further deposed that during
examination, he had compared the general writing habits and
individual writing characteristics of the questioned documents
with the supplied specimen signatures/writings of various persons
as per the questionnaire and gave his reports/opinions based on
various observations made. He also proved reasons for the reports
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 63 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
which were submitted in the court subsequently as Ex.PW76/F
(colly).
Witnesses Regarding Sanction Orders :
110. PW-1 Sh. Dharmendra, the then Commissioner cum
Secretary Industry, Industries Department, Delhi Government
deposed that being the competent authority he had accorded the
sanction for prosecution of accused Dilip Singh Negi, Inspector,
Industries Department vide sanction order Ex. PW1/A. He
forwarded the said sanction order to CBI vide letter dated
13.03.2008 Ex. PW1/B.
111. PW-5 S. G. Mulchandaney, the then Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India
deposed that request for seeking sanction for prosecution of
accused R. K. Srivastava was received from CBI. The matter was
processed by the department and the entire record alongwith CVC
advice were placed before the sanctioning authority i.e. Hon’ble
Prime Minister of India, Minister Incharge acting on behalf of the
Hon’ble President of India. The President of India was competent
authority to remove accused R. K. Srivastava. The approval of
competent authority was conveyed by PMO to the department and
accordingly the decision was conveyed/ forwarded through the
sanction order dated 18.08.2010 Ex. PW5/A to CBI.
Investigating Officers :
112. PW-74 Sh. H.S. Sachan i.e. IO of the case deposed
that in the year 2006, he was posted as Inspector, SCR-III, New
Delhi. RC No. 7(S)/2006/CBI/SCR-III/New Delhi was registered
as a result of a preliminary inquiry directed by the Hon’ble High
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 64 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Court of Delhi. The same was marked to him and during
investigation he recorded statements of witnesses under section
161 Cr.P.C., wrote letters to various authorities, received their
replies and obtained specimen signatures/handwriting of various
persons and accused in presence of independent witnesses. He
sent the above-stated signatures / handwriting to GEQD for
examination. Later on he received reports from GEQD and sought
sanction for prosecution of public servants. He filed chargesheet
upon completion of investigation.
PW-74 identified FIR No. RC 7(S)/2006/CBI/SCR-
III/New Delhi dated 21.09.2006 Ex. PW74/A, production-cum-
seizure memo dated 28.09.2006 Ex. PW74/B and production-cum-
seizure memo dated 05.06.2006 Ex. PW72/3. He stated that vide
seizure memo dated 27.10.2006 Ex. PW74/C he had seized
documents from accused Deepak Khanna.
PW-74 Sh. H.S. Sachan identified letters and
documents which were received from different banks and
authorities i.e. letter dated 28.11.2006 from Bank of India (Mark
PW74/1 colly), letter dated 12.06.2007 from Canara Bank (Mark
PW74/2 colly), letter dated 06.09.2007 from Deputy Registrar
(Mark PW74/3), letter dated 10.05.2007 from Central Bank of
India (Mark PW74/4 colly) and letter dated 24.10.2007 from Sr.
Manager Central Bank of India (Ex. PW74/D colly). He
identified letter dated 19.03.2007 issued by SP, GEQD, Hyderabad
alongwith annexures. He also identified other set of letters and
documents which were received from different banks i.e. letter
dated 30.11.2007 from Chief Manager, Central Bank of India
(Mark PW74/5 colly), letter dated 08.12.2007 from Sr. Branch
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 65 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Manager, Syndicate Bank (Mark PW74/6 colly).
PW-74 Sh. H.S. Sachan deposed that he had seized
documents from Sh. Krishan Kumar Mehra, Branch Manager,
State Bank of Mysore, Delhi through production-cum-seizure
memo dated 06.12.2007 (Ex. PW74/E colly). He had obtained
specimen handwriting/signatures of various persons and the same
were given voluntarily in presence of independent witnesses. He
proved the said documents as Ex. PW74/F (colly).
PW-74 Sh. H.S. Sachan further deposed that he had
moved applications and statements of Shri P.R. Nair and Smt.
Mariamma Raghu u/s 164 Cr.P.C were recorded. He had recorded
statements of several witnesses i.e. Ram Prakash Dhingra (Ex.
PW54/X), Devender Kumar Tyagi (Ex. PW40/A), Shri P.R. Nair
(Ex. PW60/N) and Dinesh Gupta (Ex. PW74/H). He had issued
notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to various members of the
society by speed post/registered post. He identified said notices
from page 1 to 98 along with envelopes as Ex. PW74/G (colly).
He also stated that vide letter dated 18.03.2006 Mark 74/I Sh.
Rajan Jha had collected the documents from DDA. He collected
the said letter during investigation.
PW-74 Sh. H. S. Sachan deposed that vide letter
dated 28.12.2006 Ex. PW74/J, Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd.
gave information to him. He also collected letter dated 12.05.2007
Ex. PW74/K alongwith its annexures/ documents. He took
specimen signatures and handwriting of Smt. Namit Sarkar and
Sh. Mahesh Kumar Gambhir (Ex. PW74/L and Ex. PW74/M
respectively) in the presence of independent witnesses.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 66 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
113. PW-92 Sh. Rajan Kumar Jha deposed that in the
year 2006 he was posted as Inspector of Police in CBI, Special
Crimes Region-III, New Delhi. In the follow-up of order passed
by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in February 2006, a preliminary
inquiry No. 1(S)/2006/SCR-III/New Delhi was registered in CBI
and the inquiry of this case was entrusted to him in March 2006.
During said inquiry he collected documents from different
authorities. After completion of preliminary inquiry, he
recommended conversion of PE into RC, and accordingly RC No.
7(S)/2006/CBI/SCR-III/New Delhi was registered on 21.09.2006.
PW-92 Sh. Rajan Kumar Jha also deposed that vide
production cum receipt memo Ex. PW72/3 (colly.) (D-25) he had
collected some documents from Sh. Rajiv Bajaj, the then Vice
President of Bankmen’s CGHS. He identified signatures of Sh.
Rajiv Bajaj on the said production-cum-receipt memo as the same
were signed in his presence during the preliminary inquiry.
Statements of All Accused :
114. Upon completion of entire prosecution evidence, the
incriminating evidence was put to all the accused persons in their
respective statements recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC, wherein all of them
denied the incriminating evidence. They took pleas that they were
falsely implicated in the present case and the allegations made by
the prosecution were false.
Defence Evidence :
115. Accused R. K. Srivastava and Sandeep Sahni did not
opt to lead defence evidence. Whereas, accused Rajan Chopra,
Bhoodev Prasad Mahaur and Dilip Singh Negi opted to lead their
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 67 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
respective defence evidence.
116. Accused Rajan Chopra examined Sh. Mukesh
Kumar Sharma i.e. Ahlmad of the court of ld. Special Judge (PC
Act), CBI-17, Delhi. The witness tendered the copy of chargesheet
of case titled CBI Vs. Gokul Chand Aggarwal and Ors. He further
stated that charge for the offences u/s 120-B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC
and u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC was framed against Gokul
Chand Aggarwal, Pawan Kumar, Ramesh Chandra, Narayan
Diwakar, Ashwani Sharma, Satish Singh Aswal, Naveen Kaushik,
Adeep Tejpal, Rakesh Sharda and Rajender Kumar Khichha. In
addition, charge for offences u/s 420, 471 IPC were framed against
Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Pawan Kumar, Naveen Kaushik, Adeep
Tejpal, Rakesh Sharda and Rajender Kumar Khichha. Charge of
offences u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC was framed against accused
Ashwani Sharma and u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act was
framed against accused Ramesh Chandra, Narayan Diwakar and
Satish Singh Aswal.
117. The ld. Defence counsel for accused no. 1 also
tendered copy of judgment passed in the aforementioned case i.e.
Ex. DX and its order dated 15.11.2025 i.e. Ex. DY. On
20.12.2025, the ld. defence counsel closed DE for accused no. 1.
118. Accused no. 3 examined DW-2 Smt. Milan Mathur,
Sr. Accountant, L & B Department, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi. She
deposed that as per service book of accused B. P. Mahaur he was
posted as Assistant Settlement Commissioner in Land and
Building Department in the year 2001. Accused no. 3 also closed
his DE on 06.01.2026.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 68 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
119. Accused no. 5 did not examine any witness in
defence and closed his DE on 20.12.2025.
Final Arguments : –
120. I have heard the oral arguments of the ld. PP for CBI
and the ld. defence counsels for all accused. I have also gone
through the written arguments submitted by ld. PP for CBI as well
as ld. defence counsels for accused no. 1, 3, 4 & 6 respectively.
The gist of the their arguments is as follows:-
Arguments of Ld. PP for CBI –
121. Ld. PP for CBI had argued that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that a large
number of prosecution witnesses have supported the case of
prosecution. He pointed out that witnesses including PW2, PW3,
PW4 and several others have deposed that they were not the
members of the society and their membership applications,
affidavits and resignations were forged. Additionally, witnesses
including PW8 (Vimal Kapoor, former President), PW9, PW10
and several others who were actual members, have deposed that
they did not submit resignations and the same were fake and
forged. The CFSL report does not opine that signatures of accused
Rajan Chopra had matched with questioned signatures, but it
shows that PW-60 P. R. Nair, PW-63 Mariamma Raghu and PW-57
Mohit Saxena had prepared the documents relating to society
subsequently. It also shows that accused no. 6 Sandeep Sahni had
signed on the cheques issued by him to DDA. Ld. PP contended
that this oral evidence, coupled with the documentary evidence on
record, clearly establishes that all accused persons were part of the
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 69 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
criminal conspiracy to fabricate documents, abuse official
positions and attempt to cheat DDA by reviving the society
through illegal means. The witnesses of the office of RCS i.e.
PW-42 D. S. Nijjar and others specifically stated that the notings
made by them were ignored. Thus, in totality the prosecution
witnesses have established the chain of sequence of events which
establishes that all accused were part of criminal conspiracy and
they had committed the offences for which they have been charge.
Hence, he argued that all accused may be convicted for the
commission of offences charged with.
Arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel for Accused No. 1 Rajan
Chopra –
122. The Ld. Sr. Advocate for accused Rajan Chopra had
emphatically argued that the present case is a classic case of
mistaken identity. He argued that the prosecution has not even
established even a single fact which could point towards
culpability of accused no. 1. He argued that in the GEQD
reports, the expert has conclusively opined that the documents
alleged to have been forged, including the letter dated
11.11.1999, the application form and the membership register do
not bear the signatures or handwriting of the accused. He argued
that prosecution has even failed to prove that his own
membership application form was written in his handwriting. He
argued that the GEQD report completely absolves the accused of
all charges of forgery.
Ld. Sr. Advocate further argued that there is no proof
of the accused submitting any document to the RCS office nor
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 70 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
any proof of his visit to the RCS office. There is absolutely no
evidence that he had met any of the co-accused or the fact that
the bank account was opened or operated by him. The
prosecution has also failed to prove that application for allotment
of land was made by him. He submitted that the accused derived
no benefit from the revival of society and no member had ever
made any complaint against him.
Ld. Sr. Advocate also argued that not a single
prosecution witness has identified the accused. PW-60 (P.R.
Nair) spoke of instructions from a person namely ‘Rajan Chopra’,
but he failed to identify the accused as the same person in the
court. PW-63 stated that she did not know any Rajan Chopra.
PW-54 (R.P. Dhingra) was declared hostile and he denied the
suggestion that he knew accused and could not identify him even
when specifically pointed out in cross-examination. PW-21 and
PW-65 denied knowledge of whom the records were handed over
to. PW-75 (M.D. Sharma) also failed to identify the accused as
the person visiting the RCS office. He argued that the ocular
evidence completely demolishes the prosecution’s story.
He also argued that the investigation is defective and
misdirected. He pointed out that PW-60 (P.R. Nair) and PW-63
(Mariamma Raghu) admitted to preparing various documents and
even introducing members, yet they were made witnesses and not
accused. Similarly, PW-91, PW-58, and PW-59 admitted to
preparing minutes and documents, yet were not charge-sheeted.
The IO, in cross-examination, could give no cogent reason for
this. He further pointed out that the Liquidator appointed by RCS
namely Faiz Mohammad did not take possession of the records
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 71 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
and was not examined. The persons named in the FIR i.e. Vikas
Jain, Harish Sharda, and Karan Tejpal were not charge-sheeted.
Referring to defence evidence, Ld. counsel submitted that
relatives of the persons mentioned in Ex. DX and DY were
accused in another case relating to Alankrit CGHS.
He vehemently argued that suspicion, however
strong, cannot substitute proof and the gaps in investigation
cannot be adequate to sustain the prosecution’s case. Thus, he
argued that the accused no. 1 Rajan Chopra may be acquitted of
all the charges.
Arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel for Accused No. 3 Bhoodev
Prasad Mahaur –
123. Ld. defence counsel for accused Bhoodev Prasad
Mahaur argued that there is no direct evidence of any agreement
and the chain of conspiracy stands broken as key officials i.e. Sh.
M.D. Sharma, Sh. P.D. Sharma, and Sh. D.S. Nijjar were not
named as accused in the case. He submitted that mens rea is
integral to Section 13(1) (d) PC Act and the prosecution has
failed to establish any corrupt intent. The accused first came into
the picture only on 10.05.2000, whereas the alleged dishonest
note was initiated on 07.02.2000. The recommendation for
revival was already made by Sh. M.D. Sharma, much before the
accused assumed charge. The Dy. Registrar Sh. P.D. Sharma had
independently recommended revival on 13.03.2000 and Joint
Registrar Sh. D.S. Nijjer had also consented. He also argued that
the Investigating Officer (PW-74) admitted in cross-examination
that he found no malafide act on the part of these predecessor
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 72 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
officials, who have not even been arrayed as accused.
Ld. counsel for the accused further argued that the
accused acted entirely bonafide, as is evident from his
recommendations. When the society submitted a list of 76
members, the accused recommended only 65 members in
response to the Joint Registrar’s note regarding freeze strength.
Subsequently, upon learning that a list of 74 members had
already been approved on 31.07.1985, he recommended the
freeze strength of only 74 members. He also argued that had he
been party to any conspiracy, he would have recommended all 76
members. It is further submitted that no private person ever
appeared before him, negating any possibility of collusion.
Ld. counsel also argued that the proceedings of
present case are vitiated for want of requisite sanction. Thus, he
also argued that prosecution has failed to establish guilt of
accused no. 3 and he may be acquitted.
Arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel for Accused No. 4 R.K.
Srivastava –
124. Ld. defence counsel for accused R.K. Srivastava
argued that the revival process was detailed, multi-layered and
involved multiple officers including the Area Inspector, Assistant
Registrar and Joint Registrar. The society, which was placed
under liquidation in 1992, had applied for revival after rectifying
all deficiencies including audit of accounts, holding of elections
and verification of membership. Referring to the file notings, Ld.
counsel contended that all queries raised by the Joint Registrar
and other officers were addressed and the revival was
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 73 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
recommended by the zonal office and approved by the RCS only
after due deliberation and satisfaction of the competent authority,
subject to compliance with statutory obligations. The
prosecution has failed to establish the requisite mens rea and the
chain of conspiracy stands broken as the Deputy Registrar and
Joint Registrar are not accused.
He also argued that the accused did not act in
isolation or disregard of official procedure. The prosecution
witnesses, including PW-17, PW-42, PW-61, and PW-77 have no
substantive role in establishing the charges against the accused
and they had merely exhibited documents. He also argued that no
direct evidence links the accused to any criminal agreement with
any of the co-accused. He contended that the sanction for
prosecution is vitiated. He also argued that accused no. 4 may be
acquitted.
Arguments for Accused No. 5 D. S. Negi-
125. The ld. Counsel for accused argued that there is no
evidence against the accused. The said accused was directed to
conduct enquiry and submit report in a proforma. He had merely
acted in discharge of his lawful duties. He argued that accused
no. 5 was not named in the FIR which was registered after
preliminary inquiry. The audit report Ex. PW77/E shows that the
address of society was the same which was verified to be true and
correct by accused D. S. Negi. Lastly, he argued that the sanction
against the accused is vitiated and bad in the eyes of law and
therefore accused no. 5 may also be acquitted.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 74 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel for Accused No. 6 Sandeep
Sahni –
126. Ld. defence counsel for accused Sandeep Sahni
argued that the primary allegation of payment of 35% land cost is
unsupported by any oral or documentary evidence. Even if the
payment is assumed to be true, it was entirely legal and in
accordance with the society’s bye-laws as the same is permitted
in Chapter IV Clause 10 which permits the society to accept
loans and deposits from members and non-members. Ld. counsel
further argued that there is no evidence on record to prove that
any loan was given to the society or that any repayment was ever
made to the accused. The prosecution has miserably failed to
establish the chain of custody of the society’s records. While it is
alleged that the accused handed over records to PW-36, but his
deposition is marred with contradictions. Ld. counsel further
argued that PW-36 (Sanjay Kumar) gave a vague and evasive
testimony, admitting that he did not know the accused’s
residence, business, or profession and could not remember
material particulars including the handing over of documents. He
was the brother of Vikas Jain who was given clean chit despite
the fact that he was the president of the society. The perusal of
cross-examination of this witness shows that he had not
participated in the proceedings of the society. These facts in
totality show that he had deposed in support of prosecution only
because of fear of implication of his brother. He argued that
there is no evidence whatsoever to show as to how the accused
came into possession of the alleged records. He submitted that
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 75 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
this fatal gap in the chain of custody completely demolishes the
prosecution’s case against the accused.
PW-57 (Mohit Saxena) did not depose anything
incriminating against accused no. 6. He stated that he had only
heard about the accused and did not know him personally. PW-88
failed to prove the banking transactions or the admitted writings
of the accused. PW-73 did not identify the person who gave the
specimen writings. He also argued that the handwriting expert
(PW-76) failed to annex reasons, work notes, or charts with his
report; his examination was cumulative without specifying which
specimen was compared with which document; and since the
specimen signatures and admitted writings were not proved, the
expert opinion holds no evidentiary value. Thus, he argued that
prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against
accused no. 6 and he may be aqcuitted.
Appreciation of Evidence vis-a-vis Allegations of Commission of
Offences by Accused Persons : –
127. The case of prosecution as set out in the chargesheet
is that all accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy for the
revival of Bankmen’s CGHS Society for the purpose of allotment
of land from DDA. It is not alleged that all or any of the accused
had met with each other in pursuance of the conspiracy. The case
of prosecution is not based on the direct evidence vis-Ã -vis the
existence and execution of the criminal conspiracy and it is
totally based on circumstantial evidence.
128. It is a settled proposition of law that conspiracy is
always hatched in secrecy and there can hardly be any direct
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 76 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
evidence of existence of conspiracy. In this regard, in Kehar
Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) 3 SCC 609,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the conspiracy can be
proved by circumstantial evidence as well as by direct evidence
and that though the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, the
prosecution must prove some physical manifestation of
agreement although it may not be necessary to prove actual
meeting of two persons or the words by which the two persons
communicated.
Also in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K.
Narayana Rao: (2012) 9 SCC 512 the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that, “The ingredients of the offence of criminal
conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the
persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement
should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal
means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words,
the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an
illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter
of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is
rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before
and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about
the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to
have committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in
pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons
who were parties to the alleged conspiracy.”
129. Since, the case of prosecution vis-a-vis existing of
criminal conspiracy between accused persons is not based on
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 77 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
direct evidence, therefore, the prosecution had to prove that the
accused persons had agreed to commit the illegal acts attributed
to them by establishing complete chain of circumstantial
evidence which could lead to conclusion that they had hatched a
criminal conspiracy to revive the society.
130. In order to establish the existence of criminal
conspiracy allegedly hatched amongst the accused persons, the
prosecution had to establish the substantive roles attributed to
each of them as well as its cumulative effect which could
conclusively infer existence of criminal conspiracy between
them. Therefore, I shall deal with the allegations of commission
of substantive offences by each of the accused before delving on
to the discussion vis-a-vis allegations of criminal conspiracy
against them.
Role of Accused no. 1 Rajan Chopra –
131. The case of prosecution qua accused Rajan Chopra
is that he had hatched a criminal conspiracy for illegal revival of
Bankmen’s CGHS. It is alleged that he had dishonestly filed an
application dated 11.11.1999 in the office of RCS for revival of
afore-stated society by submitting forged and fabricated
documents including resignation letters, membership forms,
affidavits, proceeding registers and membership registers etc.
Thereby he is alleged to have by fraudulent means attempted to
obtain allotment of plot from DDA in favour of Bankmen’s
CGHS. Accordingly, he was charged for the offences punishable
u/s 120-B r/w sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and u/s 13 (2) r/w
section 13 (1) (d) of The PC Act, 1988 as well as for the
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 78 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
substantive offences punishable u/s 420 r/w section 511 and u/s
sections 468 and 471 IPC.
132. The above-stated allegations revolved around the
following aspects :-
(a) Initial efforts for taking over of the Bankmen’s
society;
(b) Fabrication of records of society;
(c) Submission of fabricated documents;
(d) Submission of certificate Ex. PW55/A;
(e) Attempt to cheat DDA; &
(f) Establishing the identity of accused Rajan Chopra
as the same person who had committed the above-
stated acts.
Now, I shall deal with all the afore-stated aspects
separately.
Initial Efforts for Taking Over of The Bankmen’s Society :
133. The case of the prosecution is that accused Rajan
Chopra was the main architect of conspiracy for the illegal
revival of a defunct society by the name of Bankmen’s CGHS.
The prosecution has led oral and documentary evidence which
shows that some members of State Bank of India had formed it
on 19.12.1983, but with the passage of time the activities of the
society weaned off and ultimately it became defunct. It has been
proved that vide order dated 30.03.1992 passed by the Office of
RCS, the society was placed under liquidation and a liquidator
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 79 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
namely Faiz Mohammad was appointed to takeover the
possession of its record.
134. As per the case of prosecution, accused Rajan
Chopra had met a person namely R. P. Dhingra, who further met
the then office bearers of the society and R. P. Dhingra struck a
deal with said office bearers for tendering of the resignations of
each of its members on the promise to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/-
per person in lieu of each of the resignations.
135. In its endeavor to establish the aforementioned fact,
prosecution examined PW-54 R. P. Dhingra, but he did not
support the case of the prosecution and categorically denied that
he had met Rajan Chopra or that the accused had enquired about
defunct societies from him. He also denied the suggestion that he
had met Deepak Khanna and R. K. Mangla (original office
bearers of the society) qua the proposal for tendering of
resignations at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- each. He specifically
denied having received the record of society including
resignation letters of the members from the said persons. He also
denied the fact that he had handed over the same to accused
Rajan Chopra. In the end, the witness did not even identify
accused Rajan Chopra in the court and stated that he did not
know him.
136. PW-21 Deepak Khanna and PW-65 Rajesh Kumar
Mangla were the other witnesses relating to above-stated series
of transactions. PW-21 Deepak Khanna though deposed that he
had handed over the documents/ resignations of the members of
the society to Mr. R. P. Dhingra, but he did not state that the same
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 80 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
were further handed over to accused Rajan Chopra. Similarly,
PW-65 Rajesh Kumar Mangla also did not depose to the effect
that he had handed over the documents/ resignations of the
members of the society to R. P. Dhingra or the same were further
passed on to accused Rajan Chopra.
137. None of the above-mentioned three prosecution
witnesses attributed any role vis-a-vis obtaining of the original
records of society including the resignations of the original
members to accused Rajan Chopra. There is nothing in their
depositions which could connect accused Rajan Chopra with the
afore-stated allegations. Hence, the prosecution could not
establish that accused Rajan Chopra was in any way connected
with taking over of the records of the society from the office
bearers of the society in the year 1999.
Fabrication of Records of Society :
138. The prosecution has alleged that accused Rajan
Chopra had got the records of society i.e. consisting of its
membership registers, proceedings of meetings, membership
forms and resignations etc fabricated from PW-60 P. R. Nair and
his wife i.e. PW-63 Smt. Mariamma Raghu.
139. As per case of prosecution, PW-60 P. R. Nair had
fabricated the documents relating to society by himself and he
also got some part of the record prepared from his wife PW-63
Smt. Mariamma Raghu. Both these witnesses in their
examinations in chief stated that they had prepared the
aforestated records of the society in the year 1999, whereas, the
records so made by them pertained to period prior to that. PW-60
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 81 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
P. R. Nair also admitted that he had signed on some of the
proceedings as election officer, whereas, he was not associated
with the society or its elections in any manner.
140. The reports of forensic expert of GEQD i.e. Ex.
PW76/D and Ex PW76/E respectively also reveal that the
handwriting in the questioned documents alleged to have been
made by PW-60 and PW-63 were infact in their handwriting only.
141. The oral depositions of PW-60 P. R. Nair and PW-63
Smt. Mariamma Raghu as well as the reports of handwriting
expert Ex. PW76/D and Ex. PW76/E show that the records of
society were fabricated and prepared by the said witnesses i.e.
Sh. P. R. Nair and Smt. Mariamma Raghu respectively.
142. Hence, as per case of prosecution both these
witnesses had falsely prepared the records of society. The said
facts on the face of it show that both these witnesses had played
an active role in the revival of society by fabricating its records
and they were directly complicit in the conspiracy. Therefore,
they were the principal participants of the conspiracy and yet the
IO chose not to array them as accused and rather cited them as
prosecution witnesses.
143. Now, it is no more ‘Res Integra’ that the
investigating officer can cite a person as a prosecution witness
instead of arraying him / her as accused despite the fact that said
person had actively participated in the commission of an offence.
However, the said discretion has to be exercised on the basis of
reasonable grounds and necessity and cannot be arbitrary in
nature.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 82 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
144. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had dealt with a
similar issue in Laxmipat Choraria & Ors Vs. State of
Maharashtra 1968 AIR 938, wherein an accused having actively
participated in the commission of criminal conspiracy was made
a witness by IO instead of arraying her as accused. The Hon’ble
Apex Court observed that:
“At the commencement of the trial ‘Ethyl Wong’
was examined as the first witness and gave a graphic account of
the conspiracy and the parts played by the accused and her own
share in the transactions. Her testimony was clearly that of an
accomplice. Although she could have been prosecuted, she was
not arraigned and it is her testimony which has been the subject
of a major part of the arguments before us……In these appeals it
is, however, admitted that if her evidence is received, it is
sufficiently corroborated both generally and in respect of the
three appellants before us.”
145. The perusal of depositions of PW-60 P. R. Nair and
PW-63 Mariamma Raghu categorically show that they had
intentionally participated in the commission of forgery and
alleged criminal conspiracy. Therefore, the statements were
inculpatory in nature as they categorically admitted having
fabricated the record of society at the instance of a third person.
Thus, the depositions of both PW-60 and PW-63 have to be
treated as the testimonies of accomplices in the commission of
offences.
146. In Somasundram @ Somu Vs. State (2020) 7 SCC
722, Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with evidentiary value of the
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 83 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
statement of an accomplice and held that :
“To summarize, by way of culling out the principles
which emerge on a conspectus of the aforesaid decisions, we
would hold as follows:
The combined result of Sections 133 read with
illustration (b) to Section 114 of Evidence Act is that the Courts
have evolved, as a rule of prudence, the requirement that it would
be unsafe to convict an accused solely based on uncorroborated
testimony of an accomplice. The corroboration must be in
relation to the material particulars of the testimony of an
accomplice. It is clear that an accomplice would be familiar with
the general outline of the crime as he would be one who has
participated in the same and therefore, indeed, be familiar with
the matter in general terms. The connecting link between a
particular accused and the crime, is where corroboration of the
testimony of an accomplice would assume crucial significance.
The evidence of an accomplice must point to the involvement of
a particular accused.
It would, no doubt, be sufficient, if his testimony in
conjunction with other relevant evidence unmistakably makes out
the case for convicting an accused.”
Hence, the depositions of PW-60 and PW-63
required corroboration in material particulars.
147. As far as the testimonies of above-stated witnesses
qua accused Rajan Chopra are concerned, PW-63 Mariamma
Raghu deposed that she had prepared the record at the instance of
her husband i.e. PW-60 Sh. P. R. Nair as one person had brought
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 84 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
the work of said society for her husband. She did not state that
the said work was brought by accused Rajan Chopra. In her
cross-examination by the ld. PP for CBI, she denied having
knowledge that accused Rajan Chopra had visited their house
with the aforementioned record. Therefore, there is nothing in
her testimony to suggest that accused Rajan Chopra was the
person who had asked them to prepare fabricated record.
148. The other witness i.e. PW-60 P. R. Nair though
deposed that the aforesaid record was prepared at the instance of
one Rajan Chopra, but at the same time he failed to identify
accused Rajan Chopra as the same person who had met him for
preparation of fake record of society.
149. PW-60 further stated that the person namely Rajan
Chopra he had met was about 40 / 45 years old in the year 1999.
PW-60 was examined on 08.08.2023, therefore, as per said
witness the person namely Rajan Chopra he had met would have
been 65 / 70 years old at the time of his deposition. Whereas, as
per statement of accused Rajan Chopra recorded in the court on
13.08.2012, he was 42 years old at that time, meaning thereby
that he would have been 52/ 53 years old at the time of recording
of evidence of PW-60 P. R. Nair. There has to be significant
difference in the physical appearance of a person in the two age
groups i.e. 25/30 years and 40/45 years respectively.
150. Besides examining PW-60 and PW-63, the
prosecution did not cite or examine any other person for
establishing that the fabrication of record was done at the
instance of accused Rajan Chopra. It is not the case of
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 85 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
prosecution that accused Rajan Chopra himself had fabricated
any record of the society personally. Therefore, even though the
evidentiary value of depositions of both these witnesses i.e.
PW-60 and PW-63 would have been extremely weak vis-a-vis
accused no. 1, but nevertheless both the witnesses failed to
identify the accused as the person at whose instance the
fabricated record were prepared.
151. Hence, the prosecution yet again stumbled in its
effort to attach culpability of accused Rajan Chopra with respect
to allegations of preparation of false and fabricated records of
society.
Submission of Fabricated Documents by Accused Rajan Chopra :
152. It is alleged that in order to initiate revival of society,
accused Rajan Chopra had filed an application dated 11.11.1999
in the office of RCS for intimating the change of address of
society and thereafter he filed another application dated ‘nil’ for
conducting the audit of society.
153. In this context, the perusal of record shows that a
copy of petition dated 27.09.1999 written by the secretary of the
society to the Registrar Cooperative Society for canceling the
order of winding up of the society was collected by IO. The said
copy of petition did not specify the name of deponent. Another
letter dated 11.11.1999 allegedly sent by Rajan Chopra to the
RCS for intimating the change of address of society was also
collected during the course of investigation. It is pertinent to
mention that the prosecution did not prove both the
aforementioned documents on record.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 86 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
154. Even otherwise, it has to be noted that the signatures
on the petition dated 27.09.1999 were not sent for comparison to
GEQD Lab. On the other hand, the signatures on letter dated
11.11.1999 purportedly appended by accused Rajan Chopra were
sent for examination, but the reports of handwriting expert of
GEQD i.e. Ex. PW76/D and Ex. PW76/E did not substantiate the
allegations. It was opined that the signatures and handwriting on
the questioned documents vis-a-vis accused Rajan Chopra either
did not match with the admitted / specimen signatures of accused
or no definite opinion qua them could be given. Thus, both the
reports gave clean chit to accused Rajan Chopra. As a
consequence, the prosecution has failed to establish that the
aforementioned letters/ petition were written or signed by
accused Rajan Chopra.
Submission of Certificate Ex. PW55/A by Accused Rajan
Chopra:
155. It is alleged by the prosecution that in the letter
dated 11.11.1999, information was given to the office of RCS,
Delhi that the society had shifted its office to 44/7-B, Regal
Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Subsequently,
inspection was carried out by Sh. S. D. Sharma, Inspector, Office
of RCS and it was found that M/s V.G. & Company was having
its office at the said address. Thereafter, the society was directed
to furnish NOC of aforementioned M/s V.G. & Company. It is
further alleged that accused Rajan Chopra had submitted the
NOC dated 29.12.1999 on behalf of V.G. & Company stating that
the office of the society was working from the said place, but
later on during investigation it was found that the said NOC wasCC No. 42/2019 Page no. 87 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
fabricated.
156. In order to establish the guilt of accused Rajan
Chopra, prosecution had to establish that the said NOC was
submitted by him and it was a fake document. The perusal of
entire evidence lead on record shows that once again prosecution
failed to bring any evidence on record to establish that it was the
accused Rajan Chopra who had submitted the said NOC. None
of the officials of RCS examined by prosecution deposed that it
was accused Rajan Chopra who had submitted the NOC.
157. The signature of Sh. Vivek Gandotra on the NOC
Ex. PW55/A were sent for examination and comparison to
GEQD, but the reports of forensic expert i.e. Ex. PW76/D and
Ex. PW76/E does not show that it was written by accused Rajan
Chopra. Infact, as mentioned above all the documents
purportedly signed by accused Rajan Chopra were sent for
forensic examination and comparison as questioned documents,
but in the above-stated reports the handwriting expert i.e. PW-76
P. Vijaya Shankar did not express opinion that even one of the
said signatures matched with the specimen signatures of accused
Rajan Chopra.
158. Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to lead
any evidence on record that accused Rajan Chopra had infact
submitted the afore-stated NOC in the office of RCS.
Attempt to Cheat DDA:
159. The accused Rajan Chopra is also alleged to have
connived with accused Sandeep Sahni and S. P. Saxena for
dishonestly and fraudulently inducing Delhi DevelopmentCC No. 42/2019 Page no. 88 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Authority for allotment of land at plot no. 14, Dheerpur, New
Delhi in favour of the society.
160. At the outset, it has to be mentioned that there is not
even iota of allegation in the chargesheet as to how and when
accused Rajan Chopra came in contact with S. P. Saxena or
Sandeep Sahni. There is no material in the form of evidence on
record to show that there was any connection between accused
Rajan Chopra on one hand and S. P. Saxena alongwith Sandeep
Sahni on the other hand.
161. It is not even the case of prosecution that accused
Rajan Chopra had sent any letter to DDA for allotment of land to
the society. The IO had collected the application form for
allotment of land to Bankmen’s CGHS dated 26.12.2001 and the
same was allegedly signed by Sandeep Sahni as secretary of the
society. The subsequent communication with DDA were made
by Sh. Harish Kumar Sharda, the secretary of society or by Sh.
Vikas Jain i.e. the then president of the society. Therefore, even
as per the admitted case of prosecution, accused Rajan Chopra
had not initiated any process for allotment of land to the society.
Identity of Accused Rajan Chopra :
162. The prosecution was under duty to establish the
identity of accused facing trial as the person who had committed
the alleged offences. The prosecution had examined a total of 67
witnesses whose signatures etc were allegedly forged in the
records of society. Although it is not specifically alleged in the
chargesheet or in the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr. PC, but
the gist of case of prosecution as reflected from the overall factsCC No. 42/2019 Page no. 89 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
is to the effect that accused Rajan Chopra had also enrolled fake
members in the society. However, out of the total of 67
prosecution witnesses only one prosecution witness namely
PW-89 Deepak Tyagi had identified accused Rajan Chopra and
had attributed some role to him. Besides the said witness no
other prosecution witness identified accused Rajan Chopra or
alleged that he was known to him or to the effect that his / her
identity as well as identity related documents were misused by
accused Rajan Chopra.
163. Infact, as per case of prosecution PW-11 Dinesh
Gupta was the childhood friend of accused Rajan Chopra, but he
did not support the prosecution version even to this extent and he
categorically denied that he knew accused Rajan Chopra.
164. As regards the testimony of PW-89 Deepak Tyagi, in
his examination in chief the witness deposed that he knew
accused Rajan Chopra and his entire information was available
with accused and the accused might have used his information in
the present case. However, in his cross-examination, the witness
admitted that he did not disclose to the IO the above-stated facts
i.e. to the extent that he knew accused Rajan Chopra or that he
had apprehension that accused could have used his information.
He was also confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC Ex.
PW89/DX1 where no such fact was recorded.
165. Thus, even as per case of prosecution as set out in
statement of PW-89 Deepak Tyagi u/s 161 Cr.P.C. he did not
know accused Rajan Chopra. The said deposition attributing role
to accused Rajan Chopra is a clearly improvement made by the
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 90 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
witness subsequently. Therefore, the allegation of PW-89
Deepak Tyagi against accused Rajan Chopra which is infact an
improvement of his original statement u/s 161 Cr. PC cannot be
relied upon.
166. The case of prosecution is also to the effect that
accused Rajan Chopra had appeared before the officials of RCS,
Delhi. The officials of RCS also could have established the
identity of accused Rajan Chopra as the person who had acted as
secretary of the society.
167. PW-75 Sh. M. D. Sharma i.e. Assistant Registrar in
the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, West Zone had
proved the notings Ex. PW75/A to Ex. PW75/F. The perusal of
aforesaid notings show that a person namely ‘Rajan Chopra’ had
attended the proceedings before the officials of RCS on behalf of
the society and he had produced the record of society. However,
the said witness in the course of his examination in chief failed to
identify the accused Rajan Chopra present in the court as the
same person who had appeared in the proceedings. He
categorically stated that he cannot identify the person namely
‘Rajan Chopra’ which is mentioned in the noting portion Ex.
PW75/F. Thus, none of the officials of RCS in their depositions
identified accused Rajan Chopra as the person who had appeared
on behalf of society in the course of proceedings before the RCS.
Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish that accused
Rajan Chopra was the person who had appeared in the office of
RCS on behalf of the society.
168. The perusal of all the aspects as mentioned above
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 91 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
shows that prosecution has failed to establish the identity of
accused Rajan Chopra as the person who had committed all the
acts which were alleged to have been done by him either for
representing the society or for taking over the control of society
or for fabrication of documents etc.
169. As per prosecution version, a total of 23 individuals
were falsely shown as the members of the society, whereas, they
had no knowledge about it. In such circumstances, the failure of
prosecution to establish the identity of accused Rajan Chopra as
the same person who had allegedly carried out the
aforementioned acts creates a serious doubt to the effect that
some other person may have impersonated himself as Rajan
Chopra for doing the above-mentioned acts.
170. It is the duty of prosecution to prove the guilt of
accused beyond reasonable doubt and he cannot be held guilty
merely on conjectures and surmises. In this case, prosecution has
failed to prove even a single set of allegations qua accused Rajan
Chopra. Hence, it has to be said that prosecution has failed to
prove that accused Rajan Chopra had committed offences u/s
468/471 IPC & 420 r/w 511 IPC.
Role of Accused B. P. Mahaur and R. K. Srivastav:
171. Accused B. P. Mahaur is facing charge of having
dishonestly initiated the note for recommending for revival of the
society and accused R. K. Srivastava is alleged to have
dishonestly ignored the note of Sh. D. S. Nijjar and reports of Sh.
S. D. Sharma. Thereby it is alleged that both of them by corrupt
or illegal means facilitated the attempt to obtain allotment of plot
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 92 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
from DDA for accused Rajan Chopra, Sandeep Sahni and S. P.
Saxena.
172. The allegations against both accused are based on
their recommendations / decisions vis-a-vis revival of the society.
From the standpoint of criminal liability, the decision making
actions of public servants broadly fall into three categories.
173. The first category pertains to allegations of violation
of statutory rules. In such cases, the prosecution has to prima
facie demonstrate deliberate and conscious by-passing of the
statutory guidelines or the actions taken by the public servants
beyond their competence or on the suppression / manipulation of
material notings or consultations made in the process. Even in
such cases, a procedural deviation alone is not sufficient to show
the guilt as the evidence on record must show existence of
dishonest intention. In Abdulla Mohd. Pagarkar Vs. State (Union
Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu) 1980 SCC (Cri) 546, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that, “Mere disregard of
relevant provisions of the Financial Code as well as ordinary
norms of procedural behaviour of government officials and
contractors, without conclusively establishing, beyond a
reasonable doubt, the guilt of the officials and contractors
concerned, may give rise to a strong suspicion but that cannot be
held to establish the guilt of the accused.”
The aforesaid judgment was relied by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors Vs. State of A. P.
(1996) 10 SCC 193 and held that:
“Though the prosecution has established that the
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 93 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
appellants have committed not only codal violations but also
irregularities by ignoring various circulars and departmental
orders issued from time to time in the matter of allotment of work
of jungle clearance on nomination basis and have committed
departmental lapse yet, one of the circumstances relied upon by
the prosecution are of any conclusive nature and all the
circumstances put together do not lead to the irresistible
conclusion that the said circumstances are compatible only with
hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants and wholly incompatible
with their innocence.”
174. The second category relates to cases where formal
procedural compliance is made to mask malafide intent. In such
situations the movement of file may appear regular, the action
taken would be within the competency and jurisdiction, and even
the procedural route would be ostensibly followed. However, the
guilt of an accused can still be established, if the substance of the
actions undertaken by public servant categorically shows a
conscious design to confer undue advantage upon specific
persons and there is cogent, reliable and independent material to
support it.
175. The third category of cases concerns bonafide
actions unaccompanied by evidence of corruption i.e. where the
procedure is followed, the actions are within the jurisdiction, file
movement is transparent, there is no indication of quid pro quo or
collusion. In such cases, the actions are protected as bonafide
exercise of administrative discretion. The wisdom, efficacy or
the eventual outcome of such actions cannot be subjected to
criminal adjudication. The administrative errors or incorrect
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 94 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
judgments without any material to suggest corrupt intent cannot
become liable for criminal prosecution.
176. It is not the case of prosecution that accused R. K.
Srivastava being Registrar of Cooperative Societies was not
competent to revoke the order of winding up of society. The
prosecution has examined PW-42 Sh. D. S. Nijjar and proved
different notings from the file of RCS vis-a-vis the society. The
perusal of noting Ex. PW75/A show that originally the matter
related to office of RCS (West) and the application regarding
change of address of the society was filed in the office of RCS
(West). It also shows that the file was sent to Assistant Registrar,
New Delhi as the office of the society had reportedly shifted
within the jurisdiction of New Delhi Zone.
177. The perusal of aforesaid file further shows that
accused no. 3 B. P. Mahaur dealt with file for the first time on
10.05.2000 and in the said noting he clarified the queries so
raised by the Joint Registrar in the earlier notings. The perusal of
noting dated 10.05.2000 Ex. P36 shows that accused had given
the clarifications on the basis of material which was available on
record and it is not the case of prosecution that the clarifications
so given by him were in contradiction to the material available on
the file maintained in the office of RCS with respect to society.
The perusal of earlier notings shows that prior to appointment of
Sh. B. P. Mahaur, the earlier Assistant Registrar vide noting dated
08.03.2000 Ex. P8 (colly) had already recommended the revival
of society. Therefore, as per evidence proved on record by the
prosecution itself, accused B. P. Mahaur had only reaffirmed the
earlier recommendation.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 95 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
178. As noted above, the crux of allegations against
accused B. P. Mahaur and R. K. Srivastava is that they had
ignored the report of Insp. S. D. Sharma. Infact, perusal of
noting dated 03.12.1999 shows that upon receipt of application
for change of address of society, Insp. S. D. Sharma was directed
to conduct spot verification of the society. However, the
prosecution has not proved the afore-stated report of Insp. S. D.
Sharma on record. The failure of prosecution to prove the said
report goes to the root of the matter. Since, the report itself has
not been proved, therefore, it cannot be said that its contents were
ignored. Therefore, in absence of evidence in the form of report
of Insp. S. D. Sharma, the prosecution failed in its attempt to
establish that the contents thereof were ignored.
179. Even otherwise, as per noting Ex. P1 (colly), the
Area Inspector vide report dated 03.01.2000 (i.e. alleged report
of Sh. S. D. Sharma) had informed that the Bankmen’s society
was functioning at 44/7B, Regal Building, New Delhi. The
perusal of noting dated 11.11.2000 i.e. Ex. P19 shows that
accused no. 4 Sh. R. K. Srivastava made an observation that the
inspector i.e. Sh. S. D. Sharma had asked the society to furnish
NOC from a firm based in Regal Building and he had also called
for clarification from the said inspector. The prosecution also
proved noting dated Ex. PW75/B, wherein, Sh. A. K. Handa, AR
had clarified that as per report of the Area Inspector, a firm of
Chartered Accountant was functioning from the premises and it
had given a NOC dated 29.12.1999.
180. Subsequently, as per noting dated 28.01.2000 Ex.
P39, the concerned inspector was directed to submit a report in
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 96 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
the prescribed proforma. Thus, report of Sh. D. S. Negi Ex. P38
was submitted in the prescribed proforma. The said facts were
explained in separate notings i.e. dated 11.02.2000 Ex. PW75/E,
dated 22.02.2000 Ex.P5 (colly) and dated 08.03.2000 Ex.
PW75/F.
181. Therefore, the complete perusal of the notings of the
file relating to Bankmen’s CGHS shows that its office premises
were inspected by two separate Area Inspectors and it was
reported that the society was functioning from its address i.e.
44/7B, Regal Building, New Delhi and even the NOC of the firm
of Chartered Accountant had been submitted in the office of
RCS. The afore-stated facts show that due process was followed
with respect to application for revival of society and proper care
and caution was taken to ensure that fair and just decision was
taken qua it.
182. The second part of allegation qua both accused arise
from the assertion that they had ignored the queries of Sh. D. S.
Nijjar. Therefore, it will be pertinent to see as to what those
queries were and how those queries were dealt with by the office.
In this regard, the perusal of noting dated 15.03.2000 Ex.
PW42/B shows that Sh. D. S. Nijjar had raised the following
queries:
(i) Whether any appeal was preferred against orders
of liquidation/ winding up by the society? If not, why? If yes,
details and present status;
(ii) What is the freeze strength, if any? Whether
membership exceeded it at any stage? How many originalCC No. 42/2019 Page no. 97 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
members were still the members at this stage? Details of
resignations and enrollments alongwith relevant dates? When
these took place. Any verification of resignations / enrollment
carried out? Whether there is any GBM resolution for revival?
(iii) In what capacity the NOC has been issued by V.
G. & Co. ?
(iv) Whether the election of MCS has been as per
DCS Act / Rules?
183. The replies / clarifications to said queries were given
in detail vide notings Ex. P9 & P10. Thereafter, PW-42 D. S.
Nijjar himself vide noting dated 28.03.2000 Ex. PW42/C pointed
out that to his mind the single most important factor for revival of
a liquidated society should be the genuine desire of its members
to strive for fulfillment of goals for which the society was
initially formed in the spirit of cooperative movement and he also
noted that not much information was given with respect to
bonafides of the request for revival of society. Accused no. 4 R.
K. Srivastava materially supported the aforementioned query of
PW-42 in his notings dated 29.03.2000 and 24.04.2000
respectively.
184. Thereafter, once again response to afore-said queries
were given in detail vide noting dated 10.05.2000 i.e. Ex. P36
and each of the queries were answered to on the basis of record.
It was also informed that the society had passed a resolution
dated 20.03.2000 for getting the approval for revival of society.
The information in relation to freeze strength of the society being
74 members and number of original members still continuing as
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 98 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
the existing members of society were also given vide noting
dated 29.05.2000. The AR also gave his remarks on the said
noting and recommended revival of the society.
185. Then once again PW-42 D. S. Nijjar made another
note dated 31.05.2000 Ex. PW42/F and merely reiterated the
facts which had already been clarified and he noted that no
appeal had been filed by the society, its freeze strength had not
been fixed and no other defunct society except Bankmen’s CGHS
had sought revival. However, he did not recommend that the
society may not be revived nor pointed out any other step qua
checks and measures were required to be adopted before arriving
at any decision. He rather noted that the broad principles for
revival of defunct societies may be followed.
186. The aforementioned last note by Sh. D. S. Nijjar i.e.
Ex. PW42/F shows that he did not object to revival of the society
and merely outlined the broad principles which were required to
be looked into in such like matters.
187. Thereafter, accused no. 4 R. K. Srivastava once
again raised queries to be answered by the subordinate officials
which were responded to vide noting Ex. P32 and although the
existing members of the society were 76 in number, accused no.3
D. P. Mahaur recommended that the freeze strength may be
considered for 65 members i.e. the number of members which
existed prior to cut off date i.e. 30.06.1986. Here again, Sh. D. S.
Nijjar vide his note Ex. PW42/G did not suggest that the society
may not be revived or the freeze strength so recommended was
improper and he merely noted that his views were already given.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 99 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
The RCS i.e. accused no. 4 took note of the entire material, but
he again made queries which were responded to vide detailed
noting Ex. P14 and PW-42 D. S. Nijjar yet again chose not to
oppose the proposal and recommended that “RCS may like to
take a view in view of clarification given by AR (ND)”.
188. It is a matter of common sense that once an issue
crops up for which administrative or quasi judicial decision has
to be taken, then the competent authority is required to take one
or the other view on the basis of material placed before him. The
afore-stated notings of PW-42 Sh. D. S. Nijjar, Dy. Registrar only
show that he had pointed out certain queries initially and
thereafter he neither chose to recommend the proposal nor he
opposed it. He opted to follow the middle path which did not
support either acceptance or refusal of the proposal. His
subsequent notings rather indicate that he too did not oppose the
proposal.
189. Accused R. K. Srivastava being the competent
auhtority did not have the luxury of staying silent or following
the middle path. He was under obligation to take a decision
either in favour of proposal or against it. Accordingly, vide order
dated 13.07.2000 Ex. P25, accused no. 4 R. K. Srivastava passed
a conditional order for revival of the society by fixing the freeze
strength of the members as 74.
190. The complete perusal of the aforementioned notings
show that the accused no. 3 and 4 had acted within the scope of
their competence / jurisdiction. All due steps including physical
verification and examination of documents were taken. Even the
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 100 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
spirit of the DCS Act i.e. the willingness of the members for
achieving the objectives of society was kept in mind. The final
decision was taken on the basis of entire material including the
reports of Area Inspectors placed on file. Even at that stage a
conditional order was passed and conditions such as the society
being put under obligation to abide by the statutory obligations
and directing it to convene General Body Meetings every six
months were imposed. The provision for appointment of
observer for taking report regarding the facts so pointed out by
PW-42 Sh. D. S. Nijjar was also made in the order. It was also
directed that in case the statutory liabilities are not fully complied
with, then the action for liquidation can be initiated against the
society.
191. The prosecution has not alleged that any of the
officials of RCS including accused no. 3 & 4 had accepted any
favour from a third person or from the persons who were
responsible for the affairs of society. There is absolutely no
allegation or evidence to suggest existence of quid pro quo
arrangement between accused no. 3 & 4 and other accused. It
has also not been alleged or proved that accused no. 3 & 4 were
aware about fabrication of records of society or about fabrication
of NOC issued by M/s V. G. and Co.
192. The existence of such knowledge by accused no. 3
& 4 cannot be assumed. There was no way by which the
Assistant Registrar or the Registrar could have had discovered or
unearthed the fabrication of documents which had also been
affirmed in the audit reports Ex. PW41/A and Ex. PW61/A
respectively.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 101 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
193. As far as question of knowledge about fabrication of
NOC is concerned, the letters / communications with the society
which were kept in correspondence file were sent at the address
of Regal Building and the same were duly replied to. Therefore,
the said officials cannot be assumed to have reason to believe
that the NOC so submitted was fake or fabricated.
194. The evidence on record rather shows that both the
accused were under duty to take decision qua the request of the
society and the evidence on record suggests that they had acted
with due diligence on the basis of material produced before them.
The action taken by them was not in disregard to the procedure
prescribed. Thus, the evidence proved on record shows that the
case of prosecution qua accused no. 3 & 4 falls within the ambit
of third category of cases, wherein the public servants take
bonafide decision unaccompanied by evidence of corruption i.e.
where proper procedure is followed and there is no indication of
quid pro quo or collusion.
195. Hence, it has to be said that the prosecution has
failed to prove that accused B. P. Mahaur and R. K. Srivastava
had intentionally and with malafide intention ignored the reports
of S. D. Sharma and notings of Sh. D. S. Nijjar so as to advance
favours to anyone. Accordingly, it has failed to prove that
accused no. 3 & 4 had committed offences u/s 15 r/w 13 (2) r/w
13(1) (d) of the PC Act.
Role of Accused D. S. Negi :
196. The prosecution has alleged that accused D. S. Negi
had dishonestly prepared a false and undated report indicating
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 102 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
that the society was functioning from 44/7-B, Regal Building,
Connaught Place, New Delhi and thereby he had by illegal means
facilitated the revival of the defunct Bankmen’s CGHS Ltd.
Accordingly, accused D. S. Negi was charged for the offences
punishable u/s 120-B r/w sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and u/s
13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 as well as for the substantive offences punishable u/s 15 r/w
section 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of The Prevention of
Corruption Act.
197. Accused D. S. Negi was the Area Inspector in the
office of RCS. Vide noting dated 28.01.2000 Ex. P39, he was
directed to submit a report qua inspection of the society in a
prescribed proforma. Accordingly, accused D. S. Negi submitted
his report Ex. P38 specifying that the address of society was
44/7B, Regal Building, Connaught Place, Delhi.
198. The aforesaid report has been assailed as fake and
fraudulent on the premise that the office of society was not
situated at 44/7B, Regal Building, Connaught Place, Delhi and
yet he submitted the report to that effect. The prosecution
alleged that Sh. S. D. Sharma, the other Area Inspector had
submitted a report earlier that during his inspection a firm of
Chartered Accountant namely M/s V. G. & Co. was found
operational in the said premises and he had asked the
management of society to submit NOC of said company.
199. It has to be reiterated that the prosecution has not
proved the afore-said report of Sh. S. D. Sharma. However, in its
attempt to establish the allegations, the prosecution examined
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 103 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
PW-55 Sh. Vipin Gandotra. This witness deposed that he was
having an office under the name and style of M/s V. G. & Co. at
44/7B, Regal Building, Connaught Place, Delhi and the letter Ex.
PW55/A which was the NOC purportedly issued by M/s V.G. &
Co. was signed by one Vivek Gandotra and it did not bear his
signature. However, the testimony of this witness is silent to the
effect whether a person namely Vivek Gandotra had ever worked
with M/s V. G. & Co. or not, nor any investigation in this regard
was carried out to find if such a person had worked with the firm
or not. There is no allegation as to who had signed as Vivek
Gandotra on Ex. PW55/A. The signature of Vivek Gandotra on
Ex. PW55/A was sent for comparison to GEQD, but the reports
Ex. PW76/D and Ex. PW76/E did not furnish any opinion as to
who had signed on the same. No other material was collected
during investigation to establish that the society had never
operated from the afore-stated address. All these facts leave
scope for doubt that the letter Ex. PW55/A may have been signed
by a person namely Vivek Gandotra.
200. On the other hand, the prosecution itself has proved
documents on record which show that letters / communications
were sent to the office bearers of society at its address i.e. 44/7B,
Regal Building, Connaught Place, Delhi and the same were
responded to by the society. Thereby implying that the same
were delivered to the society at 44/7B, Regal Building,
Connaught Place, Delhi.
201. The prosecution had examined the auditors of RCS
i.e. PW-41 Prahlad Kumar Thirwani and PW-61 Amar Nath.
PW-41 had proved the audit file of Bankmen’s CGHS Ex.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 104 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
PW41/A and PW-61 Amar Nath proved the audit file of the
society for the period 1991 to 2000 as Ex. PW61/A.
202. The perusal of audit report Ex. PW61/A shows that
the audit was done on 10 days i.e. 03.08.2000, 04.08.2000,
07.08.2000 to 11.08.2000 and 23.08.2000 respectively. The
auditor had also mentioned that the address of society was
44/7B, Regal Building, Connaught Place, Delhi. The said audit
report has not been found to be incorrect or false during
investigation and the prosecution has rather relied on it. The
auditors who conducted audits and prepared reports Ex. PW61/A
and Ex. PW41/A were given clean chit during investigation and
no fault was pointed out in the said reports. The audit report Ex.
PW61/A shows that the address of society on the days of
inspection was 44/7B, Regal Building, Connaught Place, Delhi.
Therefore, the prosecution evidence in the form of audit reports
and letters etc sent to the society are contradictory to the case of
prosecution. These documentary evidence points into the
direction that the society was operational from the address which
is stated to be false and incorrect address of the society.
203. The above-stated facts create doubt qua the
prosecution version that the address of society i.e. 44/7B, Regal
Building, Connaught Place, Delhi was false and incorrect. It also
creates serious doubt that the contents of the report Ex. P38
submitted by accused D. S. Negi were false.
204. It is also to be kept in mind that any irregularity in
the discharge of official duty cannot by itself constitute an
offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The existence of
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 105 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
dishonest intention to commit the offence is sine-qua-non for
attracting the relevant provisions of PC Act.
In this regard, in C.K. Jaffar Sharief vs. State (CBI),
(2013) 1 SCC 205, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that, ” If in
the process, the rules or norms applicable were violated or the
decision taken shows an extravagant display of redundancy it is
the conduct and action of the appellant which may have been
improper or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the
same was actuated by dishonest intention to obtain an undue
pecuniary advantage will not be correct. That dishonest intention
is the gist of the offence under Section 13(1) (d) is implicit in the
words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as a
public servant.”
205. There is not even iota of allegation that accused D.
S. Negi had met any other accused or he had any arrangement of
quid-pro quo with any of the remaining accused. Although, it has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the address of
society was false and incorrect, but even if it could be assumed to
be true, still the lapses on the part of accused in mentioning the
wrong address of society by itself is not sufficient to conclude
that it was done with ulterior motive of helping someone.
206. Thus, in view of the aforementioned facts and
circumstances, it has to be stated that the prosecution has failed
to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused D. S. Negi had
dishonestly submitted a false report Ex. P38 so as to facilitate the
revival of Bankmen’s CGHS Ltd with the intention of showing
favour to any person.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 106 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
207. It is the settled proposition of law that prosecution
has to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. In
Sharad Briduchand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC
116, Dr. S.L.Goswami Vs. State of MP” 1972 A.I.R (SC) 716
:1972 (2) SCR 948 : 1972 Cri. L.J.511 : 1972 (3) S.C.C.22 and
“Ram Swarup and others Vs. State of Haryana 1993 Supp (4)
Supreme Court Cases 344, the Hon’ble Apex Court had laid
down that, “It is the duty of prosecution to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt by examining reliable witnesses not only to
prove the commission of an offence, but also to prove the manner
in which the offence in question had been committed.”
208. Therefore, it has to be concluded that prosecution
has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused D. S.
Negi had dishonestly prepared a false and undated report
indicating that the society was functioning from 44/7-B, Regal
Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi and thereby he had by
illegal means facilitated the revival of the defunct Bankmen’s
CGHS Ltd. Accordingly, it has failed to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that accused D. S. Negi had committed offences
u/s 15 r/w 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the PC Act.
Role of Accused Sandeep Sahni:
209. The allegations against accused Sandeep Sahni are
that he alongwith late S. P. Saxena had taken over the control of
society, paid 35 % of land & induced DDA to issue allotment
letter. Accordingly, accused Sandeep Sahni was charged for the
offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC
and u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 107 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Corruption Act, 1988 as well as for the substantive offences
punishable u/s 420 r/w section 511 IPC.
210. As is seen above, the case of prosecution against
accused Sandeep Sahni consists of three broad allegations i.e. : –
(i) He had taken control of the society;
(ii) He paid 35% of cost of land; &
(iii) Induced DDA to allot land to the society.
Taking Control of Society –
211. There is no allegation in the chargesheet that
accused Sandeep Sahni was a member or office bearer of the
society, but the perusal of record of proceedings seized during
investigation reveals that in the meeting dated 18.10.2000 (Ex.
PW60/G) it was recorded that one Sandeep Sahni had applied for
membership of the society and entries were made in the relevant
register. However, the prosecution has not proved his
membership form or other record of society to establish that he
was a member of society and was involved in its affairs.
212. It is possible that still a person who is not a member
of society or its office bearer may yet take effective control of the
affairs of society through other office bearers as well. In order to
substantiate its case that accused Sandeep Sahni had actively
participated in taking over the control of society, it was alleged
that he had indulged in preparation of forged resignation letters
and had handed over said letters etc to PW-36 Sanjay Kumar and
PW-57 Mohit Saxena.
213. The prosecution examined PW-57 Mohit Saxena for
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 108 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
establishing forgery of resignation letters subsequent to revival of
the society. This witness deposed that he was nephew of late S.
P. Saxena and he had prepared documents such as resignation
letters cum receipt letters at the instance of accused S. P. Saxena.
The aforementioned statement of the witness shows that he
himself had played active role in preparation of fabricated
documents, therefore, his testimony is also akin to that of an
accomplice which required corroboration vis-a-vis the allegations
levelled against the accused persons.
214. However, as the case may be PW-57 did not depose
anything incriminating against accused Sandeep Sahni.
Therefore, the question of finding corroboration to his testimony
vis-a-vis accused Sandeep Sahni does not even originate. PW-57
deposed that he did not know accused Sandeep Sahni personally
nor he attributed any role to said accused. Therefore, his
deposition is of no help to the case of prosecution qua accused
Sandeep Sahni.
215. At this stage, it necessary to make note of the
arbitrary manner in which the investigating officer had exercised
his discretion in making some of the persons, who were directly
involved in the commission of offences as prosecution witnesses
instead of arraying them as accused.
216. There is no doubt that the IO of the case had the
discretion to make a person who was directly involved in the
commission of offence as a prosecution witness instead of
arraying him as an accused, but the said discretion could not have
been exercised arbitrarily. It had to be exercised only if
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 109 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
disclosure of such persons was absolutely essential for fair
investigation and for arriving at a proper conclusion.
217. In the present case, the IO proceeded to make Mohit
Saxena, ‘P. R. Nair, Mariamma Raghu and Naveen Kaushik as
witnesses despite the fact that they had fabricated the records of
society which was confirmed by the report of GEQD, Hyderabad.
In the course of clarifications, the IO gave a baffling explanation
that he had not arrayed them as accused because they did not
stand to gain from the revival of society. The case of prosecution
was clear that these persons had prepared fabricated record which
as per case of prosecution was apparently an effective step in the
criminal conspiracy. Similarly, as per case of prosecution the
witnesses namely R. P. Dhingra, Deepak Khanna and R. K.
Mangla were involved in the handing over of record of the
society to each other in lieu of consideration, but they were also
made the witnesses. The said facts show that as per prosecution
version they too had knowledge that such acts will lead to illegal
consequences and therefore they too were the principle offenders
in the alleged criminal conspiracy. However, yet again the IO
chose to make them as witnesses for reasons best known to him
and ultimately during trial almost all of them did not support the
prosecution case vis-a-vis the essential facts of the case Hence, it
is apparent that the discretion of the IO in making said persons
witnesses instead of arraying them as accused was not borne out
of any bonafide reason or cause.
218. Although there is nothing to show that making
above-stated persons as witnesses was so essential that the
prosecution case would have failed without it, but even in such a
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 110 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
situation the IO could have taken recourse to procedure
prescribed in section 306/307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 relating to tendering of pardon. It contained safeguards to
ensure fair investigation and section 308 of Cr. PC provided the
consequences for situations where such persons fail to comply
with the terms and conditions of tender of pardon specially where
they conceal anything essential or give false evidence. In the
present case, since the procedure as mentioned above was not
followed vis-a-vis any of the aforementioned persons, therefore,
it cannot be said whether their statements recorded during
investigation were truthful or not. The net result of the entire
exercise is that the only persons qua whom there was definite,
clinching and cogent evidence in the form of opinion of
handwriting expert were given clean chit by IO by making them
as witnesses without any plausible and reasonable explanation for
it.
219. Coming back to the allegations against accused
Sandeep Sahni, the other material witness of prosecution qua
allegations against accused Sandeep Sahni is PW-36 Sanjay
Kumar. He was examined to prove that accused Sandeep Sahni
had handed over forged resignation letters etc to him. The
defence contended that PW-36 Sanjay Kumar is a tainted witness.
He had never participated in the proceedings and infact he had
given the vague account qua handing over of documents by
accused no. 6 under the pressure of IO who had given clean chit
to his brother Vikas Jain who was named in the FIR as accused.
220. In his examination in chief PW-36 Sanjay Kumar
deposed that he became member of the society in the year 2000
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 111 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
i.e. after the order of revival of society was passed by the RCS.
After one or two years he became vice president of the society
and during this tenure he received records of the society
including resignation letters from accused Sandeep Sahni.
However, he did not specify the date, month or the exact year
when said documents were given to him or the place where they
were so handed over.
221. The perusal of cross-examination of PW-36 Sanjay
Kumar shows that he gave an even more cryptic account of his
meetings with accused Sandeep Sahni and about receiving the
documents of society from him. In his cross-examination, the
witness stated that he had met accused Sandeep Sahni only once
or twice, but he did not remember whether it was before
becoming a member or society or it was after he became a
member. He failed to remember the exact documents which were
handed over by accused to him. He also did not remember the
place where the said documents were handed over and if at all the
documents were handed over in the presence of some third
person or not. He also failed to recollect in how many times the
resignation letters were handed over by accused to him and the
exact documents which were so handed over to him. He also
failed to remember whether the accused had handed over the
documents personally or through a messenger or whether the
same were got collected from his place. He also stated that he
had not issued any receipt or acknowledgment to accused
Sandeep Sahni in lieu of having received the documents which
were so handed over to him.
222. Even though the witness was deposing after a long
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 112 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
period of time, but still the witness who is giving oral deposition
about handing over of documents to him by someone is at least
required to remember some basic facts about it. Whereas, the
cross-examination of PW Sanjay Kumar shows that he did not
remember even the basic facts such as place or person who had
handed over the documents to him.
223. Perusal of deposition of PW-36 Sanjay Kumar
further shows that he was brother of Vikas Jain who had been
named an accused in the original RC, but was given clean chit
during the course of investigation.
224. The testimony of PW-36 also highlights that he did
not maintain the records of society nor he remembered the places
where meetings of society had taken place or who had attended
the same or who had chaired the meetings or written the minutes
of meetings etc. He did not even remember whether he had
signed the minutes of meetings or not. These facts show that
either PW-36 Sanjay Kumar did not play active role in managing
the affairs of society or at the most he had very little part in it. In
such circumstances, the handing over of documents of a society
to a person who was not associated with its activities also appears
slightly doubtful.
225. Therefore, the deposition of PW-36 is solely based
on his oral recollection of the facts which took place about 18 to
20 years prior to the day of his deposition. In nutshell, the failure
of this witness to disclose material particulars such as: whether
the said documents were handed over to him by accused
personally or through someone and that too before he became the
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 113 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
member of society or after it; the number of occasions in which
the documents were handed over; the place where the same were
handed over; and if the same were handed over in presence of
some third person or not, makes his testimony doubtful, specially
when his real brother was given clean chit during investigation
despite being named as accused in the FIR. In light of the
contradictions as referred above such oral testimony of PW-36
Sanjay Kumar does not inspire much confidence.
226. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish that
accused Sandeep Sahni had played any role in preparation of fake
documents or had attempted to gain control of the affairs of
society.
Payment of 35 % of Cost of Land:
227. The prosecution has alleged that accused Sandeep
Sahni and S. P. Saxena (proceedings abated) had paid 35% of the
cost of land to DDA from joint saving bank account no. 18699,
Central Bank of India, South Ex, New Delhi which was later on
returned to accused Sandeep Sahni from various accounts of S. P.
Saxena and M/s Prime Towers.
228. At the outset, it has to be noted that mere making of
payment on behalf of society was neither illegal nor
impermissible under the bye-laws of society. The prosecution
has proved the bye-laws of society as Ex. PW19/B. The Clause
10 (b) of Bye-Laws of the Bankmen’s CGHS permits taking of
loan and deposits from members as well as non-members.
Therefore, the making of payment by itself was not illegal.
229. In order to prove its case that accused Sandeep Sahni
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 114 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
had made payments on behalf of society, the prosecution was
required to prove the chain of transactions by proving the
documents such as the cheques and bank statements of the
concerned individuals and entities respectively.
230. The cheques alleged to have been issued by accused
Sandeep Sahni for making payments to DDA were collected
during investigation and the same were sent for comparison to
GEQD, Hyderabad for obtaining expert opinion after comparison
of the signature on the cheques with the specimen signatures of
accused Sandeep Sahni.
231. The prosecution examined PW-88 Uma Shankar for
proving the alleged admitted signatures of accused Sandeep
Sahni on the specimen signature card of Central Bank of India
Ex. PW88/A. However, the said witness did not support the case
of prosecution and failed to identify the signatures of accused
Sandeep Sahni on the said document. He also denied his own
signatures on cheques drawn on Central Bank of India and pay
slips for deposit of amount in the account of Bankmen’s CGHS.
The prosecution did not examine any bank official for proving
the said record consisting of specimen signature card. Thereby
the prosecution failed to prove that the specimen signatures sent
for comparison with the questioned documents were that of
accused Sandeep Sahni.
232. As per case of prosecution, investigating officer had
also collected specimen signatures of accused Sandeep Sahni
during investigation and the same were also sent for comparison
with questioned documents.
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 115 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
233. In this regard, while dealing with admissibility of
specimen signatures of accused taken during investigation, the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sapan Haldar & Anr. Vs. State 2012
SCC Online Del 3078 held that :
“(i) Handwriting and signature are not measure-
ments as defined under clause (a) of Section 2 of The Identifica-
tion of Prisoners Act, 1920. Therefore, Section 4 and Section 5 of
The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 will not apply to a
handwriting sample or a sample signature. Thus, an investigating
officer, during investigation, cannot obtain a handwriting sample
or a signature sample from a person accused of having committed
an offence.
(ii) Prior to June 23, 2006, when Act No.25 of 2005
was notified, inter-alia, inserting Section 311A in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, even a Magistrate could not direct a
person accused to give specimen signatures or handwriting sam-
ples. In cases where Magistrates have directed so, the evidence
was held to be inadmissible as per the decision of the Supreme
Court in Ram Babu Mishra‟s case (supra). According to Section
73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only the Court concerned
can direct a person appearing before it to submit samples of his
handwriting and/or signature for purposes of comparison. ”
234. Thus, the specimen signatures of accused Sandeep
Sahni taken by IO during investigation are inadmissible. As the
prosecution has failed to prove the specimen signatures of
accused Sandeep Sahni which were sent for comparison to the
forensic expert, therefore, the evidentiary value of theCC No. 42/2019 Page no. 116 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
handwriting expert’s reports i.e. Ex. PW76/D and Ex. PW76/E
vis-a-vis accused Sandeep Sahni are rendered redundant.
235. The prosecution also did not prove the documents
relating to above-mentioned financial transactions allegedly
undertaken by accused Sandeep Sahni. It has not proved the
statements of accounts of accused Sandeep Sahni, Prime Towers
and S. P. Saxena. The prosecution also did not examine any bank
witness or any other witness to prove the said cheques. No
witness was examined to prove the fact that the same were infact
presented in the bank and were encashed. Therefore, the said
documents cannot be read into evidence and thereby the
prosecution has failed to establish the allegations that accused
Sandeep Sahni had made payments to DDA on behalf of the
society.
Attempt to Cheat DDA:
236. It is the case of prosecution that possession of land
so allotted to the society was not handed over to it by DDA. In
order to attach culpability to accused Sandeep Sahni, it was
imperative for the prosecution to establish that he had taken steps
for representing the society for allotment of land or for handing
over possession of said land.
237. The prosecution did not examine any witness from
DDA. It also did not examine any other witness to prove that
accused had written any letter to DDA in the above-mentioned
regard or had made request to it for allotment of land or for
handing over its possession. In absence of any evidence, it
cannot be assumed that accused Sandeep Sahni had inducedCC No. 42/2019 Page no. 117 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
DDA to allot the land or had attempted to cheat it in any manner.
238. Therefore, it has to be said that the prosecution has
failed to prove all the allegations levelled against accused
Sandeep Sahni. Thereby, it has failed to prove that he had acted
to take control of society or he made any payment on its behalf or
had attempted to cheat DDA. Hence, the prosecution has failed
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sandeep Sahni
had committed the offences as alleged.
Criminal Conspiracy:
239. As discussed at the beginning of the discussion, the
prosecution was required to establish by way of circumstantial
evidence that the accused persons had hatched a criminal
conspiracy to illegally revive the defunct Bankmen’s CGHS Ltd.
240. As discussed above, the prosecution has failed to
prove the allegations qua substantive charge for commission of
offences u/s sections 468 and 471 IPC and u/s 13 (2) r/w section
13 (1) (d) of The PC Act, 1988 as well as for the substantive
offences punishable u/s 420 r/w section 511 and u/s sections 468
and 471 IPC against all and any of the accused.
241. As per case of prosecution accused Rajan Chopra
was the chief architect of the criminal conspiracy and he had
taken all the necessary steps for fabrication of the records of
society. It has already been held above that the prosecution has
failed to establish any of the afore-stated allegations against
accused Rajan Chopra. Likewise, it has failed to establish the
allegations against accused B. P. Mahaur, D. S. Negi and R. K.
Srivastava that they had acted dishonestly in discharge of theirCC No. 42/2019 Page no. 118 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
duties for showing favour to anyone. It has also failed to
establish any of the allegations against accused Sandeep Sahni.
242. There is no allegation nor any oral or documentary
evidence has been led to the effect that any of the accused had
met each other at any point of time either directly or through
someone else. It is not averred as to whether accused Sandeep
Sahni and S. P. Saxena were part of criminal conspiracy from its
inception or they had joined it later. Infact, there is no averment
vis-a-vis possible timeline when any of the accused had become
part of the alleged criminal conspiracy.
243. In Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K. Narayana
Rao: (2012) 9 SCC 512, it was held that, “Inferences from such
proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only
when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable
explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be
deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises
or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable
evidence.”
Further, in Ram Sharan Chaturvedi vs. State of M.P.,
AIR 2022 SC 4002, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“22. The principal ingredient of the offence of
criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is an
agreement to commit an offence. Such an agreement must be
proved through direct or circumstantial evidence. Court has to
necessarily ascertain whether there was an agreement between
the Appellant and A-1 and A-2. In the decision of State of Kerala
v. P. Sugathan and Anr.2, this Court noted that an agreementCC No. 42/2019 Page no. 119 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
forms the core of the offence of conspiracy, and it must surface in
evidence through some physical manifestation:
“12. …As in all other criminal offences, the
prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. …A few bits here and a
few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to
be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of
the crime of criminal conspiracy…
In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu(2005) 11
SCC 600, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held:
“101. One more principle which deserves notice is
that the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be
taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused rather
than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances.
Of course, each one of the circumstances should be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in regard to the appreciation of
evidence relating to the conspiracy, the Court must take care to
see that the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and
clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design
and its execution.”
244. As mentioned above, the prosecution has failed to
establish the guilt of any of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution has failed to prove existence of any direct or
indirect link between the acts of accused persons which could
establish the existence of criminal conspiracy between them. The
facts which though have been proved on record do not lead to
conclusion that all or any of the accused had prior meeting of
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 120 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
mind vis-a-vis revival of the society by illegal means. Therefore,
it has to be concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish
a complete chain of facts so as to indicate the guilt of the accused
persons.
245. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116, Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat
(2020) 14 SCC 750 and Laxman Prasad v. State of Maharashtra
2023 SCC Online SC 743, it was held and reiterated that, “In a
case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in
all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and also
exclude any other theory of the crime.”
246. Thus, it has to be concluded that prosecution has
failed to establish that all or any of the accused had formed an
agreement for commission of offences as alleged. It has failed to
prove that all or any of the accused persons had committed the
offence of criminal conspiracy.
Conclusion:
247. Hence, in view of the afore-mentioned discussion, it
has to be concluded that prosecution has failed to prove that the
guilt of accused persons vis-a-vis the charges which were framed
against them. Accordingly, accused Rajan Chopra, B.P. Mahaur,
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Dilip Singh Negi and Sandeep Sahni
are acquitted from the charge of having committed offences u/s
120-B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and sec. 13(1) (d) r/w sec. 13 (2) of
the PC Act. Accused Rajan Chopra is also acquitted from the
charge of having committed offences u/s 420 r/w sec. 511 IPC
and u/s 468/471 of IPC. Accused B.P. Mahaur, Rajesh Kumar
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 121 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
Srivastava and Dilip Singh Negi are acquitted of having
committed offences u/s 15 r/w 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the PC
Act. Accused Sandeep Sahni is also acquitted of having
committed substantive offences u/s 420 r/w sec. 511 IPC.
248. All accused have already furnished bail bonds and
surety bonds u/s 437-A Cr.PC earlier. The said bail bonds/ surety
bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months.
249. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
Announced in open (SUSHANT CHANGOTRA)
court on 16.02.2026 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI
Rouse Avenue Courts,
New Delhi/16.02.2026
Digitally signed
by SUSHANT
SUSHANT CHANGOTRA
CHANGOTRA Date:
2026.02.18
16:42:24 +0530
CC No. 42/2019 Page no. 122 of 122
CBI Vs. Rajan Chopra & Ors
