Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Alok Kumar Sharan Etc on 25 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF M.P. SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT), CBI-02, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI
CBI/378/2019
CNR No. DLCT 11-001479-2019
RC No. 06(A)/2014/CBI/AC-1/ND
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
versus
1. Alok Kumar Sharan,
s/o Late Mahesh Deo Sharan
r/o C-231, Gama-I Sector,
Greater Noida, U.P.
2. Ms. L. Binodini Devi,
w/o Sh. Tarun Kumar
r/o B-843, 1st Floor, Rear Side
Green Field Colony, Faridabad
Haryana - 121 009
3. Prakash Krishna Shambharkar,
s/o Late Krishna H. Shambharkar
r/o D2/302, Pawan Hans Housing Complex
Relief Road End, Daulat Nagar
Santacruz West, Mumbai - 400 054
4. M/s Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd.,
Through Sh. Anil Mangal, Director
(Now M/s Wohlstand Impex Pvt. Ltd.)
5. Anil Kumar Mangal,
Director of M/s Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
s/o Late Udho Lal Mangal
r/o C-16, Panchsheel Enclave
New Delhi - 110 017
Date of institution - 23.12.2015
Judgment reserved on - 26.11.2025
Judgment pronounced on - 25.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. On 17.09.2014 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
registered FIR (Ex. 49/A) in the instant case on the basis of a
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 1 of 200
written complaint dt. 17.09.2014 (Ex. PW40/A) of PW40 Satendra
Singh, Inspector, CBI, ACB-I, Delhi following a preliminary
inquiry. The instant matter concerns the approvals granted to
Accused No. 4 (A-4), M/s Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (for short
‘SFAPL’), which CBI characterises as irregular and procedurally
flawed. According to the CBI, these approvals enabled SFAPL to
commence operations as a flying training institute notwithstanding
its failure to comply with the Civil Aviation Requirements (for
short ‘CAR’) issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation
(for short ‘DGCA’).
2. Before proceeding ahead, it would be apposite to look into
the relevant regulations under the CAR. In exercise of its powers
under Rule 133A of Aircraft Rules, 1937, the office of DGCA,
Delhi issued guidelines in the form of CAR, Section 7 Series ‘D’
Part 1 Issue 1 on the subject ‘Approval of Flying Training
Institutes’. This Regulation1, insofar as they are relevant for the
present purpose, are as under.
3. GRANT OF INITIAL NOC
3.1 For grant of initial No Objection Certificate (NOC) in
principle for starting a flying training institute, the applicant
should submit a written application as per Annexure I to
DGCA, along with a bank draft of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty
thousand) payable at any scheduled bank at Delhi in favour
of Central Pay & Accounts Office, DGCA, New Delhi. The
application should contain the following information along
with the supporting documents:
(i) Memorandum of Articles of Association duly
registered with the competent authority.
(ii) No Objection Certificate from Airports Authority of
India, from air traffic point of view.
(iii) No Objection Certificate from the owner of the
airport:
1
Document(s) at D-66 (Ex. PW21/D) and also at D-28.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 2 of 200
(a) for use of airport for setting up the training
institute, and
(b) for provision of parking and hangar space.
(iv) Financial soundness of the applicant with
supporting documents.
(v) xxxxxx
(vi) xxxxxx
(vii) xxxxxx
(viii) xxxxxx
(ix) xxxxxx
Incomplete application or application without the
supporting documents or the fee is liable to rejected.
3.2 xxxxxx
3.3 xxxxxx
3.4 Applicants whose proposals are found satisfactory and
who meet the requirements, may be granted No Objection
Certificate in principle by DGCA subject to any condition as
may be considered necessary, for setting up the flying
training institute for the purpose of imparting flying training
to the student pilots to enable them to acquire appropriate
pilot’s licenses.
3.5 The NOC is normally valid for one and half year
during which period the applicant should take necessary
steps to comply with the other requirements and acquire the
final approval for starting the training institute.
4. PERMISSION FOR IMPORT/ACQUISITION OF
AIRCRAFT
xxxxxx
5. GRANT OF APPROVAL
5.1 xxxxxx
5.2 xxxxxx
5.3 xxxxxx
5.4 xxxxxx
5.5 xxxxxx
5.6 xxxxxx
5.7 xxxxxx
5.8 After completion of the necessary preparedness, the
applicant shall apply to DGCA for grant of approval to the
flying training institute. The application shall contain
information on the following aspects along with the
supporting documents:
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 3 of 200
(i) Particulars of the specific aircraft to be used.
(ii) Detail of mandatory instruments and equipments
installed on the aircraft.
(iii) Certificate of registration and certificate of
airworthiness of the aircraft.
(iv) Approval of maintenance organisation.
(v) Names, licence/approval and endorsements of the
engineers and flight instructors.
(vi) A current comprehensive insurance policy
covering the aircraft, occupants of aircraft, and third
party risks in accordance with the requirements.
(vii) A statement showing compliance of the
requirements of this CAR and condition of the initial
NOC.
(viii) Compliance of the requirements for leased aircraft
operations, if the aircraft is acquired on lease.
(ix) Details of facilities, equipment, procedures and
necessary manpower.
5.9 After the applicant furnishes information showing
compliance of the requirements, a review of the
preparedness status of the applicant shall be carried out by
DGCA along with the representatives of the applicant.
5.10 If the preparedness status is found satisfactory, an
inspection of the institute shall be carried out by a team of
officers including an officer from the concerned regional
airworthiness office, to confirm that the proposed institute
has acquired the capability to undertake the planned flying
training activities.
5.11 If the applicant is found to be meeting the requirement,
DGCA may grant the necessary approval stipulating any
conditions, if considered necessary. The approval shall be
valid for a period not exceeding one year.
5.12 It will be responsibility of the institute to ensure that
during the period of validity of the approval, capability of
the institute is not degraded in any way. DGCA officers,
including Flight Operations Instructors, may carry out
random spot checks or safety audit of the institute at any
time.
6. RENEWAL OF THE APPROVAL
6.1 The approval of the flying training institute shall be valid
for one year and renewable by DGCA against the payment
of a fee of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only)
by a demand draft drawn in favour of the pay and accounts
office, Director General of Civil Aviation, Ministry of Civil
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 4 of 200
Aviation, New Delhi. For renewal, the institute shall
demonstrate continued capability to conduct flying training
activities authorised.
6.2 The applicant shall make a request to DGCA for renewal
of the approval at least 30 days prior to expiry of the
approval. An internal safety audit report confirming that the
institute maintains the required capability and meets the
requirements of this Car shall be submitted along with the
request.
6.3 The approval shall be renewed after inspection by
DGCA and on satisfying that the institute maintains the
required capability.
7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
7.1 xxxxxx
7.2 xxxxxx
7.3 xxxxxx
7.4 xxxxxx
7.5 The aerodrome at the main base of the institute should
have proper fencing and adequate security arrangements.
The runway should be smooth with satisfactory runway
markings, threshold markings, windsock, signal square and
adequate display of signboards. Proper communication
facility and adequate safety services shall also be provided.
The institute shall be responsible for enforcing necessary
security arrangements.
7.6 xxxxx
7.7 xxxxx
7.8 xxxxx
7.9 xxxxx
7.10 xxxxx
7.11 xxxxx
7.12 xxxxx
7.13 xxxxx
7.14 During the course of flying training activities, if the
institute fails to comply with the requirements of this CAR,
Aircraft Act 19342, Aircraft Rules 1937, or other regulations
issued from time to time, or if the standard of flying training
is found to be below the desired level, the approval granted
to the institute shall be liable to alteration, suspension or
cancellation.
2
Section 43 of Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 (Act 16 of 2024) seeks to repeal the Aircraft
Act 1934.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 5 of 200
3. From the above, it is evident that in order to obtain the
initial No Objection Certificate (NOC) in principle for establishing
a Flying Training Institute, the applicant was, inter alia, required to
have two specific NOCs:
i) one from Airports Authority of India (AAI) from air traffic
point of view, and
ii) another from ‘owner of the airport’ permitting the use of
airport for setting up the training institute, including
provisions for parking and hangar space.
4. Now, as per Gazette Notification S.O. 726 (E) dt.
04.10.19943 powers of the Director General of Civil Aviation to
approve a flying training institute stands delegated to the
following:
i) Joint Director General of Civil Aviation (except Joint
Director General of Civil Aviation Research &
Development),
ii) Deputy Director General of Civil Aviation (except Deputy
Director General of Civil Aviation Research &
Development),
iii) Director of Airworthiness (Headquarters),
iv) Director of Airworthiness (Region).
5. It so happened that SFAPL (A-4), through its Director Anil
Kumar Mangal (A-5), submitted an application dt. 25.01.2007
(Ex. PW1/A-1) with DGCA for grant of initial NOC to start Flying
Training Institute at Raipur. Pertinent it is to note that this
application of A-4 was accompanied by a letter dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex.
PW9/C) under Accused No. 3 (A-3) Prakash Shambharkar’s
3
Document(s) at D-62 [Ex. PW21/A (colly)]
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 6 of 200
signature, who, at the relevant time, was the Air Controller, AAI,
Raipur Airport. An image of a copy of this letter dt. 06.01.2007
(Ex. PW9/C) of A-3 Prakash Shambharkar is below:
6. DGCA office notings described this letter dt. 06.01.2007
(Ex. PW9/C) of A-3 Prakash Shambharkar as the ‘NOC from air
traffic point of view’. In DGCA office noting dt. 02.02.2007 it is,
inter alia, written, “NOC from Air Traffic point of view which
may be seen at page 34/C.” Relevant would it be to note that this
office note dt. 02.02.2007 was drafted and signed by PW2 Dilawar
Singh Sadha. To it, the Section Officer Praveen Kumar (PW1)
added the remark, ‘Please may see before issue’ and forwarded it
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 7 of 200
to A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi. After granting her approval, she
sent it to A-1 Alok K. Sharan, who too approved it. CBI alleges
that A-3 Prakash Shambharkar was incompetent to issue the letter
dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/C), purporting to be the NOC from AAI
from air traffic point of view, for such an NOC could have been
issued only by the Corporate Office, i.e., the Headquarters of AAI.
7. Nonetheless, treating the letter dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/C)
as AAI’s NOC from air traffic perspective, the DGCA office
noting dt. 02.02.2007 recorded two principal deficiencies in A-4
SFAPL’s application dt. 25.01.2007 (Ex. PW1/A-1), namely: (a)
absence of requisite NOC from AAI, rather from ‘owner of the
airport’, qua land for parking and hangar of aircraft(s), and (b)
absence of financial soundness papers.
8. Post-approval of the said noting dt. 02.02.2007, DGCA
Section Officer PW1 Praveen Kumar, on behalf of DGCA, issued
a letter dt. 02.02.2007 (Ex. PW1/A-2) to SFAPL requiring it to
submit following information/documents: (i) NOC from AAI for
allotment of land for parking/hangar and construction of hangar
and other building required for setting up the institute from owner
of Airport, and (ii) Supporting financial soundness documents.
9. Relevant would it be to note here that in this regard
Section Officer Praveen Kumar (PW1) in his oral evidence states,
“NOC from air traffic point of view was not sought as it had been
provided with application and the said NOC was issued by one
Prakash Sambharkar, APC Raipur Airport.”
10. In response to the said DGCA letter dt. 02.02.2007 (Ex.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 8 of 200
PW1/A-2), A-4 SFAPL vide its reply dt. 19.02.2007 (Ex.
PW1/A-3) submitted the papers, but not the NOC from AAI, or
rather from the ‘owner of the [Raipur] airport’. On receipt of this
letter of SFAPL, PW2 Dilawar Singh Sadha put up a note dt.
25.04.2007 saying, “….Now, they meet all the requirement except
parking and hangarage for grant of initial NOC to M/s Sai Flytech
Aviation. Earlier, we have already given initial NOC to the same
condition.” This note then came to be signed by Section Officer
Praveen Kumar (PW1) and then placed before A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi for her approval, who wrote, ” Refer to MCA’s
letter, the flying training Institute must get each applicant vetted
by the State police before enrolment.” Thereafter, A-1 Alok K.
Sharan, before whom the file was placed, wrote, “We may issue
NOC in principle” and the file was then marked for approval of
late Kanu Gohain, the then Director General of Civil Aviation,
who granted the approval in the office noting on 26.04.2007.
11. Consequently, conditional initial in-principle approval for
six months, for establishing a flying training institute at Raipur
was issued to SFAPL, and conveyed to SFAPL vide DGCA letter
dt. 27.04.2007 (Ex. PW1/A-4) under the signature of A-1 Alok K.
Sharan. This initial in-principle approval was conditioned, inter
alia, upon SFAPL submitting the NOC from AAI, or rather from
the ‘owner of the [Raipur] airport’, for allotment of land for
parking/hangar space and construction of hangar space.
12. CBI alleges that this conditional initial in-principle
approval for six months to SFAPL to establish a flying training
institute was granted notwithstanding the fact that it had no NOC
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 9 of 200
from air traffic point of view, and such an NOC could have been
issued only by the Corporate Office, i.e., the Headquarters of the
Airports Authority of India. Further, this initial in-principle
approval, it is alleged by prosecution, was granted violating
another mandatory requirement, namely NOC from owner of
airport for parking and hangar space for setting up the training
institute.
13. However, no such flying training school came to be set up at
Raipur.
14. It appears from the record that even as the process was
actively under way in DGCA office for grant of approval to
establish a flying training school at Raipur, SFAPL had been
simultaneously pursuing with its efforts to instead set up its base at
Bilaspur and not Raipur.4 By its letter dt. 23.06.2007, the
Chhattisgarh Government informed SFAPL that it had granted
permission to use the Bilaspur airstrip for a flying school on a lease
basis for a period of three years. Relevant would it to be set out an
important term on which the Chhattisgarh Government5 had
permitted SFAPL to make use of Bilaspur airstrip for three years.
Besides usual terms and conditions, that included payment of
annual ground rent of Rs. 1 lac, Chhattisgarh Government had
stipulated that ‘SFAPL shall reserve 09 seats for SC/ST and OBC
trainees of Chhattisgarh and will provide them 20% relaxation in
flight charges’. Further, an agreement dt. 21.05.2008 (at D-37)
4
This is quite evident from copy of the letter dt. 23.06.2007 [Ex. PW35/B (colly)] of Chhattisgarh
Government permitting SFAPL to use the Bilaspur airstrip. In this letter dt. 23.06.2007 addressed to
SFAPL, Chhattisgarh Government makes reference to its (SFAPL’s) communication no. SFA/100/07
dt. 07.04.2007.
5
State Government’s letter dt. 23.06.2007 to SFAPL – D-37.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 10 of 200
between SFAPL and a department of Chhattisgarh Government
concerned with welfare of SC/ST/OBC communities indicates,
inter alia, that one of its terms provided for selection of students by
the Government, albeit in consultation with SFAPL, and that the
training was intended to benefit SC/ST/OBC candidates belonging
to below poverty line categories.
15. Anil Kumar Mangal (A-5) on behalf of SFAPL (A-4) then
submitted a letter dt. 16.07.2007 (Ex. PW2/A) to DGCA for
change of base of the flying training school from Raipur to
Bilaspur. Along with its letter dt. 16.07.2007 (Ex. PW2/A), A-4
SFAPL furnished a copy of Chhattisgarh Government’s letter dt.
23.06.2007 [Ex. PW35/B (colly)], whereby the Government,
purportedly acting as the ‘owner’ of Bilaspur Airport, granted
permission to SFAPL to utilise the Bilaspur airstrip for
establishing and operating a flying school for the next three years.
This aspect is vital, for amongst the several contentious issues
involved in this lis, a central question relates to who the true
‘owner’ of Bilaspur Airport was, whether it was the Chhattisgarh
Government or the AAI.
16. DGCA then issued letter dt. 08.08.2007 (Ex. PW2/B) under
the signature of its officer PW16 S. C. Roy to SFAPL thereby
asking it to furnish ‘NOC from AAI from air traffic point of view
and space for parking and hangarage facilities for the operation’.
A-5 Anil Kumar Mangal responded to this on 02.09.2007 (Ex.
PW2/C) and submitted therewith the following documents: (i)
copies of registration papers of land purchased by A-4 SFAPL
adjoining Bilaspur Airport for construction of hangar for parking
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 11 of 200
and maintenance of aircrafts, and (ii) letter dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex.
PW7/A) of Prakash Shambharkar (A-3), the then Airport
Controller, AAI, Raipur Airport, purporting to be AAI’s NOC
from air traffic point of view qua Bilaspur Airport. An image of
this letter dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A) of A-3 Prakash
Shambharkar is below:
17. CBI alleges that A-3 Prakash Shambharkar unauthorisedly
issued the aforesaid letter/NOC dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A) upon
SFAPL’s application for change of base from Raipur to Bilaspur.
It bears repetition to state that it is the assertion of the prosecution
that only the Corporate Office, i.e., the Headquarters of Airports
Authority of India could have issued such an NOC.
18. Following up on the letter dt. 02.09.2007 (Ex. PW2/C) of
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 12 of 200
A-5 Anil Kumar Mangal, A-1 Alok K. Sharan in his office noting
dt. 13.09.2007 recorded, “Why they want to change? They should
specify the reason.” This was then followed by a letter dt.
14.09.2007 of the DGCA (Ex. PW2/D) under the signature of its
officer PW16 S. C. Roy thereby asking SFAPL (A-4) to ‘ furnish
specific reason for change of operational base from Raipur to
Bilaspur’ in order to process the case further. And in response, A-5
Anil Kumar Mangal replied on 17.09.2007 (Ex. PW2/E) to DGCA
stating, “….we initially got NOC for Raipur airport from Airport’s
authority of India. But subsequently, Airport’s authority of India
changed the procedure for allotment of Airport. Now, Airport
authority is issuing NOC by calling tendure for allotment. Thus, it
was not sure to get NOC from Airport’s authority of India.
Meanwhile, Chhattisgrah Government advertised for the
allotment of Bilaspur Airport for flying training purpose.
Therefore, We applied for allotment of Bilaspur Airport for the
above mentioned purpose. Government of Chhattisgarh issued a
NOC to us with a condition that we have to give flying training to
nine boys/girls of Chhattisgarh belonging to SC/ST, economically
backward community in each batch with special concessional
price which was accepted by us. Therefore, It is requested that
kindly give us approval of Bilaspur Airport for flying training up
to CPL6 Level.”
19. A-4 SFAPL’s request for change of base from Raipur to
Bilaspur for its flying training school came to be approved by
DGCA vide the office notings which received the approval of Alok
6
Acronym for ‘Commercial Pilot License’
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 13 of 200
K. Sharan (A-1), the then Deputy Director General of DGCA, on
18.09.2007. He permitted ‘in principle’ setting up of flying
training institute at Bilaspur for six months. This approval was,
however, subject to eleven (11) conditions, and the relevant ones
as set out in the letter dt. 18.09.2007 (Ex. PW2/F) issued by A-1
Alok K. Sharan to SFAPL (A-4) are as under:
1) The institute will be submitted NOC from AAI for allotment of
land for parking/hangar space and construction of hangar.
2) xxxx
3) xxxx
4) xxxx
5) Necessary security arrangement are available.
6) xxxx
7) All relevant rules, procedures and instructions laid down in the
Civil Aviation requirements are complied with. ATC instructions
and procedures of the Airport Authority of India are also
followed. The final approval will be subject to inspection of
club/institute by this office when you are ready to start
instructional Flying Training.
8) xxxx
9) You shall not indulge in any advertisement inviting application to
recruit pupil pilot unless you have prior approval to commence
Flying Training from this office.
10) xxxx
11) This is ‘Initial N.O.C.’ will be valid for a period of six months
w.e.f. the date of issue of this letter.
20. CBI alleges that A-1 Alok K. Sharan abused his official
position by approving the change of base from Raipur to Bilaspur
and granting ‘in principle’ approval to SFAPL, subject to the
condition that an NOC be obtained from the Airports Authority of
India.
21. Now, having received the ‘in principle’ approval to set up a
flying training institute at Bilaspur for six months, A-4 SFAPL,
about four months later, made a request to DGCA to commence
flying training activities at Bilaspur Airport vide its letter dt.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 14 of 200
10.01.2008 (Ex. PW11/C) with the caption ‘Kind Attn.: (Mr. A.K.
Sharan, Deputy Director General)’. In this letter, SFAPL (A-4)
wrote to DGCA, “We have positioned four aircrafts, namely, 2
Cessna 152 and 2 Cessna 172 aircrafts at Bilaspur Airport. Out of
the 4 aircrafts, 2 Cessna 172 aircrafts have already been granted
Indian C Of A. C Of A in respect of 2 Cessna 152 aircrafts will be
carried out at Bilaspur. It is further intimated that we have already
constructed hangar and other necessary infrastructure for
establishing Flying Training Academy at Bilaspur. You were
requested to kindly take necessary action for granting approval of
the Academy, so that we can start the Flying Training activities.”
22. On this application of A-4 SFAPL to commence flying
training activities, DGCA conducted an inspection of Sai Flytech
Aviation Flying Training Institute on 21.01.2008 and 22.01.2008.
Mr. T. Mohan Chandran, the then Assistant Director (operations),
DGCA conducted the inspection. This was SFAPL’s first DGCA
inspection, and various lapses/anomalies came to be noticed.
Lapse/anomaly, as noted in this first Inspection Report 7, vis-Ã -vis
the perimeter fencing, was as under:
Aspects to be audited or Status Comments
questions to be answered
Whether airport perimeter Perimeter fencing It was informed that
fencing is available with is not available. perimeter fencing work
adequate watch and ward for 24 watch and is already awarded to
preventing runaway incursion ward belongs to Rajesh Construction,
during aircraft operation? flying club are Raipur by AAI and will
deployed in and be staring the work after
around the 2 days.
airport.
7
It is an unexhibited/unmarked document at pages 172-186 of D-27.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 15 of 200
23. Pursuant to the aforesaid first Inspection Report, SFAPL
was asked, vide note dt. 24.01.20088, to submit its Action Taken
Report (ATR), and which it did on the very same day i.e.
24.01.2008 (Ex. PW11/D) showing compliance to several
shortcomings. However, its ATR was apparently silent about the
perimeter fencing; and this came to be highlighted in the DGCA
office noting dt. 25.01.2008 that was put up by Ms. L. Binodini
Devi (A-2) and wherein she wrote, ” the u/s has examined the file
for final approval of Sai-Fly-Tech. The ATR does not say
definitely whether the deficiencies pointed out in the inspector’s
report, has been corrected. For example, the inspection report has
said that airport does not have the perimeter fencing. ATR does
not say that perimeter fencing has been completed. It only say that
the contract for raising the perimeter fencing has been given to
AAI. Therefore, Sai-Fly-Tech’s final approval cannot be
considered under such conditions as per CAR.” This note was
approved by A-1 Alok K. Sharan on 28.01.2008, who in the office
note wrote, “They have not yet completed the standard Runway
markings and Taxiways markings. Fencing of the aerodrome has
not yet started…..Please advise them to clarify” and sent the file to
Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2).
24. It is CBI’s allegation that SFAPL (A-4) attempted to
mislead the DGCA officers through its ATR dt. 24.01.2008, for
during a subsequent inspection (the second DGCA inspection)
conducted by PW15 Captain B. S. Nehra, from 18.11.2008 to
20.11.2008 (the second Inspection Report – Ex. PW15/B), it was
8
This office note is there on the Inspection Report itself.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 16 of 200
found that SFAPL had furnished false information in its ATR dt.
24.01.2008. The said Inspection Report (Ex. PW15/B) of PW15
Captain B. S. Nehra specifically noted, ” 31. The academy has
submitted false information with regard to action taken report with
respect to the initial inspection carried out by Mr. Mohan Chandra
without rectifying the deficiencies.” PW15 Captain B. S. Nehra’s
Inspection Report (Ex. PW15/B) identified 33 deficiencies in all,
including the absence of proper airport fencing.
25. On 30.01.20008 SFAPL (A-4) wrote to DGCA with the
caption ‘Kind Attn.: Capt. L. Binodini Devi’ in reference to
DGCA’s letter no. 22011/3/2007-FG dt. 29.01.2008. Therein,
SFAPL (A-4) made a request for early approval while setting out
the following:
1. Runway and Taxiway markings have been completed as per CAR,
Section A, Series F, Part I.
2. Till the fencing is completed, we have hired adequate number of
security guards. Contract for the fencing has been awarded to
Rajesh Construction, Raipur, Chattisgarh.
3. xxxx
26. Thereafter, in her office note dt. 01.02.2008 Captain L.
Binodini Devi (A-2), inter alia, wrote, “……In regards of ATR,
Sai Fly Tech Aviation has submitted that they have completed the
Runway/taxiway marking, however the Airport perimeter wall
fencing is in progress as it is fencing done by the Govt. of
Chhattisgarh, & it is expected to be completed within three
month’s time and they have assured that adequate number of
watch & ward will be deployed during operation & they will be
fully responsible for safety of the flying training operation while
perimeter wall fencing is being raised. And hence, Sai-Fly-Tech
have requested for Three month’s approval of their flying training
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 17 of 200
institute till the perimeter wall fencing could be completed. DDG
may pls see.” This note dt. 01.02.2008 does not bear the signature
of A-1 Alok K. Sharan, indicating that he was not the one to
approve it. This office note dt. 01.02.2008 was however approved
on 05.02.2008 by the then Joint Director General (JDG), Civil
Aviation, Mr. Arun Kumar Chopra (PW23), who in his note wrote,
“we may grant provisional approval for 3 months subject to
condition that fencing will be completed by then. Till that time
minimum 4 guards will be posted for safety of operations. We may
issue letter accordingly.” In this regard, Mr. Arun Kumar Chopra
(PW23) in his oral evidence, inter alia, states,
“…..Vide this note, I had given approval for alternate
compliance for the fencing with the condition that four guards
will be regularly positioned during operations and as it was
asked for three months so I had approved for three months.
xxxx by Sh. Vikas Walia, Ld. Counsel for accused Alok
Kumar Sharan (A-1).
Q. Did you check whether all the credentials and
documentation including the NOC were in order before
granting three months approval to M/s Sai Flytech Aviation?
Ans. It is not responsibility of JDG to go through all these
documents because JDG approves only if there is alternate
compliance or concession.
Q. Is it correct that the conditions laid down in the CAR
can be relaxed by way of alternate mode of compliance?
Ans. Yes. It is standard practice in civil aviation……”
27. Now, based on the approval dt. 05.02.2008 given by the
then Joint Director General (JDG), Civil Aviation, Mr. Arun
Kumar Chopra (PW23), the office of DGCA vide its letter dt.
07.02.2008 (Ex. PW16/B) under A-1 Alok K. Sharan’s signature
conveyed to A-4 SFAPL that it had been granted ‘ provisional
approval’ to start flying training activities at Bilaspur Airport for
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 18 of 200
‘three months’, subject to9:
i) Completion of Airport perimeter fencing in three months.
ii) Adequate number of guards should be deployed at least not less
than 4 guards each side during flying training operations and while
the fencing work is in progress.
iii) Further inspection is to be carried out for final approval.
28. Aforesaid ‘provisional approval’ was valid from the date of
issue of the letter dt. 07.02.2008 (Ex. PW16/B) till 07.05.2008.
Further, in terms of the said letter dt. 07.02.2008 (Ex. PW16/B)
SFAPL was advised to report to DGCA office ‘ on completion of
Airport fencing before expiry of the permission’.
29. Thereafter, vide its letter dt. 11.04.2008 (Ex. PW11/F) A-4
SFAPL sought DGCA’s ‘approval for a further period of six
months’. In this letter, A-4 SFAPL also informed DGCA, that
“aerodrome fencing work of Bilaspur airport has been started
through a contractor M/s Rajesh Construction. The work started
late because of the strike called by employees of revenue
department of government of Chattisgarh.” Annexed with this
letter dt. 11.04.2008 (Ex. PW11/F) was copy of the tender for the
fencing work. In response, A-1 Alok K. Sharan vide his office note
dt. 15.04.2008 granted the approval writing, “May be extended for
further three months, by that time they must finish all the work. ”
This was the first extension of approval granted by Alok K. Sharan
(A-1). DGCA conveyed this first extension of approval to A-4
SFAPL vide its letter dt. 15.04.2008 under A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi’s signature and therein SFAPL was ‘advised to9
There is copy of a document at page 1 of Ex. PW5/C (colly) at D-73 showing that SFAPL
formally inaugurated its flying training activities on 17.02.2008 (Sunday).
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 19 of 200
complete all airport fencing work before expiry of this permission
and submit a report’.
30. A-1 Alok K. Sharan thereafter granted the second
extension on 22.07.2008 for another three months. This second
extension was in response to SFAPL’s letter dt. 14.07.2008
seeking ‘approval for a further period of six months’, and wherein
SFAPL, inter alia, wrote, “aerodrome fencing work of the Bilaspur
airport was started through a contractor namely M/s Rajesh
Construction and the installation of fencing pillars have been in
progress. The total fencing work will be completed soon.” On this
SFAPL’s letter, A-2 L. Binodini Devi wrote in the office noting dt.
21.07.2008, “We may approved for another three months period of
extension as noted on pre-page & give the instruction to operator
to complete the fencing work at aerodrome at the earliest
possible.” This office noting came to be approved by A-1 Alok K.
Sharan on 22.07.2008. Thereupon, DGCA conveyed to SFAPL the
‘extension of approval for further period of 3 months w.e.f.
8.8.2008 to 7.11.2008’ under A-2 L. Binodini Devi’s signature
with the ‘advise to complete all airport parameter work at
aerodrome at the earliest possible and submit a report’.
31. It is CBI’s allegation that A-1 Alok K. Sharan had granted
the first extension on 15.04.2008 and the second extension on
22.07.2008 despite the Bilaspur Airport lacking the mandatory
fencing and boundary wall required under the CAR as a condition
for the initial approval. CBI avers that its investigation revealed
that fencing work was stopped in April 2008 due to non-
demarcation of land.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 20 of 200
32. It is pertinent to mention here that one Ms. Rashmi Mittal
had made a complaint dt. 26.05.2008 to Aviation Secretary,
Government of India. Therein, she alleged that SFAPL was
conducting illegal flying operations using individuals without
valid licences, recording flights that were never undertaken, and
having students’ logbooks signed by unauthorized persons, despite
the requirement that only the Chief Flying Instructor (CFI) is
authorised to sign a student’s logbook. This complaint came to be
forwarded to DGCA vide letter dt. 09.06.2008 of Ministry of Civil
Aviation, Government of India. Then on 02.07.2008 Mr. Ram
Charan, DGCA Section Officer, put up an office note proposing
that Rashmi Mittal’s complaint, alleging unauthorised flying by
SFAPL, be forwarded to SFAPL for its comments; on 21.07.2008
Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) recorded in her office note,
“Agreed, but the applicant should specify who is the unauthorised
person.” A letter dt. 21.07.2008 (Ex. PW16/C) of A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi to SFAPL was issued asking it to offer its comments
to the said complaint of Rashmi Mittal. CBI alleges that despite
receipt of complaint against SFAPL, alleging unauthorised and
illegal flying training activities, the same was never enquired into
by the accused public servants.
33. Now, following the first two extensions of approval given
by Alok K. Sharan (A-1) on 15.04.2008 and 22.07.2008, there
were several extensions granted to SFAPL (A-4) right till
December 2011. For the sake of convenience, the initial
provisional approval granted by Mr. Arun Kumar Chopra (PW23)
together with all the subsequent extensions of approval granted to
SFAPL right till December 2011 is set out in tabular form as under:
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 21 of 200
Sl. From To Details
No.
1. 07.02.2008 07.05.2008 Provisional approval granted by
PW23 Arun Kumar Chopra on
05.02.208 in office notings file;
conveyed to SFAPL vide letter dt.
07.02.2008 (Ex. PW16/B) of A-1
Alok K. Sharan.
2. 08.05.2008 07.08.2008 1st extension given by A-1 Alok K.
Sharan on 15.04.2008 in the office
notings file; conveyed to SFAPL vide
letter dt. 15.04.200810 of A-2.
3. 08.08.2008 07.11.2008 2nd extension given by A-1 Alok K.
Sharan on 22.07.2008 in office
notings file; conveyed to SFAPL vide
letter dt. 22.07.200811 of A-2.
4. 08.11.2008 07.02.2009 3rd extension to SFAPL and the 1st
one by A-2 Capt. L. Binodini Devi on
06.11.2008 in office notings file;
conveyed to SFAPL vide letter dt.
05.11.2008 (Ex. PW15/D) of A-2.
5. 08.02.2009 07.08.2009 4th extension to SFAPL and the 2nd
one by A-2 Capt. L. Binodini Devi on
30.01.2009 in office notings file;
conveyed to SFAPL vide letter dt.
30.01.2009 (Ex. PW16/D) of A-2.
6. 08.08.2009 07.10.2009 5th extension to SFAPL and the 3rd
one by A-2 Capt. L. Binodini Devi on
03.08.2009 in office notings file;
conveyed to SFAPL vide letter dt.
03.08.200912 of A-2.
7. 08.10.2009 07.11.2009 6th extension to SFAPL and the 4th
one by A-2 Capt. L. Binodini Devi on
01.10.2009 in office notings file;
conveyed to SFAPL vide letter dt.
30.09.2009 (Ex. PW16/E) of A-2.
8. 07.11.2009 06.12.2009 7th extension to SFAPL and the 5th
one by A-2 Capt. L. Binodini Devi on
10.11.2009 in office notings file;
conveyed to SFAPL vide letter dt.
09.11.2009 (Ex. PW16/F) of A-2.
10
It is an unexhibited/unmarked document; copy thereof at page 225 of D-27.
11
It is an unexhibited/unmarked document at page 226 of D-27.
12
It is an unexhibited/unmarked document; copy thereof at page 317 of D-27.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 22 of 200
9. 08.11.2009 07.11.2010 8th extension to SFAPL and the 6th
one given by A-2 Capt. L. Binodini
Devi on 30.11.2009 in office notings
file; conveyed to SFAPL vide letter
dt. 30.11.2009 (Ex. PW16/H) of A-2.
10. 08.11.2010 30.11.2010 9th extension given by A-1 Alok K.
Sharan; conveyed to SFAPL vide
letter dt. 08.11.2010 (Ex. PW16/M)
of A-1.13
11. As per office notings, the 10th extension given by Joint Director
extension was for 2 General (JDG) J. S. Rawat on
months; however, the 29.11.2010 in the office notings
specific period it covers is file.14
not indicated therein.
12. 30.12.2010 29.12.2011 11th extension to SFAPL and the 7 th
one by A-2 Capt. L. Binodini Devi on
30.12.2010 in office notings file;
conveyed to SFAPL vide letter dt.
30.12.2010 (Ex. PW16/L) of A-2.
34. CBI alleges that Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) lacked the
competence to grant the extensions of approval without prior
sanction from the competent authority, despite stating in the
extension letters that such approval had been obtained. It also
alleges she granted all the extension despite the fact that she had
notice of the deficiencies in SFAPL. CBI also alleges that although
the initial ‘provisional approval’ [granted by PW23 Arun Kumar
Chopra] was expressly subject to completion of airport fencing
within three months, the approval continued to be extended from
time to time on the same condition, despite the fencing remaining
incomplete and the mandatory NOC from Airports Authority of
India, as required under CAR, not having been obtained.
35. Qua her first extension for the period from 08.11.2008 to
13
The office notings for the period from 30.11.2009 to 27.10.2010 is unavailable on court record.
PW40 Satendra Singh, DSP of CBI on being asked in his cross-examination about the unavailable office
notings replied, “The note-sheets were as per serial number and there was no question of any missing of
the note-sheets.” The letter communicating this extension to SFAPL too is unavailable on court record.
14
The letter communicating this extension of approval to SFAPL is unavailable on court record.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 23 of 200
07.02.2009, Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2), in her office noting
dt. 06.11.2008, recorded the remark ‘please issue’ and accordingly
granted the extension and which was conveyed to SFAPL vide her
letter dt. 05.11.2008 (Ex. PW15/D) stating therein that ‘competent
authority had granted the extension of approval’. Thereafter, on
10.11.2008 in her office noting she asked Captain B. S. Nehra
(PW15) to carry out ‘renewal inspection’. This noting dt.
10.11.2008 of L. Binodini Devi (A-2) came to be approved by
Alok K. Sharan (A-1). This, inter alia, is relied upon by the
prosecution as a circumstance to contend that A-1 Alok K. Sharan
was fully aware that A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi had granted
unauthorised extension(s) to A-4 SFAPL, and that he raised no
objection thereto at any point in time.
36. Captain B. S. Nehra (PW15) then carried out the
inspection (the second DGCA inspection) from 18.11.2008 to
20.11.2008. In his Inspection report Ex. PW15/B, he identified 33
deficiencies and the chief amongst them was qua fencing and
which is as under:
Aspects to be audited or questions Status Comments
to be answeredWhether airport perimeter fencing No15 No fencing available and
is available with adequate watch incursion was noticed on
and ward for preventing runaway day of inspection.
incursion during aircraft operation?
15
In his cross-examination, PW15 B. S. Nehra admits that at the time of his inspection, fencing work
was in progress and pillars were erected; however he added that ‘he did not mention this fact in his
report Ex. PW-15/B, as the report was only about the existence of perimeter fencing, which was not
there’. In his oral evidence, he also added that there were hardly about 2/3 security guards.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 24 of 200
Deficiencies
21. Instead of the mandatory EIGHT Guards only three were present on
the inspection day and on inquiry from Guards it was revealed that only
three remain on rotation basis.
22. During inspection it was noticed that there was no fencing available
leading to free access of villagers and animals even during operational
hours.
31. The academy has submitted false information with regard to action
taken report with respect to the initial inspection carried out by Mr. Mohan
Chandra without rectifying the deficiencies.
37. CBI alleges that no action was taken on this Inspection
Report (Ex. PW15/B) of Captain B. S. Nehra (PW15), despite it
highlighting several deficiencies. It also alleges that DGCA
officials took no action on the recommendations of Captain B. S.
Nehra (PW15) by issuing show-cause notice to SFAPL for the
various deficiencies pointed out by him in his Inspection Report
Ex. PW15/B. In response to this inspection, SFAPL submitted its
Action Taken Report dt. 27.01.200916 to DGCA under the
signature of its Director Akash Mangal.
38. It is important to note here that in March 2009 the office
file notings had been put up before Alok K. Sharan (A-1) for his
approval for updating SFAPL’s name on DGCA website. Alok K.
Sharan (A-1) had then granted his approval on 13.03.2009.
Thereafter, the office file notings was once again put up before
Alok K. Sharan (A-1) for his approval in relation to an important
aspect, namely inspection of SFAPL to be conducted by Captain L.
Binodini Devi (A-2) in the first week of November 2009. To this,
Alok K. Sharan (A-1) granted his approval on 27.10.2009. Among
the various circumstances pressed into service by the prosecution,
these two are also cited to demonstrate that Alok K. Sharan (A-1)
16
It is an unexhibited/unmarked document at page 330 of D-27.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 25 of 200
had knowledge of unauthorised extension(s) granted by A-2
Captain L. Binodini Devi to A-4 SFAPL, and yet chose to raise no
objection at any stage.
39. Now, Ashim Taxali (PW14), who was employed with
SFAPL from February, 2009 to December, 2010 as Chief Flying
Instructor (CFI), had conducted an internal inspection/audit of A-4
SFAPL and prepared his Report dt. 03.11.2009 (Ex. PW14/A) 17,
and therein against the column whether airport perimeter fencing
was available with adequate watch and ward for preventing
runway incursion during aircraft operation, he mentioned ‘ in
progress, 09 guards available’.
40. This was followed by an inspection (the third DGCA
inspection) undertaken by Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) from
05.11.2009 to 07.11.2009 revealing several deficiencies in her
Inspection Report Ex. PW16/J, and the chief amongst them was
qua fencing and which is as under18:
Aspects to be audited or Status Comments
questions to be answered
Whether airport perimeter fencing - Not yet constructed, under
is available with adequate watch construction for wall
and ward for preventing runaway fencing by the Govt. of
incursion during aircraft operation? Chhattisgarh.
41. Thereafter in her office note dt. 10.11.2009 Captain L.
Binodini Devi (A-2) wrote, “Extension of approval for one month
may be issued & on submission of ATR in one month, Sai Flytech
17
This is an internal audit conducted by the Institute itself.
18
As already stated in paragraph no. 38, for this inspection by Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2), Alok
K. Sharan (A-1) had granted his approval vide office note dt. 27.10.2009.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 26 of 200
may be granted regular approval . Pls. issue.”19 This was then
followed by another office noting dt. 30.11.2009 of Captain L.
Binodini Devi (A-2) wherein she wrote, “Pls issue the final
approval as we have received ATR.” 20
42. CBI alleges that despite deficiencies being pointed out by
Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) herself in her own inspection
conducted between 05.11.2009 to 07.11.2009 (Ex. PW16/J), she
proceeded to grant a month’s extension (from 07.11.2009 to
06.12.2009), and that too sans approval of competent authority.
CBI also alleges that Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) also issued
the approval letter on 30.11.2009 by abusing her official position
allowing extension to SFAPL for a period of one year from
08.11.2009 to 07.11.2010.
43. Ashim Taxali (PW14), employed as Chief Flying
Instructor in SFAPL from February, 2009 to December, 2010, had
conducted another internal inspection/audit of A-4 SFAPL vide
his Report dt. 06.10.2010 (Ex. PW14/B).21 And, therein against the
column whether airport perimeter fencing was available with
adequate watch and ward for preventing runway incursion during
aircraft operation, he had mentioned ‘perimeter fencing is under
construction’.
44. The office file notings was once again put up before Alok
K. Sharan (A-1) for his approval in relation to SFAPL’s inspection
(the fourth DGCA inspection) to be conducted by Captain L.
19
This office note appears to pertain to a month’s extension (07.11.2009 to 06.12.2009) granted to
SFAPL vide letter dt. 09.11.2009 (Ex. PW16/F).
20
This office note appears to pertain to a years’ extension (08.11.2009 to 07.10.2009) granted to
SFAPL vide letter dt. 30.11.2009 (Ex. PW16/H).
21
This is an internal audit conducted by the Institute itself.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 27 of 200
Binodini Devi (A-2) in December 2010. To this, Alok K. Sharan
(A-1) gave his approval in the office notings file on 10.12.2010.
The prosecution relies, inter alia, upon this circumstance as well to
infer that A-1 Alok K. Sharan was aware of the unauthorised
extension(s) granted by Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) to A-4
SFAPL, yet refrained from objecting to them at any point.
45. On the basis of the approval given by Alok K. Sharan (A-1)
vide his office note dt. 10.12.2010, Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2)
then proceeded to make an inspection (the fourth DGCA
inspection) of SFAPL on 13th/14th December 2010. It merits note
that the inspection was conducted in the presence of Ashim Taxali
(PW14), who, in his oral testimony, stated that the perimeter
fencing was still under construction at the relevant time. 22 Her
Inspection Report Ex. PW14/C noted several deficiencies, and the
chief amongst them was qua fencing and which is as under:
Aspects to be audited or questions Status Comments
to be answered
Whether airport perimeter fencing Yes Adequately trenched with
is available with adequate watch watch and ward staff.
and ward for preventing runaway
incursion during aircraft operation?
46. CBI alleges that Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) had
wrongly indicated ‘Yes’ regarding availability of airport perimeter
fencing in her aforesaid Inspection Report of 13th/14th December
2010 (Ex. PW14/C).
47. Thereafter, on 30.12.2010 Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2)
put up a note in the office notings file and which is as follows,
22
Ashim Taxali (PW14) was employed with SFAPL from February, 2009 to December, 2010 as
Chief Flying Instructor (CFI).
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 28 of 200
“The u/s has carried out renewal inspection for Sai-Fly-Tech
Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur, Chattisgarh on 13th & 14th December.
The detailed report of the inspection as per CAR Check List &
Observation made during inspection is submitted herewith for
perusal. Observations have been sent to Sai-Flytech Aviation &
the operator has now submitted ATR on the observations. They
have also submitted an amount of Rs. 25,000/- by pay-order
No.059993 dated 03-11-10 towards renewal of organisation fee.
As there is no such major deficiencies, Sai-Flytech may be
renewed for a period of one year.” Thereafter, the office notings
file was placed before Joint Director General (JDG) Mr. J.S.
Rawat, who wrote, “Pl. examine” and marked the file to Captain
Arun Mann (PW17) who at that time was a Consultant Director on
contractual basis in DGCA. Captain Arun Mann (PW17) in the
said office notings appended his signature on 31.12.2010, and then
on 31.12.2010 A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi wrote, “Pls. Issue”.23
In this context, Captain Arun Mann (PW17) in his cross-
examination states as follows:
“Q. I put it to you that captain Binodini Devi had inspected the
Flying Training Institute on December 13/14, 2010 and
submitted a report to JDG for approval or not ?
Ans. It is correct. The same is at page 33 of the D-27 already
Ex. PW1/A (colly).
Q. I put it to you that thereafter the JDG marked the file to you
stating “please examine” ?
Ans. It is correct.
Q. I put it to you that can you infer anything from this wording
“please examine” ?
Ans. The report which was submitted by Captain Binodini was
examined and submitted back to Captain Binodini.
Q. I put it to you that thereafter what was captain Binodini
23
This office note pertains to a year’s extension (from 30.12.2010 to 29.12.2011) granted to
SFAPL vide letter dt. 30.12.2010 (Ex. PW16/L).
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 29 of 200
supposed to do in the matter on her behalf ?
Ans. She was supposed to issue letter.
Q. I put it to you that the issuance of letter for renewal was a
mere formality because the file had already been inspected by
not only JDG but also by you ?
Ans. The file was not inspected and cleared by me but only
observations again said the action taken report was checked by
the undersigned and it was forwarded to Cap. Binodini Devi
and she has ordered to the Section officer (SO) to issue the
letter.”
48. It is CBI’s allegation that the said note dt. 30.12.2010 of
Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2), recommending extension for one
year to SFAPL, was a false one. The CBI alleges that although the
file was initially marked to Captain Arun Mann (PW17) with the
instruction ‘please examine,’ and was thereafter forwarded by him
to A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi, she, instead of examining the
matter, recorded the remark ‘please issue’, and thereby facilitated
unauthorised extension in SFAPL’s favour. CBI alleges that she
and other accused persons had been working in tandem with each
other and had entered into criminal conspiracy and resultantly she
had issued the extension letter dt. 30.12.2010 (Ex. PW16/L) just a
day before her superannuation on 31.12.2010.
49. Having set out the sequence of events thus far, it becomes
necessary to revert to an occurrence dating back to November
2008. In the context of the allegations advanced by CBI in this lis,
particular significance attaches to a letter dt. 11.11.2008 (Ex.
PW3/A3) of Mr. M. C. Dangi, the then Joint General Manager
(Ops), Headquarters, AAI, Delhi addressed to A-4 SFAPL. A copy
of this letter was marked, inter alia, to DGCA and, in particular, for
drawing the ‘kind attention of Shri A. K. Sharan DDG’. This letter
reads as under:
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 30 of 200
FILE NO. AAI/ATM/OPS/04-66/2008 11th November, 08
M/s. Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. 7, Road No. 1
Silver Oak Marg, Ghitorni
New Delhi-110030.
SUB: UNAUTHORISED FLYING TRAINING ACTIVITIES AT
BILASPUR BY M/S. SAI FLYTECH AVIATION PVT. LTD.
Dear Sir,
Reference is made to your letter No. F-SFA/CMD/25-
2008/01 dated 7/10/08 regarding airspace requirements and
proposed SOP for flying training activities at Bilaspur Airport. In
continuation of Airport Controller, Raipur letter No.
AAI/RP/EST-09/1323-29 dated 5/8/08. It is informed that Bilaspur
Airport is property of Airports Authority of India, and THIS IS
RECORDED IN DGCA’S AIC 18/1986 also.
The Corporate Headquarters Of AAI has not issued any
NOCs to M/s. Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd., neither for use of
Bilaspur airport as a base of your flying club, nor from air traffic
point of view, as required in accordance with DGCA Civil Aviation
Requirement (CAR) on the subject. Therefore, the flying training
activities of your flying club are unauthorized.
In view of the above, it is once gain advised to stop the flying
training activities, if not stopped already, at Bilaspur airport
forthwith. The request for allocation of airspace and the proposed
SOP, as submitted vide letter under reference [dated 7/10/08] is not
considered and such request will not be entertained in future also.
A written undertaking for having stopped the flying training
activities at Bilaspur airport may be submitted to the Airport
Controller, Raipur, under intimation to CHQ.AAI.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- 11.11.2008
[M. C. DANGI]
Jt. General Manager [OPS.]
For ED (ATM)
FAX 011-24652649
Copy to :
1. The DGCA [Kind Attn : Shri A.K. Sharan, DDG]—-for
information, and with a request to consider withdrawal of flying
training permission granted to M/s. Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd. as
the institute is conducting flying training activities against the
provisions of DGCA CAR, SECTION 7 – FCS, Training &
Licensing, SERIES ‘D’ Pt I. A copy of GM [Aero.], AAI, Western
Region letter No. 52072/ARI/OPS/08[M]/1642-47 dated 9/9/2008
is enclosed. The details available in AIC 18/1986, clearly establish
the ownership of the Bilaspur Airport with the DGCA at that timeCBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 31 of 200
and subsequently to NAA/AAI as part of assets and property
transferred under NAA/AAI Acts.
2. The RED, AAI, WR [Kind Attn : Shri G.P. Hela, GM [Aero]
w.r.t. letter No. 52072/ARI/OPS/08[M]/1642-47 dated 9/9/08.
3. The ED [Comml], AAI, CHQ—for information please.
4. The GM (ATM) AAI. NSCBI Airport. Kolkata Airport. Kolkata
for information please.
5. The Director Civil Aviation [Ops.], Room No. 353, Dau Kalyan
Singh Bhawan, Raipur.
6. The Airport Controller, AAI, Raipur Airport, Raipur.
50. Even prior to this letter dt. 11.11.2008, AAI (Western
Region HQs) had written on 09.09.2008 to DGCA through its
officer G. P. Hela that A-4 SFAPL had been carrying out flying
operations at Bilaspur Airport sans AAI’s approval.
51. It appears from the record that on 03.12.2008, the DGCA
vide its letter dt. 03.12.2008 under A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi’s
signature had written to Director, Civil Aviation (Ops), Raipur,
Chhattisgarh to clarify whether Bilaspur Airport belonged to AAI
or to Chhattisgarh Government. It was also asked to clarify if the
State Government had signed any lease agreement regarding the
Bilaspur Airport and if so copy of the same was requested to be
furnished for further necessary action urgently.
52. CBI alleges that notwithstanding the said letter dt.
11.11.2008 of Mr. M.C. Dangi wrongful approvals were extended
to SFAPL on several occasions. Further, there were several
complaints against the Flying Training Institute, but they were not
enquired into and extensions were given flouting the norms.
53. Now, a Special Audit of A-4 SFAPL was conducted by a
team of three officers that included Captain Arun Mann (PW17).
This special audit was conducted in Bilaspur between 20.09.2011
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 32 of 200
to 23.09.2011. There were several deficiencies pointed out in the
Special Audit (Ex. PW17/A) and chief amongst them was qua the
fencing and which is as under:
Aspects to be audited or Status Comments Appendix
questions to be answered
Whether airport perimeter No No. There is no —
fencing is available with boundary wall/Fencing
adequate watch and ward available & cattle
for preventing runaway movement was seen.
incursion during aircraft
operation?
Whether any complaint - - --
has been received from the
trainees by the institute
regarding their training? If
yes, what action has been
taken by the institute?
Any other Comments/Information
Flying Training audit was found most unsatisfactory and view of the
Non-Conformity and the Observation as indicated above, DGCA HQ
may initiate appropriate action as deemed fit.
54. It is the assertion of the CBI that the deficiencies brought
to light during Special Audit of A-4 SFAPL were deliberately
overlooked in grant of extensions. Further, Alok K. Sharan (A-1)
allegedly knew quite well that Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2)
gave unauthorised extensions to A-4 SFAPL and he raised no
objections to it at any point of time.
55. In due course, on 13.09.2010, A-1 Alok K. Sharan
addressed a communication to Jharkhand Government stating that
A-4 SFAPL fulfilled all Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR).
Acting upon this representation, the Government of Jharkhand
awarded A-4 SFAPL a contract to train 30 students from the State
and released a sum of Rs. 95,22,215/- in its favour. CBI alleges
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 33 of 200
that, by issuing the said communication, Alok K. Sharan (A-1)
abused his official position, thereby securing an undue pecuniary
advantage for A-4 SFAPL without any public interest.
56. However, there is some background to this allegation of
undue pecuniary advantage to A-4 SFAPL. In year 2010, the
Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Jharkhand Government in order to
impart training to 30 students of the State for attaining Commercial
Pilots Licence (CPL) with twin engine rating had invited bids from
eligible training institutes. The eligible training institutes were
required to have a valid ‘Approval of Organisation’ certificate
from DGCA. Pursuant thereto, eleven (11) institutes submitted
their bids by the due date of 06.08.2010. Out of the eleven (11)
bidders, six (6) were shortlisted. The record reflects that L-1 bidder
was one Garg Aviation Ltd., Kanpur and L-2 was A-4 SFAPL and
this is so reflected in the inter-departmental letter dt. 01.09.2010 of
Jharkhand Government. This letter dt. 01.09.2010, inter alia,
records that Garg Aviation Ltd., Kanpur lacked the requisite
facilities to impart the training viz. Cessna 172 Aircraft(s), Flight
Instructor for Twin Engine Aircraft Cessna 310, Chief Flying
Instructor, improper hostel facilities etc. Thus, Garg Aviation Ltd.,
Kanpur was found unsuitable for this purpose and consequently, it
was decided that the Selection Committee would conduct
inspection of A-4 SFAPL which was the L-2 amongst the bidders.
Thereupon, a physical verification of A-4 SFAPL was carried out
at Bilaspur by a Committee comprising three officers of Jharkhand
Government and a member from the office of DGCA on
04.09.2010 and pursuant thereto A-4 SFAPL was selected as the
preferred bidder for training of 30 students of Jharkhand.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 34 of 200
Following this, an inter-departmental letter dt. 06.09.2010 was
exchanged in the administration of Jharkhand Government and
therein it was decided that before execution of the Memorandum
of Agreement (MoA) views of Alok K. Sharan (A-1), the then
Deputy Director General of DGCA, be elicited. On 08.09.2010,
the Government of Jharkhand issued a letter to A-1 Alok K.
Sharan, enclosing the site inspection report dt. 04.09.2010 of A-4
SFAPL and requesting him to provide his observations thereon. It
is also noteworthy that the letter dt. 08.09.2010 of the Jharkhand
Government expressly records that A-1 Alok K. Sharan was
unable to be present for A-4 SFAPL’s inspection on 04.09.2010. It
was then that A-1 Alok K. Sharan vide his letter dt. 13.09.2010
wrote to the Secretary, Welfare Department, Jharkhand
Government. The letter, composed in vernacular Hindi, conveys,
inter alia, the following statement by A-1 Alok K. Sharan,
rendered here in a loose translation, “on perusal of the site
inspection report annexed with your aforesaid letter, it is found
that Sai Flytech Aviation Private Limited, Bilaspur has been given
approval by this office for aircraft training and it complies with all
the norms of CAR, Section 7 Series ‘D’ Part 1 issued by this
office. Hence, your department may select this training institute.”
Thereupon on 22.09.2010, A-4 SFAPL wrote to the Tribal Welfare
Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand that it was ready to meet
the L-1 rates. On 22.10.2010 MoA was signed between Praveen
Kumar Topo, the Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Government of
Jharkhand and A-4 SFAPL, following which the training
commenced. It appears from the record that thereafter in June 2021
the Jharkhand students made a complaint to Jharkhand
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 35 of 200
Government about the condition and the facilities at A-4 SFAPL.
Then on 26.09.2011 the students informed Jharkhand Government
that the flying training and ground classes had been stopped after
the audit done by DGCA officers. Thereafter on 03.10.2011
SFAPL wrote to Jharkhand Government that the training had been
stopped temporarily due to cancellation of approval of its Chief
Flying Instructor (CFI) and that it was in process of appointing a
new CFI. On 27.10.2011 SFAPL surrendered all the students with
immediate effect and asked the students to vacate the hostel. Then
on 19.03.2012 the MoA was terminated and the bank guarantee of
Rs. 6 lakhs was revoked. The records indicate that Jharkhand
Government disbursed a total of Rs. 95,22,215/- to SFAPL in
multiple installments, with the final payment apparently made on
26.08.2011. It is thus the allegation of CBI that A-4 SFAPL in
conspiracy with the other accused persons caused wrongful loss to
Jharkhand Government and wrongful gain to A-4 SFAPL to the
tune of Rs. 95,22,215/-.24
57. According to prosecution, A-3 Prakash Shambharkar
unauthorisedly issued the letter/NOC with the result that Alok K.
Sharan (A-1), the then deputy D.G, Directorate General of Civil
Aviation, Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) , the then senior pilot,
DGCA, Prakash Shambharkar (A-3), the then Airport Controller
entered into conspiracy with Anil Kumar Mangal, SFAPL’s
Director, thereby extending wrongful gain to SFAPL to the tune of
Rs. 95,22,215/- and committed offences punishable under section
120B of IPC read with section 420 of IPC and section 13 (2) read
24
All this is borne out from Jharkhand Government’s records which are at D-75 [Ex. PW41/A
(colly)].
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 36 of 200
with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
substantive offences thereof. On these assertions, the chargesheet
came to filed on 23.12.2015. Thereafter on 12.01.2016 sanction
order dt. 31.12.2015 (Ex. PW44/A) under section 19 of the PC Act,
1988 and under section 197 of CrPC qua Prakash Shambharkar
(A-3) was filed on record.25 Vide order dt. 02.03.2016, cognizance
of the offences was taken and all the accused persons were
summoned.
58. Vide order dt. 04.09.2019 the accused persons were
charged with the following offences.
58.1 A-1 Alok K. Sharan, A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi
and A-3 Prakash Shambharkar were each charged for offences
punishable under : (i) section 120B of IPC read with section
420 of IPC and section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988, and (ii)
under section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the PC Act,
1988. All three pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
58.2 A-4 Anil Kumar Mangal and A-4 SFAPL (through
its Director Anil Kumar Mangal) were each charged for
offences punishable under : (i) section 120B of IPC read with
section 420 of IPC and section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988,
and (ii) under section 420 of IPC. Both pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
59. In prosecution evidence, CBI examined 49 witnesses. The
said witnesses are as under :
25
Chargesheet came to be filed after A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi’s superannuation on 31.12.2010;
and likewise after A-1 Alok K. Sharan’s superannuation on 31.01.2015 – as reflected in letter dt.
08.12.2014 [Ex. PW19/C (colly) at D-32], which records his date of superannuation as 31.01.2015.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 37 of 200
59.1 PW1 Praveen Kumar – He was Section Officer in
DGCA office. He entered the witness box to prove the office
file/note-sheets [Ex. PW1/A (colly)26] maintained in the office
of DGCA qua approval and operation of the flying training
institute of SFAPL. That apart, he also identified the signatures
of A-1 Alok Sharan and A-2 L. Binodini Devi in the office
file/note-sheets.
59.2 PW2 Dilawar Singh Sadha – He was holding the post of
Assistant in DGCA, holding a position one rank below the
Section Officer (PW1 Pradeep Kumar). He too stepped into the
witness box to prove the office file/note-sheets [Ex. PW1/A
(colly)27] maintained in the office of DGCA qua approval and
operation of the flying training institute of SFAPL. That apart,
he also identified the signatures of A-1 Alok K. Sharan and
Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) in the office file/note-sheets.
59.3 PW3 Sulakshan Chadha – He was posted as General
Manager at AAI (HQs) in year 2014, where he was responsible
for overseeing the air traffic services. He exhibited on record
the office file qua the Raipur Airport maintained in AAI office
as Ex. PW3/A (colly)28. He, inter alia, deposed that no letter/
representation/application had been received from SFAPL at
AAI (HQs) for issuing NOC from air traffic point of view; that
no local airport was delegated any power to issue NOC from air
traffic point of view as well as for establishment; that AAI had
set up a committee of members for issuance of NOC from air
26
Document(s) at D-27.
27
Document(s) at D-27.
28
Document(s) at D-2.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 38 of 200
traffic point of view and to look into feasibility of land for
hangar and office space etc. vide Internal Office Note (ION) dt.
30.05.2006 [Ex. PW3/D (colly)29]. He exhibited on record
another ION dt. 30.05.2006 of AAI [Ex. PW3/F (colly). 30 He
also deposed that NOC from air traffic perspective was
required to be issued with approval of Executive Director, Air
Traffic Management (ATM) under the signature of General
Manager, Air Traffic Services (ATS). To show that AAI (HQs)
was the authority to issue NOC from air traffic point of view,
he relied upon several past precedents: (i) NOC dt.
04.01.200631 from air traffic point of view issued to M/s Trade
Wings Ltd. to establish a Pilot Training Academy at Sholapur,
Maharashtra, (ii) NOC dt. 01.03.200632 from air traffic point of
view issued to M/s Multiple Manpower Development Pvt. Ltd.
to establish a Flying Training Institute/College at Behala
Aerodrome (Kolkata), (iii) NOC dt. 02.05.200633 from air
traffic point of view issued to M/s Amber Aviation [India] Pvt.
Ltd. to establish a Flying Training Institute at Dehradun
Airport, (iv) NOC dt. 20.03.200834 from air traffic point of
view issued to M/s VKN Aviation Academy [P] Ltd. to
establish a Flying Training Institute at Trichy Airport, (v) NOC
dt. 17.02.201235 from air traffic point of view issued to M/s
29
Document(s) at D-39. It was a committee of four officers.
30
Document(s) at D-52. Vide this Internal Office Note (ION) dt. 30.05.2006, AAI had notified that
applicants seeking a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from air traffic point of view for establishing
flying clubs or academies were required to furnish specified details under seven criteria for examination
of their request.
31
Certified Copy at D-53; part of Ex. PW3/F (colly).
32
Certified Copy at D-54; part of Ex. PW3/F (colly).
33
Certified Copy at D-55; part of Ex. PW3/F (colly).
34
Certified Copy at D-56; part of Ex. PW3/F (colly).
35
Certified Copy at D-57; part of Ex. PW3/F (colly). This NOC was issued under the signatures of
this witness (PW3).
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 39 of 200
Blue Ray Aviation Pvt. Ltd. to commence flying training
activities at Osmanabad Airport, (vi) NOC dt. 18.11.201336
from air traffic point of view issued to M/s Aditi Sky Hawks
Aviation Pvt. Ltd. to commence flying training activities at
Darima Airstrip, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, (vii) NOC dt.
20.04.201437 issued to M/s Focus Energy Ltd. for construction
of airstrip and operation of aircraft operations at village
Langtala, Jaisalmer subject to several conditions as set out
therein, including NOC to be obtained from the Air Force. He
also exhibited on record the office file qua M/s Touchwood
Entertainment Ltd. maintained in the office of AAI (HQs) as
Ex. PW3/G (colly)38. As per record, Touchwood Entertainment
Ltd. Aviation Academy had applied to AAI (HQs) to
commence flying training activities at Raipur Airport and
which it was granted on 17.01.2007. He also relied upon the
following documents: (i) letter dt. 24.06.2008 (Ex. PW3/A1) of
S. P. Saha, Airport Controller, Raipur Airport informing AAI,
Western Region, Mumbai (with copy thereof to AAI, Delhi)
stating therein that SFAPL had been asked to stop its flying
operations, (ii) letter dt. 05.08.2008 (Ex. PW3/A2) of S. P.
Saha, Airport Controller, Raipur Airport informing
Chhattisgarh Government (with copy thereof to AAI, Delhi)
that SFAPL had been asked to stop its flying operations, (iii)
letter dt. 11.11.2008 (Ex. PW3/A3) of M. C. Dangi, the then
Joint General Manager (Ops), Headquarters, AAI, Delhi to
36
Certified Copy at D-58; part of Ex. PW3/F (colly). This NOC was issued under the signatures of
this witness (PW3).
37
Certified Copy at D-59; part of Ex. PW3/F (colly). This NOC was issued under the signatures of
this witness (PW3).
38
Document(s) at D-63.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 40 of 200
SFAPL thereby asking the latter to cease its flying operations,
(iv) tender notice dt. 21.05.2009 (Ex. PW3/A4) of AAI,
Kolkata for fencing of Bilaspur airport39.
59.4 PW4 Vinay Kumar Chauhan – He is a bank official
from Axis Bank, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi. He entered the witness
box to prove the bank account statement and the current bank
account opening form of SFAPL as Ex. PW4/B (colly) 40. He
also exhibited the bank account statement41 and certified copy
of a cheque dt. 13.01.200742 as Ex. PW4/A (colly)43.
59.5 PW5 Pramod Kumar – In capacity of Manager he was
posted as ATC In-charge at Raipur Airport from August 2008
to May 2016. Vide his letter dt. 08.03.2012 (Ex. PW5/A 44), he
had forwarded two files of A-4 SFAPL maintained in his office
and which are Ex. PW5/B (colly)45 and Ex. PW5/C (colly)46.
He deposed that in reference to letter dt. 11.11.2008 of Mr.
M.C. Dangi (PW8), the then Joint General Manager (OPS),
AAI Headquarters, New Delhi he addressed a letter dt.
31.08.2009 (Ex. PW5/B147) to the Deputy Director, Air Traffic
Management (ATM), New Delhi seeking advice qua SFAPL’s
flying activities at Raipur, for SFAPL’s flights would
frequently come to Raipur from Bilaspur with valid Air
39
All these documents are at D-78.
40
Document(s) at D-78.
41
This Bank account no. 126010100022589 in Axis Bank, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi appears to be in the
name of Mr. Akash Mangal, son of Anil Kumar Mangal (A-5), who too was a director of A-4 SFAPL.
42
This cheque dt. 13.01.2007 in the name of ‘yourself’ was drawn for issuance of a pay order of Rs.
25,000/- in favour of ‘Central Pay & Accounts Office, DGCA, New Delhi.’
43
Document(s) at D-78.
44
Document(s) at D-71.
45
Document(s) at D-72.
46
Document(s) at D-73.
47
Document(s) at D-72.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 41 of 200
Defence Clearance (ADC) and Flight Information Centre
(FIC) numbers.
59.6 PW6 Prem Lal Malik – He is an official from Registrar
of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. Vide his letter dt.
02.12.2014, he had provided documents [Ex. PW6/A (colly)48]
of M/s Wohlstand Impex Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Sai
Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd.). Further, vide his letter dt.
20.01.2015, he had provided documents [Ex. PW6/B (colly)49]
of A-4 SFAPL along with certificate under section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act.
59.7 PW7 Abraham John – In 2006-2007 he was Assistant
Manager, Air Traffic Control (ATC), Raipur Airport. He
deposed that A-3 Prakash Shambharkar, who was posted as
Airport Controller, had issued the NOC/letter dt. 06.01.2007
(Ex. PW9/C) and the NOC/letter dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A)
under his signatures. He identified A-3 Prakash Shambharkar’s
signatures on both these documents. He also deposed that NOC
from air traffic point of view is to be issued by the Corporate
Headquarters of AAI.
59.8 PW8 Mukesh Chand Dangi – He was Joint General
Manager (Air Traffic Management-Operations), Corporate
Headquarters, AAI in year 2008. He, inter alia, deposed that to
establish Flying Institute/Club, NOC is required to be issued by
Airport Authority of India (HQs); that if the matter concerns an
airport controlled by AAI then from the point of view of land
48
Document(s) at D-30.
49
Document(s) at D-31.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 42 of 200
management, commercial management etc. NOC is required to
be issued by AAI; that AAI had set up a committee of members
for issuing NOCs vide ION dt. 30.05.2006 [Ex. PW3/D
(colly)50]; that no officer of regional airport was competent to
issue NOC from air traffic point of view. He also proved his
own office noting at page 7 in AAI office file [Ex. PW3/A
(colly)51] in relations to flying training activities of M/s
Touchwood Entertainment Ltd. at Raipur Airport. He also
deposed that SFAPL had written a letter dt. 07.10.200852 to
Executive Director (ATM), AAI, New Delhi for air space
allocation for flying training operations and for approval of co-
ordination procedure for training flights and sector flights at
Bilaspur and for efficient conduct of training flights; and in
response thereto he wrote letter dt. 11.11.2008 (Ex. PW3/A353)
to SFAPL asking it to stop the flying operations. He also
testified regarding letter dt. 28th/29th September 2010 (Ex.
PW8/A54), conveying agreement to Army’s request for
permanent transfer of 377 acres of land at Bilaspur Airport.
59.9 PW9 M. Nanda Kumar – He was Senior Manager (ATC)
at Raipur Airport in 2006-2007, when his senior, A-3 Prakash
Shambharkar, served as the Airport Controller. He identified
A-3 Prakash Shambharkar’s signatures on fax copy of letter
50
Document(s) at D-39. It was a committee of four officers.
51
Document(s) at D-2.
52
Document(s) at D-2.
53
Document(s) at D-2. This letter is extracted in paragraph no. 49 hereinabove.
54
Document(s) at D-2.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 43 of 200
(Ex. PW9/A55), letter dt. 05.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/B56) of SFAPL
addressed to Airport Controller, AAI, Raipur Airport, for
allotment of land for parking/hangar etc. He also identified A-3
Prakash Shambharkar’s signatures on letter dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex.
PW9/C57) and on letter dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A58). Letter dt.
25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A) was marked to him (PW9), however,
he (PW9) deposed that he had received no such letter and it
bears no outward number/dispatch number.
59.10 PW10 Wilfred Kerketta – He was Manager (ATC) at
Raipur Airport in March 2008. He testified regarding an
Internal Office Note (ION) dt. 10.03.2008 (Ex. PW10/A),
issued under his signature, concerning a complaint made by
Chief Flying Instructor of M/s Touchwood Aviation 59;
subsequently, Mr. G. K. Khare, who was serving as the Airport
Controller, issued a letter dt. 10.03.2008 60 (Ex. PW39/C) to
SFAPL, with a copy forwarded to General Manager (ATM-R),
AAI, Western Region, Mumbai.
59.11 PW11 Kalitosh Bagchi – He retired from DGCA on
31.03.2004 and later joined SFAPL as a Director in 2007-
55
Document(s) at D-63. This is in relation to flying training activities of M/s Touchwood Aviation
Ltd. at Raipur Airport.
56
Document(s) at D-79. This letter was written by A-5 Anil Kumar Mangal on A-4 SFAPL’s
behalf to Airport Controller, Raipur Airport, seeking: (i) allotment of land for parking space and hangar,
(ii) use of runway, (iii) provision of air traffic control services, and (v) safety services. It was in response
to this letter that A-3 Prakash Shambharkar had issued the letter/NOC dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/C).
57
Document(s) at D-3.
58
Document(s) at D-4.
59
Document(s) at D-73. Document(s) at D-73 are collectively Ex. PW5/C. The complaint of M/s
Touchwood Aviation addressed to Airport Controller, Raipur Airport was to the effect that on
23.02.2008 one Mr. Akash (Director) of A-4 SFAPL had blocked Bilaspur runway claiming that it
belonged to him. Vide this complaint M/s Touchwood Aviation also asked Airport Controller, Raipur
Airport to clarify whether Bilaspur airport belonged to A-4 SFAPL. Vide ION dt. 10.03.2008 it was,
inter alia, proposed to call upon SFAPL to stop its flying operations.
60
Copy of this letter dt. 10.03.2008 (Ex. PW39/C) to SFAPL is there at page 18/page 9 of Ex.
PW5/C (colly) – document(s) at D-73. Vide this letter A-4 SFAPL was asked to immediately stop its
flying operations.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 44 of 200
2008, resigning within six months but continuing as a DGCA-
approved Ground Instructor. He identified A-5 Anil Kumar
Mangal’s signatures on following documents : (a) application
dt. 25.01.2007 (Ex. PW1/A-1) submitted to DGCA for
permission to set up a flying training institute at Raipur, (b)
letter dt. 16.07.2007 (Ex. PW2/A) to DGCA for change of base
to Bilaspur, (c) letter dt. 19.02.2007 (Ex. PW11/A) to DGCA
regarding financial soundness of his company SFAPL, (d)
letter dt. 24.04.2007 (Ex. PW11/B) to DGCA for submission of
Form-32 documents, (e) letter dt. 10.01.2008 (Ex. PW11/C) to
DGCA seeking permission to commence flying training
activities at Bilaspur, (f) letter dt. 24.01.2008 (Ex. PW11/D) to
DGCA submitting therewith Action Taken Report on
observations/discrepancies pointed out in the inspection
conducted on 21.01.2008 and 22.01.2008 by Mr. T. Mohan
Chandran, the then Assistant Director (operations), DGCA, (g)
letters dt. 10.01.2008 and 30.01.2008 [Ex. PW11/E (colly)] to
DGCA with the caption ‘Kind Attn.: Capt. L. Binodini Devi’,
and (h) letter dt. 13.11.2009 (Ex. PW11/N) to DGCA with the
caption ‘Kind Attn.: Capt. L. Binodini Devi’ submitting
therewith Action Taken Report on observations/discrepancies
pointed out in the inspection conducted between 05.11.2009 to
07.11.2009 by A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi.61 He also
testified about the following letters that he himself had written
on A-4 SFAPL’s behalf : (a) letter dt. 11.04.2008 (Ex.
PW11/F) to DGCA seeking for extension of approval, (b) letter
dt. 14.07.2008 (Ex. PW11/G) to DGCA seeking extension of
61
All these documents are at D-27.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 45 of 200
approval, and (c) letter dt. 29.10.2008 (Ex. PW11/H) to DGCA
seeking extension of approval.62 He also identified signatures
of Akash Mangal (a Director of SFAPL and A-5 Anil K.
Mangal’s son) on the following letters written by him : (a)
letter dt. 27.01.2009 (Ex. PW11/J) to DGCA seeking extension
of approval, (b) letter dt. 20.07.2009 (Ex. PW11/K) to DGCA
seeking extension of approval, (c) letter dt. 22.10.2009 (Ex.
PW11/L) to DGCA seeking extension of approval, and (d)
letter dt. 03.11.2010 (Ex. PW11/M) to DGCA seeking
extension of approval.63
59.12 PW12 Chandradeep Ekka – He was a student who
joined SFAPL for Commercial Pilot training, sponsored by
Jharkhand Government. He deposed that there were several
shortcomings in the training; that ground classes were not
properly conducted; that there were irregularities in flying
operations; that there were overlogging of flying hours by
SFAPL; that actual flying was hardly for 30 minutes, however,
it used to be over logged to 50-55 minutes; that there used to be
no briefing after flight landings or before flight take-offs; that
flight controls were always handled by the instructor himself
and he was not given hands on experience; that flights were
logged in the name of different instructors and not in the name
of actual instructor; that he lodged a complaint Ex. PW12/A 64
addressed to Director of Training and Licensing, DGCA; that
there were serious flaws at Bilaspur Airport, including absence of
62
All these documents are at D-27.
63
All these documents are at D-27.
64
Document(s) at D-27.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 46 of 200
adequate security and proper fencing, as a result of which
villagers frequently encroached upon the runway; that he
discontinued his training midway after securing employment
elsewhere.
59.13 PW13 Niraj Ratan Baxla – He too was a student who
joined SFAPL for Commercial Pilot training, sponsored by the
Jharkhand Government. He deposed that in his training he
found several shortcomings such as logging was done in the
name of different Instructor (Capt. Ankur Garg) while flying
was with another Instructor (Capt. V. Atitkar); that he
submitted a complaint dt. 21.09.2021 (Ex. PW13/A65) to
DGCA, pursuant to which a DGCA team visited the Institute
for inspection and sought information regarding grievances
related to training; that there were certain security concerns at
Bilaspur Airport, as individuals would access the runway due
to the airport being unsecured; that he did not complete his
training as it was learnt that operations of flying schools were
to be shut down, and that he, along with other students, were
subsequently called back by Jharkhand Government.
59.14 PW14 Ashim Taxali – He was employed with
SFAPL from February, 2009 to December, 2010 as Chief
Flying Instructor. He had conducted inspection of A-4 SFAPL
and prepared the Inspection Report dt. 03.11.2009 (Ex.
PW14/A66), and therein against the column whether airport
perimeter fencing was available with adequate watch and ward
for preventing runway incursion during aircraft operation, he
65
Document(s) at D-27.
66
Document(s) at D-27.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 47 of 200
had mentioned ‘in progress, 09 guards available’. He exhibited
the checklist dt. 06.10.2010 for oversight programme of
SFAPL prepared by him as Ex. PW14/B67 and therein against
the column whether airport perimeter fencing was available
with adequate watch and ward for preventing runway incursion
during aircraft operation, he had mentioned ‘perimeter fencing
is under construction’. He further deposed that A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi had conducted an inspection in his presence, and
in this regard, the Inspection Report dt. 29.12.2010 (Ex.
PW14/C68) was prepared; and at the time of said inspection,
perimeter fencing was still under construction. He also proved
the ATR dt. 30.12.2010 (Ex. PW14/D69), which was submitted
on SFAPL’s behalf under signature of its Director, Barkha
Mangal, following the said inspection of A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi.
59.15 PW15 Bhupinder Singh Nehra – He was a Junior
Pilot in DGCA, where A-2 L. Binodini Devi served as a Senior
Pilot. He deposed that vide office order dt. 02.01.2007 (Ex.
PW15/A70) Alok K. Sharan (A-1) had issued instructions
regarding duties to CAPS Cell Pilots. He also deposed that he
conducted an inspection of A-4 SFAPL from 18.11.2008 to
20.11.2008 and prepared Inspection Report (Ex. PW15/B 71),
67
Document(s) at D-27.
68
Document(s) at D-27. A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi conducted this inspection on 13 th/14th
December, 2010. It is pertinent to mention that as per this Inspection Report dt. 29.12.2010 (Ex.
PW14/C) Bilaspur Airport was adequately trenched with watch and ward staff.
69
Document(s) at D-27.
70
Document(s) at D-33. As per this order, A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi was supposed to carry out
periodic inspections and follow up action of the flying clubs and flying training institutes in Western
region to ensure adherence of safety regulations and other instructions issued from time to time by
DGCA and submit the files to A-1 Alok Kumar Sharan. In addition to the duties already assigned, the
Pilots could also be assigned other duties by A-1 Alok Sharan from time to time.
71
Document(s) at D-27.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 48 of 200
which recorded, ‘no fencing available and incursion was
noticed on day of inspection’. He deposed that in his office
note dt. 10.12.200872 he recommended granting approval for
not more than three months due to lack of fencing, subject to
receipt of ATR; the file was then marked to Alok K. Sharan,
who noted “Action as above,” and upon its return, he vide note
dt. 01.01.2009 recommended that the Inspection Report with
deficiencies be sent to A-4 SFAPL for compliance and ATR,
and that renewal be limited to three months after inspection,
considering serious deficiencies and lack of fencing.
Thereupon, DGCA Section Officer Ram Charan vide his letter
dt. 01.01.2009 (Ex. PW15/E73) forwarded the said Inspection
Report (Ex. PW15/B) to SFAPL. He also proved letters dt.
03.12.2008 (Ex.PW15/C74) and 05.11.2008 (Ex. PW15/D75) of
A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi. He proved office note dt.
25.01.2008 of A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi wherein she
recorded that final approval cannot be granted to SFAPL as the
airport lacked perimeter fencing. He further deposed that upon
an office note of the Section Officer qua complaint of one
Sukhwinder Sony76, the file was marked to him and he
recorded office note dt. 20.04.2011; then on the directions of
the then Deputy Director General Arvind Sardana (PW22) to
72
Document(s) at D-27.
73
Document(s) at D-27.
74
Document(s) at D-27. Vide this letter A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi wrote to Director, Civil
Aviation (Ops), Raipur to clarify whether Bilaspur Airport belonged to AAI or the Chhattisgarh
Government.
75
Document(s) at D-27. Vide this letter addressed to SFAPL A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi
communicated that extension of approval for three months with effect from 08.11.2008 to 07.02.2009
had been granted by the competent authority.
76
Document(s) at D-27 indicate that this complaint of Sukhwinder Sony was received via e-mail
on 02.02.2011, alleging several malpractices on the part of SFAPL.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 49 of 200
examine the said complaint and give recommendations, he
vide his office note dt. 03.05.2011 recommended an audit of
SFAPL.77
59.16 PW16 Subodh Chandra Ray – He is a DGCA
official. He deposed that he had issued letter dt. 19.09.2007
(Ex. PW16/A78). He identified A-1 Alok K. Sharan’s
signatures on the following: (a) SFAPL’s letter dt. 24.01.2008
(Ex. PW11/D) to DGCA submitting therewith ATR on the
observations/discrepancies pointed out in the inspection
conducted on 21.01.2008 and 22.01.2008 by Mr. T. Mohan
Chandran, the then Assistant Director (operations), DGCA, (b)
letter dt. 07.02.2008 (Ex. PW16/B) of A-1 Alok K. Sharan to
SFAPL communicating grant of provisional approval for three
months from 07.02.2007 to 07.05.2007, (c) letter dt.
09.09.2010 (Ex. PW16/K) in vernacular Hindi to SFAPL,
requesting it to provide a suitable date for inspection of its
institute and co-operate in the inspection, and (d) letter dt.
08.11.2010 (Ex. PW16/M) granting temporary extension of
approval.79 He also identified A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi’s
signatures on the following: (a) letter dt. 21.07.2008 (Ex.
PW16/C) addressed to SFAPL qua complaint of one Ms.
Rashmi Mittal for alleged illegal flying, (b) letter dt.
30.01.2009 (Ex. PW16/D) to SFAPL conveying extension of
approval for six months from 08.02.2009 to 07.08.2009, (c)
77
The office notings are at D-27.
78
Vide this letter (D-27) addressed to Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Delhi it was informed
that DGCA had no objection to import of two Cessna-152 aircrafts by SFAPL for flying training
purpose.
79
All these documents are at D-27.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 50 of 200
letter dt. 30.09.2009 (Ex. PW16/E) conveying to SFAPL a
month’s extension of approval from 08.10.2009 to 07.11.2009,
(d) letter Ex. PW16/F dt. 09.09.2009 (sic. 09.11.2009)
conveying to SFAPL a one-month extension of approval from
07.11.2009 to 06.12.2009 and also asking SFAPL to furnish
ATR on observations made in the inspection conducted by
Captain L. Binodini Devi from 05.11.2009 to 07.11.2009, (e)
surveillance inspection summary dt. 09.09.2009 (Ex. PW16/G)
qua inspection conducted by Captain L. Binodini Devi from
05.11.2009 to 07.11.2009, (f) SFAPL’s letter dt. 13.11.2009
(Ex. PW11/N) addressed to DGCA with caption ‘Kind Attn.:
Capt. L. Binodini Devi’ and vide which ATR on observations
made in the inspection conducted by Captain L. Binodini Devi
from 05.11.2009 to 07.11.2009 was submitted, (f) letter dt.
30.11.2009 (Ex. PW16/H) conveying to SFAPL a year’s
extension of approval from 08.11.2009 to 07.11.2010, (g)
Inspection Report and surveillance inspection summary
prepared by Captain L. Binodini Devi (Ex. PW16/J) qua the
inspection conducted by her from 05.11.2009 to 07.11.2009,
(h) letter dt. 30.12.2010 (Ex. PW16/L) conveying to SFAPL
one year renewal approval from 30.12.2010 to 29.12.2011, and
(i) letter dt. 28.10.2010 (Ex. PW16/N) asking SFAPL to
furnish ATR on the observations made in the renewal
inspection conducted by Captain L. Binodini Devi on
13/14.12.2010.8059.17 PW17 Captain Arun Mann – He was a Consultant
80
All these documents are at D-27.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 51 of 200
Director in DGCA. He was part of a three member team which
had conducted special audit of SFAPL at Bilaspur. He proved
certified copy of the Audit Report of 20/23.09.2011 (Ex.
PW17/A81). He deposed that the Audit Report contained
several complaints of trainee pilots.
59.18 PW18 Deepak Raina – He was a Senior Pilot in
DGCA. He deposed that in terms of office order dt. 02.01.2007
(Ex. PW15/A82) issued by Alok K. Sharan, his duty was to
inspect flying schools and submit report qua deficiencies and
shortcomings. He also deposed that he had made his note on
SFAPL’s application dt. 25.01.2007 (Ex. PW1/A-1) seeking
approval to operate flying training school to the following
effect, “The documents were in order except financial
soundness and categorical NOC for parking, maintenance of
…. AAI (HQ). However, we may process the paper to MCA/
MHA for security clearance of Board Directors”. This
application dt. 25.01.2007 (Ex. PW1/A-1) was accompanied
by letter dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/C) of A-3 Prakash
Shambharkar. He further deposed that in his office note dt.
24.04.2007 he wrote, “As discussed Documents are not in
order from security point of view”.
59.19 PW19 Gopal Singh – He is a DGCA official. Vide
his letter dt. 08.12.2014 he had furnished to CBI several DGCA
office orders (Ex. PW19/A83). Vide his letter dt. 19.12.2014 he
had furnished to CBI service/job particulars of A-1 Alok K.
81
Document(s) at D-29. Special Audit Report is also there at D-67/D-68
82
Document(s) at D-33.
83
Document(s) at D-32.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 52 of 200
Sharan and A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi (Ex. PW19/B 84).
Vide his letter dt. 19.01.2015 he had furnished to CBI
promotion orders of A-1 Alok K. Sharan (Ex. PW19/C 85). He
deposed that all the documents were furnished to CBI out of
office record of DGCA/Ministry of Civil Aviation.
59.20 PW20 Arun Kumar Singh – He was a student who
joined SFAPL for Commercial Pilot training, sponsored by
Jharkhand Government. He deposed that he gave his complaint
dt. 21.09.2011 (Ex. PW20/A86) to a team of DGCA officials
who had come for inspection of SFAPL. His grievances in the
said complaint relate to irregularities in flight training, in that at
times they were logged in the wrong name, over-logging, being
forced to sign the authorisation, flight control not given to him,
no ground briefing and de-briefing, being forced to take people
on joy ride, incursions on the runway by cattle and individuals
and no regular ground training or classes.
59.21 PW21 Sunil Kumar – He was Director (Regulation
and Information) in DGCA. Vide his letter dt. 17.04.2015 (Ex.
PW21/B87) he had forwarded to CBI the following: (i) volume
of Aircraft Manual (Ex. PW21/C88), and (ii) certified copy of
Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) Section 1 (General) (Ex.
PW21/D89). On 26.05.2015 he had forwarded to CBI certified
copy of Gazette of India notification no. S.O.726 (E)
84
Document(s) at D-33.
85
Document(s) at D-34.
86
Document(s) at D-27.
87
Document(s) at D-64.
88
Document(s) at D-65. The Aircraft Manual contains the Aircraft Act, 1934 and several Rules
made thereunder including Aircraft Rules, 1937.
89
Document(s) at D-66.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 53 of 200
concerning delegation of powers to DGCA officers [Ex.
PW21/A (colly)90].
59.22 PW22 Arvind Sardana – He is an officer of DGCA,
who was on deputation in AAI from 1987 to 1989. In 2015 he
was Joint Director General, DGCA (HQ), Delhi. He deposed
that on 02.07.2008 the Section Officer submitted an office note
proposing that complaint of one Ms. Rashmi Mittal91, alleging
unauthorised flying by SFAPL, be forwarded to SFAPL for its
comments; that subsequently, on 21.07.2008, Captain L.
Binodini Devi (A-2) recorded in her office note, “Agreed, but
the applicant should specify who is the unauthorised person. ”
He testified that vide her office note dt. 21.07.2008 A-2
Captain L. Binodini Devi had proposed extension of approval
to A-4 SFAPL for three months and which note was then
approved by A-1 Alok K. Sharan on 22.07.2008. He also
deposed that a complaint dt. 02.06.2009 (Ex. PW22/A92)
against SFAPL had been received in DGCA and which was
marked to A-1 Alok K. Sharan and the office note in this
connection of the Section Officer is dt. 03.08.2009 and beneath
the same A-2 L. Binodini Devi wrote, “Pls. issue approval for
two months extension.” He proved his office noting dt.
25.04.2011 whereby he directed for examination of complaint
of one Sukhwinder Sony93 alleging several malpractices90
Document(s) at D-61 and D-62.
91
Copy of this complaint is on record in D-27.
92
Document(s) at D-27. This is a complaint of one Sanjay Kumar Pandey, a resident of Bilaspur,
alleging that SFAPL Director Dr. Gunjan Gupta misguided the people of India by falsely claiming
through a Press Statement that six students of SFAPL were appointed as Pilots in Air India. He also
alleged therein that SFAPL Director Dr. Gunjan Gupta falsely said that for pilot training one ought to
have studied Physics or Mathematics at 10 + 2 level.
93
Copy of this complaint received via e-mail on 02.02.2011 is at D-27.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 54 of 200
against A-4 SFAPL and marked the office noting file to
Captain B. S. Nehra (PW15), and then on 09.05.2011 vide his
office note he had recorded, ‘we may not take any cognizance
of the complaint as the issues raised in the complaint on the
flying in the absence of CFI, overlogging are within the scope
of Audit Team. Also Saifly Tech in their reply at Para 7 (P.
408/C) have stated that they are not in receipt of any Govt.
Financial Grant’ and took the approval of Joint Director
General J. S. Rawat.9459.23 PW23 Arun Kumar Chopra – He was Joint Director
General, Civil Aviation. He deposed that vide his office noting
dt. 05.02.2008 he had given provisional approval for three
months, and which office noting of his reads, ” we may grant
provisional approval for 3 months subject to condition that
fencing will be completed by then. Till that time minimum 4
guards will be posted for safety of operations. We may issue
letter accordingly.”9559.24 PW24 Yashraj Tongia (Captain) – He was posted as
Director (Flying Training) in DGCA in 2012. He proved his
letters dt. 06.07.2012 (Ex. PW24/A96) and 23.08.2012 (Ex.
PW24/B97) addressed to CBI in response to few questions
asked by the latter. It is pertinent to mention that in his letter dt.
06.07.2012 (Ex. PW24/A), in response to a query whether A-2
Captain L. Binodini Devi was competent to grant the94
All these office notings are there at D-27.
95
The office noting is there at D-27.
96
Document(s) at D-69.
97
Document(s) at D-70.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 55 of 200
extensions, he wrote, “Capt. L. Binodini Devi was placed as
Surplus staff under the Ministry of Civil Aviation. She was
deputed to the office of Director General of Civil Aviation and
posted in this office. Capt. L. Binodini Devi was not authorized
to grant extension of approvals of M/s Sai Flytech Aviation
Ltd.” In his letter dt. 23.08.2012 (Ex. PW24/B), in response to
a query as to how many in-principle approvals did DGCA grant
during years 2007 to 2010 sans NOCs from owner of airport
and AAI from air traffic point of view, he wrote, ” M/s Blue
Ray Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Osmanabad. The sub lease by M/s
Blue ray from the airport leasor m/s Osmanabad Airport Pvt.
Ltd. was done on 22.12.11.” To another query as to how many
final approvals did DGCA grant during years 2007 to 2010 for
starting flying training institute by relaxing the condition of
fencing of base/airport, he wrote, “None except M/s Sai
Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur.”
59.25 PW25 Tunda Ram Meena – He is an officer from the
Income Tax Department. Vide his letter dt. 21.05.2015 (Ex.
PW25/B) he had forwarded to CBI, the Income Tax Returns
[Ex. PW25/A (colly)] of M/s Wohlstand Impex Pvt. Ltd.,
earlier known as M/s Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd. These
Income Tax Returns are of Assessment Years 2007-2008,
2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-
2013.98
59.26 PW26 Dr. Reeta R. Gupta – She is a handwriting
expert in CFSL, Delhi. The questioned signatures of the
98
The letter and the document(s) are at D-60.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 56 of 200
accused persons as appearing in the office notings file and
other letters/documents were sent to CFSL for their
comparison with the respective specimen signatures. This
witness proved her Handwriting Examination Report dt.
02.12.2015 (Ex. PW26/A99). This witness was not cross-
examined by any of the accused persons despite, opportunity
being given. It thus appears that accused persons raise no
challenge to the said Handwriting Examination Report dt.
02.12.2015 (Ex. PW26/A).
59.27 PW27 Kuldeep Singh – In 2014 he was Patwari of
Village Rehangi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. He proved
letter dt. 20.04.2015 of SDM, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur.
Annexed with this letter is certified copy of bhu arjan patra and
goshwara, map of Chakrabhata (Bilaspur) airstrip and few
other documents [Ex. PW27/A(colly)100].
59.28 PW28 Amit Tirkey – In 2015, while posted as the
Patwari of Villages Chakrabhata and Tilsara, he prepared the
khasra form [Ex. PW28/A (colly)101] for both villages on the
basis of records maintained in his office, and testified that the
land under the respective khasra numbers was recorded in the
name of the Government of Chhattisgarh, with the kaifiyat
reflecting the name of DGCA.
59.29 PW29 Alok Tiwari – In 2015 while serving as the
Patwari of Village Bodari, District Bilaspur, he had prepared
99
Document(s) at D-81.
100
Document(s) at D-41
101
Document(s) at D-41
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 57 of 200
the khasra form [Ex. PW29/A (colly)102] of the village on the
basis of records maintained in his office; which was
subsequently counter-signed by the then Tehsildar Yugal
Kishore Urvasha (PW31). He testified that land of respective
khasra numbers in the khasra form is in the name of
Chattisgarh Government and kaifiyat is in DGCA’s name.
59.30 PW30 Sanjeev Kumar Gajender – In 2015 while
serving as the Patwari of Village Rehangi, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh, he prepared the khasra form [Ex. PW30/A
(colly)103] of the village on the basis of records maintained in
his office, which was subsequently counter-signed by the then
Tehsildar Yugal Kishore Urvasha (PW31).
59.31 PW31 Yugal Kishore Urvasha – In 2105 he was
Tehsildar of Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur. Together with his
letter dt. 21.04.2015 (Ex. PW31/A) he had forwarded to CBI
certified copies of order sheets of Tehsildar/SDO of Tehsil
Bilha together with other land revenue records [Ex. PW31/B
(colly)].104 He deposed that as per Order dt. 04.11.2011 of the
Tehsildar, the milkiyat of khasra numbers mentioned in the
khatoni were mutated in DGCA’s name. He further deposed
that he had counter-signed the khasra forms Ex. PW28/A
(colly), Ex. PW29/A (colly) and Ex. PW30/A (colly).
59.32 PW32 Niraj Shrivastava – In 2015 he was Assistant
General Manager (ATM) at Raipur Airport. Vide his letter dt.
On 22.04.2015 (Ex. PW32/A) he had provided certified copy
102
Document(s) at D-41.
103
Document(s) at D-41.
104
Ex. PW31/A and Ex. PW31/B (colly) are at D-42.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 58 of 200
[Ex. PW32/B (colly)] of statement of arrival and departure of
SFAPL’s flights operating at Raipur from 01.01.2008 to
30.12.2010.105 He testified that details of flight show that
SFAPL had carried out cross-country flying and not local
flying. He identified A-3 Prakash Shambharkar’s signatures on
the following documents that are Ex. PW32/C (colly) : (a) fax
message dt. 29.11.2006 sent by A-3 Prakash Shambharkar to
GM (Engg.), WR, Mumbai containing his admitted
signature106, (b) an undated letter having admitted signature of
A-3 Prakash Shambharkar to Hotel Babylon International Ltd.,
Raipur asking it to furnish the specified information, for AAI
was in the process of empanelment of hotels in Raipur for its
executives on tour from different stations107, (c) report of a
survey conducted from 08.11.2006 to 11.11.2006 of vehicles
parked in the car parking area of Raipur Airport which has
admitted signature of A-3 Prakash Shambharkar108, and (d)
letter dt. 04.01.2007 of A-3 Prakash Shambharkar addressed to
Flyjet Airways Pvt. Ltd., Delhi containing his admitted
signature109.
59.33 PW33 S. K. Satpathi – In 2015 he was Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sub-Division-I of PWD, Bilaspur. He proved on
record letter dt. 20.04.2015 (Ex. PW33/A) of Executive
Engineer Mr. V. S. Koram addressed to CBI vide which, letter
of estimate regarding boundary wall of Bilaspur airstrip,
105
Ex. PW32/A and Ex. PW32/B (colly) are at D-44.
106
Document(s) at D-82.
107
Document(s) at D-83.
108
Document(s) at D-84.
109
Document(s) at D-85.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 59 of 200
detailed estimate for construction of compound wall around the
airstrip along with other documents, duly certified by him
(PW33), were forwarded to CBI; all these documents are [Ex.
PW33/B (colly)].110 He deposed that up to the date of his
posting in the Sub-Division (09.08.2016), the boundary wall
work could not be carried out as no sanction had been granted
in that regard.
59.34 PW34 V. K. Suri – In year 2015 he was the
Assistant General Manager, AAI, Raipur Airport. Through his
letter dt. 22.04.2015 (Ex. PW34/A) he had furnished copies of
documents [Ex. PW34/B (colly)], duly certified by him
(PW34), qua award of tender for construction of fencing walls
around Bilaspur airstrip. He deposed that he had issued letter
dt. 24.12.2012 for foreclosure of the construction work, stating
that since the boundary wall work could not be completed, it
was ultimately foreclosed on 19.10.2011.111
59.35 PW35 Shripal – In 2015 he served as Administrative
Officer-cum-Accounts Officer in the Directorate of Aviation,
Chhattisgarh Government. In his examination-in-chief
conducted on 17.03.2020, he deposed that vide his letter dt.
10.02.2015 (Ex. PW35/A), he had submitted to CBI the duly
attested documents [Ex. PW35/B (colly)] qua Chhattisgarh
Government’s notice [dt. 30.03.2007] inviting tender and
related papers for establishing a Flying Club at Bilaspur
airstrip; the tender was awarded to SFAPL, and Mr. Anil
Tuteja, the then Director of the Directorate of Aviation,
110
The said letter and document(s) are at D-43.
111
All these documents, including the two letters are at D-45.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 60 of 200
Chhattisgarh Government conveyed the award to SFAPL via
his letter dt. 23.06.2007. On 19.10.2007 Mr. Anil Tuteja wrote
to AAI, Mumbai with a request to look into the matter of
incursions of Bilaspur airstrip by villagers and animals and to
do the needful at the earliest. On 26.02.2009 Mr. S. P. Saha,
Airport Controller, AAI, Raipur wrote to the Collector,
Bilaspur requesting for land demarcation as fencing work of
Bilaspur Airport was taken up by AAI.112 The record reflects
that on 17.03.2020, cross-examination of this witness was
deferred. However, he again did not enter the witness box for
his cross-examination.
59.36 PW36 Manoop Kumar – He is a bank official at State
Bank of India, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi. He stated
that on 18.08.2015 he was called for CBI duty and taken to
Faridabad by the IO, where a senior lady from the North
East113 gave specimen writings/signatures [S-37 to S-50 – Ex.
PW36/A (colly)114] in his presence.
59.37 PW37 Birmjeet – He is an official of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi. He deposed that in 2015, he was called as
a witness for handwriting verification, during which Prakash
Krishna Shambharkar (A-3) gave his specimen signatures/
writings [S-1 to S-15 – Ex. PW37/A (colly)115] in his presence.
59.38 PW38 Mukesh Kumar Bansal – He is a bank official
employed with Syndicate Bank. He deposed that in his
112
All these documents, including the three letters are at D-37.
113
This witness is referring to A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi.
114
Document(s) at D-90.
115
Document(s) at D-86.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 61 of 200
presence Alok K. Sharan (A-1) had given his specimen
writings/ signatures [S-26 to S-30 – Ex. PW38/A (colly)116] and
[S-31 to S-36 – Ex. PW38/B (colly) 117]. In his presence A-5
Anil Kumar Mangal too had given his specimen writings/
signatures [S-16 to S-25 – Ex. PW38/C (colly)118].
58.39 PW39 Anil Kumar Rai – He served as Air Controller
at Raipur Airport from 2009 to 2015, having succeeded Mr. S.
P. Saha in the post. He testified that NOCs from air traffic point
of view were issued by Executive Director, Air Traffic
Management (ATM), AAI (Headquarters); that A-3 Prakash
Shambharkar was not authorised to directly issue NOCs dt.
06.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/C) and 25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A) for
local flying at Bilaspur and could only have provided feedback
in this regard to Executive Director (ATM). Vide his own letter
dt. 06.02.2015 (Ex. PW39/A) to CBI he had furnished ‘inward
and outward register’ for the period from January 2007 to June
2007 and ‘Flight Arrival and Departure Register’ for the period
from March 2008 to December 2010 [Ex. PW39/B (colly)]. 119
Further, he deposed that Mr. G. K. Khare, the then Airport
Controller, AAI, Raipur vide his letter dt. 10.03.2008 (Ex.
PW39/C120) to SFAPL asked it to immediately stop its flying
activities at Bilaspur. He also proved his letter dt. 05.05.2011
(Ex. PW39/D121) addressed to Executive Director (LM), AAI,
Delhi, wherein he informed that SFAPL was continuing flying
116
Document(s) at D-88.
117
Document(s) at D-89.
118
Document(s) at D-87.
119
The letter and the documents are at D-76.
120
Document(s) at D-73.
121
Document(s) at D-73.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 62 of 200
operations at Bilaspur, despite being asked not to do so, on the
basis of State Government’s letter dt. 23.06.2007 permitting
operations and DGCA’s letter dt. 07.02.2008 granting approval
to commence PPL/CPL flying training.
59.40 PW40 DSP Satendra Singh – He was Inspector in
AC-1 Branch of CBI from 2010 to 2019 and, having conducted
the preliminary enquiry prior to registration of the FIR in this
case, submitted his complaint dt. 17.09.2014 (Ex. PW40/A122)
to Superintendent of Police, AC-1 Branch, CBI. He deposed
that vide his letter dt. 15.05.2012 (Ex. PW40/B) addressed to
CBI Mr. E. Lakra, Section Officer, DGCA had furnished
several documents as specified therein. Next, vide handing /
taking over memos dt. 13.07.2012 (Ex. PW40/C) and dt.
08.06.2012 (Ex. PW40/D) he had taken over several
documents from A-5 Anil Kumar Mangal as specified therein.
Vide letter dt. 07.06.2012 A-5 Anil Kumar Mangal addressed
to him (PW40) forwarded certain information/documents (Ex.
PW40/E) as set out therein.
59.41 PW41 Subarn Bara – In 2015 he was serving as the
Deputy Director in the office of Tribal Welfare Commissioner,
Jharkhand Government, where Mr. Praveen Kumar Topo was
the Tribal Welfare Commissioner. He deposed that through his
letter dt. 19.06.2015 Mr. Praveen Kumar Topo had forwarded
to CBI the documents [Ex. PW41/A (colly)123], certified by him
(PW41), relating to selection of SFAPL as the institute to
impart training to 30 students for attaining commercial pilots
122
Document(s) at D-38.
123
Document(s) at D-75.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 63 of 200
licence and the related payments. He deposed that as per the
available details Jharkhand Government paid Rs. 95,22,215/-
to SFAPL for pilot training to its students. The said set of
documents includes copy of letter dt. 13.09.2010, whereby
Alok K. Sharan (A-1) informed Jharkhand Government that
SFAPL fulfilled all CAR requirements, pursuant to which the
Government awarded the contract to SFAPL for training 30
tribal students from Jharkhand; it also contains copy of MoA
dt. 22.10.2010 executed between Jharkhand Government and
SFAPL, which was signed on Government’s behalf by Praveen
Kumar Topo, the Tribal Welfare Commissioner.
59.42 PW42 Rajesh Kumar Singh – He is a contractor, to
whom AAI had awarded the work of Bilaspur Airport fencing.
He deposed that due to a boundary dispute between AAI and
Chhattisgarh Government, the work contract could not be fully
executed; that he carried out fencing work only partially, and
that the contract was subsequently foreclosed. He testified that
the contract was awarded to him for a sum of Rs. 15,48,154.22
and he received payment of Rs. 2,34,811/- only. He further
deposed that vide his letter dt. 24.02.2009 [Ex. PW34/B
(colly)124] addressed to AAI, Raipur Airport, he had conveyed
that he had commenced fencing work after erecting concrete
pillars as pointed out by State Government’s revenue officials,
but the work was stalled as they failed to provide proper land
demarcation.
59.43 PW43 Ashwin Bikrant Tete – He is a student who had
124
Document(s) at D-45.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 64 of 200
joined SFAPL for Commercial Pilot training sponsored by
Jharkhand Government. He proved his complaint dt.
24.10.2011 (Ex. PW43/A125) against SFAPL. He deposed that
he had given this complaint to an officer during inspection of
SFAPL. His grievances in the said complaint relate to frequent
changes of the instructor, improper teaching methods, being
made to take the flight despite gusty weather, flight over-
loggings, joy rides etc.
59.44 PW44 R. K. Srivastava – In his capacity as Chairman,
AAI, he granted sanction (Ex. PW44/A) on 31.12.2015 to
prosecute A-3 Prakash Shambharkar, who was then Joint
General Manager (ATM), AAI, Mumbai, and had served as
Airport Controller, AAI, Raipur Airport from 08.08.2006 to
05.07.2007.
59.45 PW45 Ashok Kumar Panjwani – He was one of the
Directors of SFAPL till year 2007. He proved on record the
Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association [Ex.
PW45/A (colly)] of SFAPL. He also identified the signatures
of A-5 Anil Kumar Mangal on several of his letters and replies
and which are Ex. PW1/A-1, Ex. PW1/A-3, Ex. PW2/C, Ex.
PW2/E, Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW11/B, Ex. PW11/D.126 It may be
noted that in this lis, none of the accused persons has disputed
their signatures or writings on any of the documents.
59.46 PW46 Gopal Dubey – He was a security guard
engaged by A-4 SFAPL during the years 2008 to 2010 at
125
Document(s) at D-27.
126
All these documents, including Ex. PW45/A (colly), are at D-27.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 65 of 200
Bilaspur airstrip. He deposed that the airstrip was an open
space with no boundary wall around it.
59.47 PW47 Lala Vaishnav – He too was a security guard
engaged by A-4 SFAPL during the years 2008 to 2010 at
Bilaspur airstrip. He deposed that the airstrip was an open
space with no boundary wall around it.
59.48 PW48 Virendra Prakash Singh – In year 2015 he
was Director of Operations, DGCA and was looking after the
work of Flying Training Directorate. Vide his letter dt.
01.05.2015 (Ex. PW48/A127), he had handed over the following
to CBI: (a) file Ex. PW48/B (colly) 128 qua Rainbow Aviation
Academy for flying school at Surat; (b) file Ex. PW48/C
(colly)129 of Sky Master Aviation for flying school at Rewa
Airport, Madhya Pradesh; (c) file Ex. PW48/D (colly) 130 of
Trans Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. for flying school at Behala
Airport, Kolkata; (d) file Ex. PW48/E (colly)131 of International
Aviation Academy for flying school at Salem Airport; (e) file
Ex. PW48/F (colly)132 of Southern Pilot Training Academy for
flying school at Salem Airport. Vide covering letter dt.
21.05.2015, Mr. V. K. Gupta, the then Deputy Director
(Vigilance), DGCA, forwarded to CBI the response of Joint
Director General Arvind Sardana (PW22), addressing various
queries of CBI on interpretation of CAR [Ex. PW48/G
127
Document(s) at D-74.
128
Document(s) at D-46.
129
Document(s) at D-47.
130
Document(s) at D-48.
131
Document(s) at D-49.
132
Document(s) at D-50.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 66 of 200
(colly)133], and the witness identified Mr. V. K. Gupta’s
signature on the said letter.
59.49 PW49 DSP R. S. Solanki – He is the Investigating
Officer in this case and deposed regarding the investigation
conducted by him. In his oral evidence, he relied on numerous
documents gathered during the course of the investigation,
many of which have already been referred to above, as well as
the following additional documents: (i) FIR Ex. PW49/A
bearing the signature of Meenu Chaudhary, the then SP, CBI,
AC-1, (ii) Covering letter dt. 23.01.2015 of N. V. Subbarayudu
of the AAI Vigilance Department together with ION dt.
20.01.2015 of Sulakshan Chadha (PW3) and the Manual of Air
Traffic Services Part-2, which are Ex. PW49/B (colly)134, (iii)
file relating to special audit of SFAPL which was collected
vide letter dt. 13.05.2015 of V. K. Gupta, the then Deputy
Director (Vigilance), DGCA; the file and the letter are Ex.
PW49/C (colly)135 (iv) letter dt. 05.01.2007 (Ex. PW49/D) of
Akash Mangal (a Director of SFAPL) vide which he had
forwarded his father Anil Kumar Mangal’s original letter dt.
05.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/B)136, (v) letter dt. 30.04.2015 [Ex.
PW49/E (colly)137] of SP, CBI:AC-1 vide which the
questioned, specimen and admitted writings/signatures of A-3
133
Document(s) at D-40.
134
Document(s) at D-35.
135
Document(s) at D-67 and D-68.
136
Both letters are at D-79. Letter dt. 05.01.2007 was written by A-5 Anil Kumar Mangal on A-4
SFAPL’s behalf to Airport Controller, Raipur Airport, seeking: (i) allotment of land for parking space
and hangar, (ii) use of runway, (iii) provision of air traffic control services, and (v) safety services. It
was in response to this letter that A-3 Prakash Shambharkar had issued the letter/NOC dt. 06.01.2007
(Ex. PW9/C).
137
Document(s) at D-80.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 67 of 200
Prakash Shambharkar were sent to CFSL for comparison, and
(vi) letter dt. 30.04.2015 [Ex. PW49/F (colly) 138] of SP,
CBI:AC-1 vide which the questioned, specimen and admitted
writings/ signatures of A-1 Alok K. Sharan, A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi and A-5 Anil Kumar Mangal were sent to CFSL
for comparison. Upon completion of the investigation, he filed
the chargesheet and subsequently submitted the sanction order
dt. 31.12.2015 (Ex. PW44/A) in respect of Prakash
Shambharkar (A-3).
60. Examined under section 313 CrPC the accused persons
alleged false implication and claimed innocence.
60.1 A-1 Alok K. Sharan in his statement under section
313 CrPC stated as follows : DGCA, being a regulator, had
issued CAR which clearly states that NOC by AAI is required,
without specifying that such NOC must be issued by AAI
Headquarter; whether or not NOC from air traffic point of view
was to be given by AAI Headquarter or by AAI’s regional
Airport Controller was entirely AAI’s internal matter; A-3
Prakash Shambharkar’s NOC was considered and relied upon
by PW23 JDG Arun Kumar Chopra and that he merely
followed the same when granting the extensions; AAI never
cancelled or declared A-3 Prakash Shambharkar’s NOCs as
null and void so as to enable DGCA to take action; AAI’s ION
dt. 30.05.2006 [Ex. PW3/D (colly)] regarding constitution of
committee of members to issue NOCs was not conveyed to
DGCA; AAI’s internal decisions are not sent to DGCA; the Air
138
Document(s) at D-80.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 68 of 200
Force issues Air Defence Clearance (ADC) number only upon
AAI’s request; since ADC numbers were issued for every
SFAPL flight, it shows that AAI had requested them and had
accepted the NOC issued by Prakash Shambharkar, else such
requests would not have been made; SFAPL’s aircrafts were
operating from outside Bilaspur airfield to Raipur and on
various cross-country flights, which shows that A-3 Prakash
Shambharkar’s NOC was accepted by all AAI officials; AAI
ATC had also obtained Flight Information Centre (FIC)
numbers for SFAPL’s flights; there was no encroachment on
the runway; trenches were dug around the airfield to prevent
trespass or movement by humans or animals, and security
personnel were deployed around the airstrip; as fencing work
was in progress, alternate security arrangements had been
made, and it was on these terms that PW23 Arun Kumar
Chopra had granted approval; that the extensions that he gave
were within his authority; as per PW23 Arun Kumar Chopra’s
statement to CBI there were several flying clubs that were
operating without fencing at that time; Director, Flying
Training had been advised to examine the complaints vis-Ã -vis
quality of training and take action as per rules; at the relevant
time, he was not responsible for overseeing the Flying Clubs so
as to handle Sukhwinder Sony’s complaint, as PW22 Arvind
Sardana was in charge of Flying Clubs; he had marked Sanjay
Kumar Pandey’s complaint Ex. PW22/A to the Flying and
Gliding Section for necessary action as per procedure; the
Jharkhand Government had already shortlisted SFAPL after
due scrutiny even prior to his letter dt. 13.09.2010; prosecution
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 69 of 200
against him is bad for want of sanction under section 197 of
CrPC; the preliminary enquiry was conducted in unfair manner
and the complaint dt. 17.09.2014 Ex. PW40/A was wrongly
filed. A-1 Alok K. Sharan opted not to lead evidence in
defence.
60.2 A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi in her statement under
section 313 CrPC stated as follows : The students including
PW12 Chandradeep Ekka had complained to PW17 Captain
Arun Mann in September 2011 whilst the special audit was
underway much after she had retired and when the flying
training institute (SFAPL) had closed own; the purpose of the
special audit was malafide; perimeter fencing was to be done
by Chhattisgarh Government; Bilaspur Airport had been
regularly used for VIP flights, as disclosed in an RTI reply dt.
30.09.2016; the RTI reply stated that state-owned aircrafts and
helicopters operated flights to Bilaspur Airport, and such
flying operations had been taking place even before
Chhattisgarh was carved out of erstwhile undivided Madhya
Pradesh; perimeter fencing is no mandatory requirement for
flying operations under CAR; presence of a fence or another
suitable barrier to prevent entry of unauthorised persons or
animals large enough to pose a hazard to aircraft on landing
strips constitutes a safety precaution under CAR; Clause 8.4 of
Annexure 14 of International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO), which prescribes aerodrome standards, requires that a
fence or a suitable barrier be provided to prevent movement of
animals large enough to pose a hazard to aircraft in or near
airstrips; such fencing at Bilaspur airstrip was not required to
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 70 of 200
be done by the flying training institute, but by AAI or the
State Government; Bilaspur airport was surrounded by a moat
of substantial depth acting as a barrier and watch and ward staff
was additionally deployed to provide adequate security; she
had experience and good knowledge in the matter of aircraft
operations and DGCA senior officers knew nothing about
flying technicalities and were incompetent in assessing the
problems on the field and in resolving them; A-1 Alok K.
Sharan, who was her senior, had approved all the extensions
that she granted and was fully aware of what was going on
within the department; A-1 Alok K. Sharan’s letter dt.
08.11.2010 (Ex. PW16/M) had approved all the extensions that
she granted; DGCA is a policy-making body, and therefore
attempting to attribute faults to it on trivial or scattered grounds
is both absurd and preposterous; there was a Government of
India policy to augment the supply of pilots in the aviation
sector in near future vide DGCA office order no.
AV.20036/006/2003-AAI-Vol II dt. 30.05.2008 and para 2.1
thereof stated, “there is a need to liberalize the procedure for
approval of private airports/helipads for private use” ; this
Government policy would have been better served by ensuring
that flying training organisations are given the incentive to
carry on flying training and students’ flying training are not
stopped on frivolous and minor complaints; this approach is
rooted in the spirit of DGCA office Memo [AV 22031/1/2003-
Trg.(FG) dt. 29.02.2005] which states, “GA Cell may be
informed that the deficiencies observed during inspection of
the Flying Club/Academies may be pointed out on the spot and
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 71 of 200
if rectified in their presence, the same may be mentioned in the
inspection report sent to the FG section by the inspecting
officer so that approval of the Flying Club/Academies should
not be delayed while waiting for action taken report “; she had
concurred with the Section Officer’s office note to forward a
copy of Ms. Rashmi Mittal’s complaint to SFAPL for its
explanation; there was no willful or deliberate stoppage of
movement of files to the higher officers by her; the job of
moving the files is done routinely by DGCA staff and approval
thereafter is a mere formality; grant of extensions are a matter
of right unless a marked deviation from original grant in
principle has taken place. A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi opted
to lead evidence in defence.
60.3 A-3 Prakash Shambharkar in his statement under
section 313 CrPC stated as follows : He had issued only two
letters dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/C) and dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex.
PW7/A). Thereafter, he was transferred from Raipur Airport to
Mumbai Airport and was relieved in the first week of July,
2007; he had issued the alleged NOC dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex.
PW7/A) only for local flying operations and not from air traffic
perspective for establishment or setting up of a Flying Training
Institute as per AAI guidelines; and he issued the same in his
capacity as In-charge of Raipur Airport, and Bilaspur Airport
was under the custodianship of Raipur Airport; his letter dt.
06.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/C) clearly states that there is no Flying
Club at Raipur Airport and that necessary permission (NOC)
be obtained from AAI, CHQ, Delhi for the purpose of Flying
Training Institute/hangar/ space for parking of aircrafts; as per
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 72 of 200
CBI’s own case, in-principle approval was granted during the
years 2007 to 2010 to M/s Blue Ray Aviation Pvt. Ltd.,
Osmanabad without obtaining NOCs from the airport owner
and AAI from the air traffic perspective, and this indicates that
obtaining such NOCs was not mandatory for establishing a
Flying Training Institute, else the CBI ought to have taken
legal action against M/s Blue Ray Aviation Pvt. Ltd.,
Osmanabad; Satendra Singh (PW40) did not conduct any
preliminary inquiry and the complaint (Ex. PW40/A) filed by
him is false; investigation was not conducted honestly and
sincerely and was aimed at implicating the accused persons; he
has been falsely implicated, and the evidence adduced against
him is false, fabricated, and frivolous; this case is an outcome
of inter se dispute between Chhattisgarh Government and AAI
and several officials of AAI and DGCA. A-3 Prakash
Shambharkar opted not to lead evidence in defence.
60.4 A-4 SFAPL in its statement, through its Managing
Director/AR Anil Kumar Mangal under section 313 CrPC
stated as follows : The NOC and the permission to run the
Flying Institute were as per law and after following the due
procedure. No NOC from AAI regarding hangar and parking
was required; all the documents as sought for by the concerned
authorities were duly provided; letters dt. 24.06.2008 (Ex.
PW3/A1), dt. 05.08.2008 (Ex. PW3/A2) of S. P. Saha, Airport
Controller, Raipur Airport and the letter dt. 11.11.2008 (Ex.
PW3/A3) of M. C. Dangi, the then Joint General Manager
(Ops), Headquarters, AAI, Delhi were issued illegally owing to
inter se disputes between different officials of the concerned
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 73 of 200
authorities, and they was issued despite the fact that permission
to run the flying institute had been granted as per law and after
following due procedure; tender notice dt. 21.05.2009 (Ex.
PW3/A4) of AAI, Kolkata was issued illegally as the Bilaspur
airport, as per land records, belonged to State Government;
PW8 M. C. Dangi conducted himself with the sole motive of
framing certain officials and falsely implicating A-4 and A-5 in
the present case; M/s Touchwood Aviation’s complaint
addressed to Airport Controller, Raipur Airport qua an incident
of 23.02.2008 is false and a procured one; the complaints of
PW12 Chandradeep Ekka and other students are incorrect and
motivated, having been lodged at the behest of certain AAI
officials and others, and the CBI, in connivance with certain
officials, manipulated ante-dated complaints; Sukhwinder
Sony’s complaint was procured to falsely drag the accused
persons in this litigation; extensions granted by A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi were as per law; the entire case is fabricated at
the instance of PW17 Captain Arun Mann who manipulated
documents, reports and complaints to falsely implicate the
accused persons; PW8 M. C. Dangi and PW17 Arun Mann
were instrumental in getting this false case registered with
oblique motives and at the instance of Garg Aviation, a
competitor that failed to secure the Jharkhand Government
tender; PW17 Arun Mann had previously served as Chief
Instructor at Garg Aviation, Kanpur before joining DGCA; the
payments received by it from Jharkhand Government were
only on completion and imparting of the training to the
Jharkhand students in terms of the agreement; no preliminary
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 74 of 200
enquiry was conducted; complaint Ex. PW40/A is false;
investigation was not conducted sincerely and honestly. A-4
SFAPL opted not to lead evidence in defence.
60.5 A-5 Anil Kumar Mangal, Director of SFAPL under
section 313 CrPC made an identical statement as that of A-4
SFAPL. A-5 Anil Kumar Mangal opted not to lead evidence in
defence.
61. Section 232 in Chapter XVIII of CrPC relating to ‘Trial
Before a Court of Session’ requires that post-section 313 CrPC if
there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the
Sessions Court shall record an order of acquittal. It may be noted
that in terms of section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
the Court of Special Judge is deemed to be a Court of Session and
that Special Judge in trying the accused persons shall follow the
procedure prescribed under the CrPC for trial of warrant cases by
Magistrates. Now, Chapter XIX of CrPC which deals with
procedure for trial of ‘Warrant Cases by Magistrates’ contains no
provision akin to Section 232 of CrPC. Given this, there arises no
question of resorting to the provision of section 232 of CrPC.
62. In Defence Evidence the following two witnesses entered
the witness box on behalf of A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi.
62.1 DW1A2 M. Natarajan – He is General Manager (HR),
AAI, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, Delhi. He
entered the witness box with copy of a letter dt. 15 th/27th June
2007 (Ex. DW1/A2-D1) of N. Balachandran, Senior Manager
(Pers.), AAI, Delhi addressed to Regional Executive Director,
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 75 of 200
AAI, Western Region, Mumbai on the subject ‘Complaint
against Shri Prakash Shambharkar, DGM (ATC), Raipur’. As
per this letter, A-3 Prakash Shambharkar was transferred from
the post of Airport Controller, Raipur with immediate effect on
administrative grounds to Mumbai as DGM (ATC). He also
deposed that A-3 Prakash Shambharkar was relieved on
05.07.2007.
62.2 DW2A2 Sunil Kumar Adlakha – He is Deputy
Director in DGCA, Delhi. He entered the witness box with the
service record of A-2 L. Binodini Devi. As per the record, A-2
L. Binodini Devi was appointed as Junior Pilot by the President
of India vide a notification dt. 14.09.1982 (Ex. DW2/A2-D1);
her services was confirmed with effect from 02.08.1984 vide
notification dt. 30.09.1985 (Ex. DW2/A2-D2), and she retired
on 31.12.2010 as Senior Pilot.
63. Learned Public Prosecutor for CBI argued that the
evidence on record proves that NOC from air traffic perspective
had to be issued by AAI Headquarters, Delhi alone and that A-3
Prakash Shambharkar being the regional Airport Controller of
AAI at Raipur/Bilaspur had no authority whatsoever to issue any
such NOC. In view of thereof, it was submitted, the two NOCs dt.
06.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/C) and 25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A) were
issued sans any legal authority. He highlighted that the prevailing
practice in AAI was for NOCs to be issued by AAI Headquarters,
as evidenced by the fact that between 2006 and 2008, 32 NOCs
were issued by AAI Headquarters, Delhi (D-35). He pointed out
that AAI Headquarter had set up a committee of four members for
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 76 of 200
issuing NOCs vide ION dt. 30.05.2006 [Ex. PW3/D (colly)] and
the DGCA officials as also A-3 Prakash Shambharkar knew of it.
He further submitted that Bilaspur airport belonged to AAI and
SFAPL (A-4) incorrectly obtained NOC from State Government
for parking/hangar. He stated that A-1 Alok K. Sharan abused his
official position by approving the base from Raipur to Bilaspur and
further by wrongly granting two extensions notwithstanding the
fact that SFAPL has no valid NOCs. He further stated that Captain
L. Binodini Devi (A-2) had no authority whatsoever to grant the
extensions to A-4 SFAPL; that A-1 Alok K. Sharan despite
knowing fully well that she had no authority chose to ignore the
same and this is clearly evidence by the DGCA office file notings.
He submitted that A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi granted
extensions despite multiple deficiencies noted in the inspection
reports over time, and notwithstanding the numerous complaints
received, that were not inquired into by the accused public
servants. He pointed out that A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi had
wrongly indicated ‘Yes’ regarding availability of airport perimeter
fencing in her Inspection Report of 13th/14th December 2010 (Ex.
PW14/C). He also argued that A-4 SFAPL sought to mislead
DGCA officers through its ATR dt. 24.01.2008, for during a
subsequent inspection conducted by PW15 Captain B. S. Nehra,
from 18.11.2008 to 20.11.2008 (Inspection Report – Ex.
PW15/B), it was found that SFAPL had given false information in
its ATR dt. 24.01.2008. He further submitted that DGCA officials
acted malafidely by taking no action against A-4 SFAPL despite
PW15 Captain B. S. Nehra’s inspection recommendation of
18th/20th November 2008 (Ex. PW15/B) and similarly failed to act
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 77 of 200
on the basis of the Audit Report (Ex. PW17/A – D-29) of
September 2011. He contended that A-1 Alok K. Sharan, in his
letter dt. 13.09.2010 to Secretary, Welfare Department, Jharkhand
Government, falsely stated that SFAPL had complied with all
CAR guidelines, and it was on the basis of his letter that Jharkhand
Government paid Rs. 95,22,215/- to SFAPL. He thus urged that
accused persons had conspired with each other to cheat the
Jharkhand Government. It was also urged by him that the evidence
on record clearly establishes that accused public servants had
abused their official positions in order to secure undue pecuniary
advantage for A-4 SFAPL without any public interest. He
contended that no sanction under section 197 of CrPC was
mandatory qua the accused public servants and for this he relied on
Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) SCC 1 and
Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2024 SC 590. He
relied on Runu Ghosh v. CBI, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5501 to
advance two key arguments: first, that for an offence under section
13 (1) (d) (iii) of PC Act, 1988, it is not necessary to prove a quid
pro quo between the accused public and non-public servants; and
second, that this provision does not require proof of mens rea. It
was urged that the all the accused persons had entered into
criminal conspiracy to defraud the government, and in this regard
Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2433 was
forcefully relied upon. It was thus submitted on behalf of the
prosecution that all the charges against the accused persons were
duly proved.
64. On the other hand, learned Counsel for A-1 Alok K.
Sharan argued that the instant case is bad in law for want of
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 78 of 200
sanction under section 197 of CrPC and for this he relied on R.
Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala & Anr., (1996) 1 SCC 478 and
Prof. N. K. Ganguly v. CBI, 2016 (2) SCC 143. Relying on State
of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai & Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 617 he
contended that a sanction under section 197 of CrPC is required
even in respect of retired public servants. He submitted that there is
no evidence on record, directly or indirectly, to establish that
accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy with each
other to commit the alleged offences; that there is no evidence on
record to show any inter se contact or any exchange of
communication between the accused persons to indicate any
criminal conspiracy. He submitted that there is no evidence on
record to show that accused public servants had obtained any
benefit from A-4/A-5. On the basis of R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State
of Kerala & Anr., (2003) 9 SCC 700, A. Sivaprakash v. State of
Kerala, (2016) 12 SCC 273 and C. K. Jaffer Shareif v. State,
through CBI, (2013) 1 SCC 205 it was his submission that CBI
failed to prove its case under section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act; relying
on J. Jayalalitha v. State, MANU/TN/1423/2001, he submitted that
the prosecution has been unable to make out a case under section
13 (1) (d) (iii) of PC Act. He urged that the essential ingredients of
the offence of cheating are not made out; that there is nothing on
record to show any dishonest intention or inducement on the part
of any of the accused, and in this regard he relied on Rekha Jain v.
The State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2022 SC 2268. He argued that
the relevant CAR does not categorically lay down that NOC from
air traffic perspective was to be issued by AAI headquarters; that
A-1 Alok K. Sharan, who was vested with the authority to grant the
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 79 of 200
extension, had done so on the same terms and conditions as that of
PW23 Arun Kumar Chopra. He further argued that he was
unaware that A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi had granted the
extensions, as the department had an immense workload and he
had been entrusted with multiple responsibilities. He lastly urged
that the prosecution case at the best would disclose only codal
violations and irregularities in following the procedure, but for
such codal violations or procedural irregularities A-1 Alok K.
Sharan cannot be convicted for the offence under the PC Act; and
for this he relied on the judgment of C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 10 SCC 193.
65. Learned Senior Counsel for A-2 Captain L. Binodini
Devi argued that as per ‘Allocation of Duties to GAPS (General
Aviation Promotion and Surveillance) Cell Pilots’ (Ex. PW15/A at
D-33) issued by A-1 Alok K. Sharan several duties were assigned
to her including ‘any other duty that may be assigned from time to
time by the undersigned [A-1 Alok K. Sharan]’. Given this, it was
urged, ‘communication’ of extensions of approval allowed by A-1
Alok K. Sharan came within scope of her duties specified therein.
It was submitted that all that she was doing all along was to
‘communicate’ the decisions of A-1 Alok K. Sharan. It was
contended that A-1 Alok K. Sharan’s extension letter dt.
08.11.2010 (Ex. PW16/M) clearly shows that her communications
granting the extensions were issued with his approval,
unequivocally indicating that he was aware of and responsible for
all such extensions. A further confirmation in this regard can be
found, it was argued, from the extension given by Joint Director
General (JDG) J. S. Rawat on 29.11.2010 in the office notings file.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 80 of 200
It was argued that the claim she granted the extensions despite the
deficiencies in the inspection report(s) is unfounded; a review of
the inspection report(s) alongside the Action Taken Report (ATR)
would clearly demonstrate that the deficiencies had been made
good. It was pointed out that in the office note dt. 25.01.2008 she
had clearly stated that SFAPL cannot be given final approval for
want of any averment in its ATR qua completion of perimeter
fencing. It was urged that responsibility to take action on PW8 M.
C. Dangi’s letter dt. 11.11.2008 (Ex. PW3/A3) lay with A-1 Alok
K. Sharan. It was contended that the evidence on record establishes
that Bilaspur Airport belonged to Chattisgarh Government and
PW8 M. C. Dangi in his cross-examination made an admission of
this. It was also urged that A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi displayed
alertness of mind in writing letter dt. 03.12.2008 (Ex. PW15/C) to
the Director, Civil Aviation (Ops), Raipur seeking clarification
whether Bilaspur Airport belonged to the State Government or
AAI. It was argued that in her Inspection Report (Ex. PW16/J) of
November, 2009 she had clearly stated that fencing is not yet
complete; and this can certainly not be the work of a co-
conspirator. It was pointed out that ICAO Guidelines, to which
India is a member, clearly mentions that a fence or other suitable
barrier shall be provided on an aerodrome, and this provision has
been incorporated in DGCA CAR Guidelines of 22.03.2012. It
was also argued that there is ample amount of evidence on record
to show that Bilaspur Airport was secured with a trench from all
the sides. It was submitted that her office note dt. 30.12.2010
recommending extension of one year is not illegal as it had the
approval of the higher ups [(JDG) J. S. Rawat and PW17 Captain
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 81 of 200
Arun Mann; there is evidence on record to show that SFAPL’s
flights had valid Air Defence Clearance (ADC) and Flight
Information Centre (FIC) numbers; CAR guidelines do not
mandate that NOC from air traffic perspective shall be issued by
AAI Headquarters. PW48 Virendra Prakash Singh’s oral evidence
was relied upon to contend that there is no specific rule for grant of
extensions. It was submitted that there is no evidence on record to
show any conspiracy or any wrongful gain on her part or on the
part of any other accused. It was submitted that she has been
prosecuted on the sole ground that there was no fencing around the
airport. On these averments, learned counsel for A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi submitted that she was entitled to be acquitted.
66. Learned Counsel for A-3 Prakash Shambharkar argued
that as per CBI’s own case, in-principle approval had been granted
during years 2007 to 2010 sans NOCs from airport owner and AAI
from air traffic perspective to M/s Blue Ray Aviation Pvt. Ltd.,
Osmanabad, and this demonstrates that it is not mandatory to take
NOC for setting up Flying Training Schools. It was contended that
the CBI is interpreting his letters dt.06.01.2007 and 25.06.2007
incorrectly; his letter dt. 06.01.2007 clearly mentions that for the
purpose of flying training/hangar spaces necessary permission
from AAI Headquarter may be obtained and consequently it is no
NOC for establishment of Flying Training Institute; in the second
letter dt. 25.06.2007, ‘no objection’ is mentioned only in relation
to provision of ATS services at Bilaspur Airport for local flying
operation; his said letter dt. 25.06.2007 thus cannot at all be said to
be NOC for establishment of Flying Training Institute; this letter
dt. 25.06.2007 simply provides information qua local flying
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 82 of 200
procedures at Bilaspur, as Bilaspur was an uncontrolled airport
(lacking its own Air Traffic Control services) and relied on Raipur
Airport for air traffic control. It was also urged that at the relevant
time A-3 Prakash Shambharkar was posted as Airport Controller,
In-Charge of Raipur Airport therefore, he was within his domain to
apprise about the local flying conditions. Evidence of PW9 M.
Nanda Kumar was relied upon to contend that an airport In-charge
is authorised to permit local flying. It was argued that letters dt.
06.01.2007 and 25.06.2007 do not have the same format as that of
the NOCs by AAI Headquarters. It was pointed out that Prakash
Shambharkar (A-3) was relieved from his duties in Raipur in July
2007 and consequently there arises no question of any conspiracy
on his part; there is no telephonic record or exchange of any
message or any meeting between the accused persons to show that
they had entered into criminal conspiracy; in fact he had seen A-1
Alok K. Sharan and A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi in the Court for
the first time; additionally, his letters in question were issued in
2007 and the government contract of State of Jharkhand was
finalised much later in September 2010 and as such there can arise
no question of his being involved in criminal conspiracy. Counsel
for A-3 Prakash Shambharkar thus urged that he was entitled to be
acquitted.
67. Learned Counsel for A-4 SFAPL and A-5 Anil Kumar
Mangal argued that the permission to set up flying training school
and commence flying training operations were granted after
submission of all the required documents and which permission
was granted as per law. It was urged that valid Air Defence
Clearance (ADC) and Flight Information Centre (FIC) numbers on
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 83 of 200
SFAPL’s flights shows that all the requirements as per law had
been met with. It was argued that prosecution case qua airport
fencing is baseless; A-4 SFAPL had no control whatsoever over
the fencing work; evidence on record clearly proves that there was
a land dispute between the State Government and AAI and for this
reason the work of fencing commenced by the contractor (PW42
Rajesh Kumar) had been foreclosed; there is evidence on record to
show that Bilaspur airstrip was secured with guards and trenches.
It was submitted that A-1 Alok K. Sharan was very much
competent to grant approval and further extensions. It was
contended that it is certainly not the prosecution case that money
had been siphoned off without imparting any training. It was urged
that this case is nothing but an attempt to make scapegoats out of
A-4 and A-5 as there was a land ownership dispute between AAI
and the State Government; since A-4 was operating under a tender
issued by the State Government, the AAI, in order to settle scores,
resorted to false implication. It was submitted that Jharkhand
Government does not accuse SFAPL of any cheating; there is no
evidence of any money trail. It was argued that there is also no
evidence of exchange of any communication or meeting of minds
between the accused persons. On these assertions, learned counsel
for A-4 and A-5 submitted that they are entitled to be acquitted.
68. Arguments heard. Record perused.
69. To begin with, the evidence on record does not
conclusively establish the prosecution version that at the relevant
time in year 2007 NOC from air traffic point of view was to be
issued exclusively by AAI Headquarter. The manifold reasons for
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 84 of 200
holding so are as under.
69.1 Firstly, the CAR on the subject ‘Approval of Flying
Training Institutes’ stipulates that for the purpose of grant of
initial NOC the applicant ought to, inter alia, furnish ‘No
Objection Certificate from Airports Authority of India, from
air traffic point of view’. Now, this stipulation does not state or
imply that the NOC was required to be mandatorily obtained
exclusively from AAI Headquarters. There is no language in
this provision that restricts the issuance of such NOC solely to
AAI Headquarters. In the absence of any such explicit
restriction, it cannot be inferred that the authority to issue the
NOC at the relevant time in year 2007 was confined only to
AAI Headquarters. On the contrary, this stipulation is broad in
its wording and does not exclude the possibility of NOC from
air traffic point of view being issued by AAI’s Airport
Controller stationed at an airport. Accordingly, given the
manner in which this stipulation has been worded, an NOC of
AAI’s Airport Controller stationed at the respective airport
would also fall, in my opinion, within the scope of compliance
with this requirement. Therefore, this stipulation cannot be
interpreted to mean that NOC from air traffic point of view
must necessarily originate from the AAI Headquarters alone,
to the exclusion of an NOC issued by AAI’s Airport Controller
posted at the airport acting in the course of official functions. It
must be borne in mind that any ambiguity on this count in the
said stipulation would have to be read in favour of the accused
and against the prosecution. This being a criminal trial, it is but
obvious that the prosecution ought to leave no ambiguity in
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 85 of 200
establishing any fact.
69.2 Secondly, a comparison of the language employed in
the stipulation ‘No Objection Certificate from Airports
Authority of India, from air traffic point of view’ in the CAR
concerning ‘Approval of Flying Training Institutes’ with that
used in the Gazette Notification S.O. 726 (E) dt. 04.10.1994139
delegating powers of Director General of Civil Aviation to four
other DGCA officers, would be instructive. It bears repetition
to state that as per the said Gazette Notification the power of
the Director General of Civil Aviation to approve a flying
training institute stands delegated to the following : (i) Joint
Director General of Civil Aviation (except Joint Director
General of Civil Aviation Research & Development), (ii)
Deputy Director General of Civil Aviation (except Deputy
Director General of Civil Aviation Research & Development),
(iii) Director of Airworthiness (Headquarters), (iv) Director of
Airworthiness (Region). It is evident that therein it has been
specifically set out that Director of Airworthiness
(Headquarters) and the Director of Airworthiness (Region) too
shall have power to approve flying training institute. The point,
therefore, is that where one regulation expressly stipulates that
a particular power may be exercised by an officer at the
Headquarters and/or at the Regional level, while another
regulation (CAR) does not specifically prescribe that the power
conferred therein must be exercised exclusively at the
Headquarters level, such a distinction assumes considerable
139
Document(s) at D-62 [Ex. PW21/A (colly)]
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 86 of 200
significance, particularly in the context of a criminal trial. In
such circumstances, the absence of any explicit restriction
confining the exercise of power to the Headquarters alone
would reasonably admit of an interpretation that the authority
under the CAR could be exercised either at the Headquarters or
at the Regional level. Consequently, this regulatory distinction
leaves ample room for a bonafide and reasonable interpretation
regarding the locus of authority competent to exercise such
power.
69.3 In order to bring home the point that NOC from air
traffic point of view was required to be issued only at the AAI
Headquarters level, the prosecution relied upon AAI’s Internal
Office Note (ION) dt. 30.05.2006 [Ex. PW3/D (colly) – D-39]
vide which AAI had set up a committee of four members for
issuance of such NOC. However, there is nothing in this (ION)
dt. 30.05.2006 to show that the DGCA had been informed
about it. An image of this ION, appended below, would clearly
show that its copy was not marked/forwarded to DGCA and
therefore was not conveyed to it. Neither do AAI’s office
notings [Ex. PW3/D (colly) at D-39] show that this ION was
communicated to DGCA. That apart, there is not even any
other document filed or led in evidence to show that this ION
had been conveyed to DGCA. Furthermore, there is not a
single prosecution witness to state that DGCA had been
informed about the decision taken within the AAI vide this
ION. Therefore, on both the counts, i.e. documentary as well as
oral evidence, prosecution has been unable to prove that
DGCA officers had knowledge of the internal working
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 87 of 200
mechanism of AAI in the matter of issuing NOCs from air
traffic point of view. Given this, on this score the accused
persons have to be given the benefit of reasonable doubt.
69.4 The prosecution contended that during the period 2006
to 2008, the prevailing practice within the AAI was for NOCs
from air traffic point of view to be issued by AAI
Headquarters, as evidenced by the fact that 32 NOCs were
issued by the AAI Headquarters, Delhi during this period [Ex.
PW49/B (colly) – D-35]. It was thus urged that DGCA officers,
who had been granting approvals and routinely dealing with
NOCs from the air traffic point of view issued exclusively by
AAI Headquarters, ought to have been aware that an Airport
Controller at an airport had no authority to issue such an NOC.
This contention of the prosecution does not persuade this Court
to take a different view of the matter. The CAR nowhere states
that NOC from air traffic point of view was to be issued
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 88 of 200
exclusively by AAI Headquarters. Thus, from the perspective
of an external agency or department, such as the DGCA in the
instant case, it is of little consequence which officer of the AAI,
whether at the Headquarters or at the concerned airport level,
issues the NOC, so long as the NOC is issued by an AAI officer
who appears to possess the authority to issue such an NOC.
The DGCA in the matter of grant of approval for a flying
training institute is to be guided by the CAR, and the CAR
nowhere states that the NOC is to emanate exclusively from
AAI Headquarters level. Therefore, the contention that, in
view of the prevailing practice, the DGCA erred in accepting
the two NOCs in question [dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/C) and dt.
25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A)] as having been issued by the
competent officer(s) of AAI is fallacious. This can be
compared with the Doctrine of Indoor Management under the
Company Law. In terms of this doctrine, an external agency is
protected against any irregularities in the internal procedure of
a company; this is because an external agency cannot know
whether a certain procedure or a process within a company is
regular or irregular.
69.5 Next, oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses on this
count are inconsistent and contradict each other. PW1 Praveen
Kumar, who was Section Officer in DGCA stated in his cross-
examination, “I am not in a position to exactly disclosed as to
from which authority NOC for air traffic point of view, was
required. Later during the discussion, it came up that NOC was
required from local airport of Airport Authority of India and
not from the headquarters of AAI.” PW11 Kalitosh Bagchi in
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 89 of 200
his cross-examination stated, “It is correct that M/s. adhere to
all the rules and regulations required for flying school and its
operations.” However, the other witnesses, all of AAI [PW3
Sulakshan Chadha, PW7 Abraham John and PW8 M. C.
Dangi] , stated that such NOC was required to be issued by
AAI Headquarter alone.
69.6 PW22 Arvind Sardana in 2007 held the post of Joint
Director General in DGCA, Delhi. He had been on deputation
to AAI in 1987. In his cross-examination to a specific and
pointed question whether under the CAR, NOC could be issued
by officers other than AAI Headquarter, he gave an equivocal
and uncertain reply, “It is issued by Airports Authority of India
only.” And then to this, he added the following : It is correct
that I had stated in my statement u/S. 161 CrPC that “there is
no clarity regarding this if the conditions of CAR are
considered.” The crucial point that emerges is that the
prosecution’s own witness, and that too a very senior DGCA
officer, has acknowledged in his deposition that the CAR lacks
clarity and provides no clear guidance on this issue. The
uncertainty is further compounded by the fact that, in his
written reply dt. 10.03.2015 to a CBI questionnaire140, this
witness (PW22 Arvind Sardana) was specifically asked
whether an NOC from air traffic point of view, issued by
officers other than those at the AAI Headquarters, would be
acceptable under the CAR; his response was that ‘ AAI would
be in a better position to reply’. What is evident, therefore, is
that even at the highest levels of the concerned government
140
Ex. PW48/G (colly) – Document(s) at D-40.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 90 of 200
department, there prevailed a measure of confusion and absence
of clarity on this issue. To repeat what I observed hereinabove,
this being a criminal trial any ambiguity in the case pleaded by
prosecution would have to be read in favour of the accused.
69.7 It was the DGCA which had authored the CAR on the
subject ‘Approval of Flying Training Institutes’. And as such,
it is for the DGCA to clear the ambiguity in the phraseology
‘No Objection Certificate from Airports Authority of India,
from air traffic point of view’ and explicitly say that such NOC
had to be issued only and only from AAI Headquarters. For a
document that was authored by DGCA, the word of the
witnesses of AAI entering the witness box will not be taken to
be final and conclusive word on interpretation of any
stipulation therein.
70. Next, one of the basic tenets of the prosecution case is
that NOC from air traffic point of view ought to have emanated
from AAI Headquarter. Even if this standpoint of the prosecution
is accepted as completely correct, yet it is difficult to discern as to
how the two letters in question dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/C) and dt.
25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A) can be said to contravene or undermine
this basic tenet of the prosecution case. In fact, upon a careful
consideration of these two letters, I find nothing therein to be
inconsistent with, or in violation of, this very tenet upon which the
prosecution seeks to rest its case. Reasons for holding so are as
under.
70.1 The two letters in question in their contents do not
anywhere set out as purporting to have been issued by AAI
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 91 of 200
Headquarters.
70.2 In fact, the first letter dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/C) at
paragraph no. 4 thereof in very clear terms states, “… For the
purpose of flying Training/Hanger spaces for parking of
aircrafts you have obtained necessary permission or NOC from
our Airports Authority of India CHQ, New Delhi.” It is thus
abundantly clear from this that this first letter does not purport
to constitute, or reasonably can be construed, to be an NOC
from AAI Headquarters. There is not the slightest indication in
its contents to suggest that it was issued with the authority or
imprimatur of AAI Headquarters. On the contrary, this letter
explicitly states that the applicant may approach AAI
Headquarter for the purposes of ‘flying training’ and for
‘hangar spaces for parking of aircrafts’. It may be added here
that this first letter was qua Raipur and no flying training
school ever came to be set up at Raipur by A-4 SFAPL.
70.3 Even the second letter dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A),
judged by its semantics, does not at all purport to be an NOC of
the AAI Headquarters. In this second letter, it is, inter alia,
stated, “…This is to inform you that there is no ATC operation
at Bilaspur Airport. Therefore, during the local flying at
Bilaspur Airport clearance to be obtained positively from
Raipur ATC and in co-ordination with Mumbai FIC, Raipur
ATC has NO OBJECTION to provide ATS services for local
flying at Bilaspur in co-ordination with Mumbai FIC.” Thus, in
this second letter dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A) what has been
set out is that there was no objection to provide ATS services
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 92 of 200
for local flying at Bilaspur. Now, it is proved on record from
the own evidence of the prosecution, specifically through oral
depositions of AAI official(s) themselves, that A-3 Prakash
Shambharkar in his official capacity as Airport Controller at
the relevant time was well within his authority and jurisdiction
to permit local flying at the airport(s) under him 141. PW9 M.
Nanda Kumar, Senior Manager (ATC) at Raipur Airport in
2006-2007, in his oral evidence stated, ” Airport incharge is
authorized to permit local flying for controlled Raipur Airport.
Bilaspur airport was kept under the guardianship of Raipur
Airport incharge for the purpose of encroachments and
property verification. During my tenure, flying operations at
Bilaspur Airport were not controlled by Raipur Airport, since
Bilaspur Airport was uncontrolled air field.” PW7 Abraham
John, Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Control (ATC), Raipur in
2006-07 in his oral evidence stated, “The permission for local
flying at Raipur Airport was required to be given by officer
heading the airport at Raipur. Vol. I am however not sure. ”
Given this, it is but obvious that this letter does not run foul of
this basic tenet upon which the prosecution seeks to rest its
case.
71. A portion of cross-examination of PW3 Sulakshan
Chadha was pressed into service by the prosecution to contend that
141
It is not in dispute that A-3 Prakash Shambharkar in his capacity as Airport Controller of Raipur
Airport was also the custodian/In-charge of Bilaspur Airport. Bilaspur Airport was an uncontrolled
airport and several witnesses of the prosecution (PW7, PW9, PW11 and PW14) have deposed to this
effect. The fact that the Airport Controller of Raipur Airport was also the custodian/In-charge of
Bilaspur Airport (an uncontrolled airport) is set out in documents of AAI (at D-2). In this regard, PW8
M.C. Dangi in his cross-examination stated, ” Airport Controller Raipur has been the custodian of
Bilaspur Airport….” PW39 Anil Kumar Rai, who served as Air Controller at Raipur Airport from 2009
to 2015 in his oral evidence stated that AAI never posted any staff at Bilaspur for maintenance/security
during the relevant period.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 93 of 200
the defence has admitted that the two letters dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex.
PW9/C) and dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A) are not valid NOCs. This
portion of the cross-examination of this witness by A-3 Prakash
Shambharkar runs as follows, “It is correct to suggest that letters
dated 06.01.2007 and 25.06.2007 are not valid NOC for
establishment of flying training institute or issued under the
authority by A-3.” However, this oral evidence has to be evaluated
in its proper context and in light of the surrounding circumstances.
This witness is an officer of the AAI. The consistent stand of the
AAI, at least since 30th May 2006 – but the office decision (the
ION) was not conveyed to others – has been that an NOC from air
traffic point of view can be issued only by its Headquarters. It is
therefore evident that the witness is merely reiterating AAI’s
official position. However, such a stand must necessarily be
founded in the applicable rules and regulations. The relevant
stipulation of CAR, as already observed hereinabove, is couched
in wide terms and does not admit of the interpretation that AAI
Headquarters alone possessed the exclusive authority to issue an
NOC from the air traffic point of view. That apart, this portion of
PW3’s cross-examination cannot be taken to be the final word on
interpretation of the applicable rule/ regulation. The Court is duty
bound to apply its own mind and construe the rules as they exist.
Furthermore, there can be no dispute with the position that the said
two letters, projected as NOCs, neither emanate from the AAI
Headquarters nor even purport to emanate therefrom. The point,
however, is that there existed a reasonable degree of ambiguity as
to whether the authority to issue an NOC from the air traffic point
of view vested exclusively in AAI Headquarters. The relevant
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 94 of 200
CAR stipulation, as already noted hereinabove, is couched in
broad terms and does not expressly stipulate that such authority is
confined only to AAI Headquarters. In the absence of any clear or
categorical stipulation to that effect, the possibility of a different
understanding or interpretation cannot be ruled out. And therefore,
to hold that the said two letters are invalid merely for the reason
that they were not issued by AAI Headquarters would, in my view,
be a position that cannot reasonably be sustained in the present
criminal trial, where the prosecution case must withstand scrutiny
beyond reasonable doubt and any reasonable doubt must
necessarily enure to the benefit of the accused persons.
72. Next, PW9 M. Nanda Kumar in his examination-in-chief
stated, “I have seen another letter already Ex. PW7/A which bears
signature of accused Prakash Shambharkar at point Q-4. The copy
of said letter was marked to me as SM (ATC Incharge, Raipur
Airport). However, I have never received any such letter. If any
letter is issued from office i.e. Raipur Airport Office, it will go to
Dispatch Section where dispatch number will be allotted to it and
it will be also recorded in dispatch register. If it is marked to any
person in office complex, he will receive it by making
endorsement on office copy. No outward number/dispatch number
is there in Ex. PW-7/A.” On this basis, an impression was sought
to be created that the letter dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A) was issued
malafidely by A-3 Prakash Shambharkar so as to avoid it being
noticed by others. This would not be really credible in view of his
deposition in his cross-examination, where he states, “The letter
Ex. PW-7/A was for the first time seen by me at the time my
statement was recorded and letter was shown to me by CBI. I did
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 95 of 200
not check the dispatch register at the time my statement was
recorded by CBI.” The point therefore is that this witness made the
statement about sending of this letter dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A)
without even checking the dispatch register of the relevant time.
There is one more reason to doubt this claim of this witness as
appearing in his examination-in-chief, and which is being set out
in the succeeding paragraph.
73. It has come in the evidence of several prosecution
witnesses that SFAPL’s flights had valid Air Defence Clearance
(ADC) and Flight Information Centre (FIC) numbers. In this
regard, I will take note of evidence of only one witness namely that
of PW3 Sulakshan Chadha, who in his cross-examination stated,
“It is correct that Airport Authority of India was knowing about
the flying operations carried out by M/s Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt.
Ltd. Indian Airforce issues ADC number on forwarding of flight
plan by Airport Authority of India. The flight information centre
of Airport Authority issues FIC number in respect of flight
operations………….It is correct that only after commission from
ATC Bombay region, Aircrafts can fly with FIC and ADC number
and this permission was granted in favour of M/s SFAPL.” This in
effect means that AAI had conveyed to the concerned authorities
that SFAPL had met with all the prescribed criteria for operation of
the flights, and it was thus that valid ADC and FIC numbers had
been issued to SFAPL’s flights. It has not been brought out in the
evidence as to what procedure was followed in the matter of grant
of valid ADC and FIC numbers to SFAPL’s flights in the face of
the fact that the office of AAI in its own understanding never
construed the said letter dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A) of A-3
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 96 of 200
Prakash Shambharkar as valid. A-3 Prakash Shambharkar could
hardly have been the sole and absolute authority within the AAI,
functioning with no institutional checks and balances. It is difficult
to accept that his writ ran unchecked within the organisation,
without any form of oversight or supervision. The said letter/NOC
dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex. PW7/A), or the relevant information on the
basis thereof, would surely have been routed through the
concerned official channels of AAI before it could reach the
concerned quarter(s) for issuance of ADC and FIC numbers. As
deposed by PW3, FIC numbers were issued by the Flight
Information Centre of AAI. It thus appears to be surprising as to
how the Flight Information Centre of AAI did not cross-check
whether SFAPL’s flights had been validly authorised. The fact that
no such verification appears to have been undertaken renders the
matter somewhat puzzling. It is also surprising to note that before
forwarding the relevant information to the Indian Airforce for
issuance of ADC number, the concerned quarter of AAI did not
cross-check whether SFAPL’s flights had been validly authorised.
Thus, it is evident that within AAI’s internal organisational
structure itself, the said letter dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex.PW7/A) had most
likely, at least for practical purposes, been accepted to be correct.
This also shows that assertion that letter dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex.
PW7/A) was issued malafidely sans any outward number/ dispatch
number so as to avoid it being noticed by others is incorrect. If it
had been issued sans any outward number/ dispatch number, it
would perhaps have not reached the concerned quarter of AAI
wherefrom the procedures for issuance of ADC and FIC numbers
were initiated.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 97 of 200
74. From the perspective of an outsider, the internal
mechanism of AAI for issuance of NOC from Air Traffic point of
view was an alien affair. To an outsider, it would not have been
possible to know the internal procedure of AAI and the competent
person of AAI with regard to issuance of such NOC. Therefore, no
malafide can be attributed to SFAPL. All that it (SFAPL) did was
to apply for NOC with an authority/office of AAI, and it was for
the concerned officer(s) of AAI to look into it and see as to how
such application(s) is to be processed. SFAPL (A-4) and its
Managing Director Anil Kumar Mangal (A-5) cannot be blamed
for the lapses, if any, in the internal procedure/ mechanism of AAI
with respect to processing of application(s) for grant of NOC. This
being a criminal trial, mens rea attributable to an accused cannot be
based on surmises and conjectures.
75. And now a last word about NOC from air traffic point of
view. I think it would be unfair to target A-1 Alok K. Sharan and
A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi alone on this count. Within the
DGCA, everyone, from bottom to the highest rung, had treated the
two letters dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex. PW9/C) and 25.06.2007 (Ex.
PW7/A) as good NOCs from air traffic point of view. PW2
Dilawar Singh Sadha in his note dt. 02.02.2007 did not bring to
fore the deficiency that there was no NOC from AAI Headquarters
from air traffic perspective qua Raipur airport. In fact he (PW2
Dilawar Singh Sadha) in his office note stated that the same was
very much available and could ‘be seen at page 34/C’. The Section
Officer Praveen Kumar (PW1) too did not notice this; he in his oral
evidence states qua Raipur airport, “NOC from air traffic point of
view was not sought as it had been provided with application and
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 98 of 200
the said NOC was issued by one Prakash Sambharkar, APC
Raipur Airport.” Then on 24.04.2007 vide his note PW18 Captain
Deepak Raina added that ‘as discussed documents are not in order
from security point of view’142; and he too apparently did not
notice that the application qua the Raipur airport lacked NOC from
AAI, Headquarters, Delhi. Later, approval for establishment of
flying academy at Raipur airport was granted by late Kanu Gohain,
the then Director General of Civil Aviation with no NOC from air
traffic point of view from AAI Headquarters. Therefore, qua
Raipur airport, it would be unfair to target A-1 Alok K. Sharan and
A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi alone. In fact, when a change of base
was sought for, Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) had specifically
mentioned in her office note dt. 17.07.2007, “Inform to operator to
furnish the required NOC from AAI from ATC point of view and
space for parking & hangarage facilities for the operation. ” Then
on 10.09.2007 an official who wrote and put up the note too did not
notice that there was no NOC from air traffic point of view from
AAI Headquarter qua Bilaspur and in his office note dt.
10.09.2007 he rather stated ‘NOC for ATC point of view from
AAI, Raipur [was available] which may be seen at page 106.’ And
this persisted till the highest level and pursuant whereof Arun
Kumar Chopra, the then Joint Director General (JDG) of Civil
Aviation, granted the initial approval to SFAPL vide his note dt.
05.02.2008. Thus, on this count it would not be fair to target A-1
Alok K. Sharan and A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi alone.
76. We now come to the next aspect and which is the
142
PW18 Captain Deepak Raina in his examination-in-chief admits that the said office note dt.
24.04.2007 is in his handwriting and bears his signature.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 99 of 200
requirement of obtaining NOC from the ‘owner’ of the airport. It is
a matter of record that SFAPL was unable to obtain any NOC from
the owner of Raipur Airport and as such had not set up any flying
training institute at Raipur. Insofar as the Bilaspur Airport is
concerned, SFAPL did indeed set up its flying training institute
over there. For this, it had obtained NOC from Chhattisgarh
Government and the government had so granted the NOC acting as
the owner of Bilaspur Airport. The AAI however raised a dispute
stating that it was the rightful owner of Bilaspur Airport and this
was so set out in the letter dt. 11.11.2008 (Ex. PW3/A3) of PW8
M. C. Dangi, the then Joint General Manager (Ops), Headquarters,
AAI, Delhi, and addressed to A-4 SFAPL. However, the evidence
on record, both oral and documentary, conclusively proves that
‘owner’ of the land underneath the Bilaspur Airport was none else
but Chhattisgarh Government. The land revenue records proved by
witnesses of the prosecution show that land underneath the
Bilaspur Airport was owned by Chhattisgarh Government. That
apart, the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses is also to the
effect that Bilaspur Airport was owned by Chhattisgarh
Government. All the witnesses from the concerned Revenue
Department (PW27 Kuldeep Singh, PW28 Amit Tirkey, PW29
Alok Tiwari, PW30 Sanjeev Kumar Gajender, PW31 Yugal
Kishore Urvasha) have deposed in unison that the khasra number
of the land underneath the Bilaspur Airport was in the name of
Chhattisgarh Government. To cite just one, PW31 Yugal Kishore
Urvasha (Tehsildar) has, inter alia, deposed, “It is correct that the
entire land of chakrabhata airport, Bilaspur belongs to Chattisgarh
Administration as per land records.” The land revenue records led
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 100 of 200
in evidence by these witnesses also prove that Chhattisgarh
Government owned the land underneath the Bilaspur Airport. At
document Ex. PW27/A (colly), the revenue officials clearly
mention in the vernacular that the ownership of the land of
Bilaspur Airport vests with the State Government.
77. A discussion about ownership of Bilaspur airport would
be incomplete without adverting to the ‘kaifiyat’ entries in the land
revenue records.
77.1 The witnesses appearing with the land revenue
records have deposed that while the land belonged to State
Government, its ‘kaifiyat’ was in DGCA’s name. PW28 Amit
Tirkey (a revenue official) in his evidence stated, “The land of
respective khasra numbers shown in the khasra form is in the
name of Chattisgarh Government and kaifiyat is in the name of
DGCA.” Exactly to similar effect is the evidence of PW29
Alok Tiwari (another revenue official). The revenue records
[Ex. PW28/A (colly) and Ex. PW29/A (colly) at D-41] at
column no. 12 thereof under the heading ‘ kaifiyat’, do indeed
have few entries that record DGCA’s name. My research
indicates that term ‘kaifiyat’ in land revenue records
essentially denotes possession, user, or occupancy status, as
distinct from ownership. Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Ganga Bisen v. State of Madhya Pradesh143 observed, “The
Commissioner has observed that in the Khasra entry of the
year 1984-85 to 1988-89, the land in question is recorded in the
name of Ram Prasad Kesharya Mehar (Gram Naukar/Kotwar)
143
Judgment dt. 19.04.2017 in Writ Petition no. 9734/2010.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 101 of 200
and the name of the petitioner is mentioned as illegal
encroacher or occupier in the Kaifiyat Column No.12. Thus,
the petitioner is in occupation of the said land as encroacher or
occupier.” In Mishrilal v. Rati Ram144 there is an observation
which reads, “In para 4 which is Khasra Entry of 2004 in
Column No. 12 as Kaifiyat possession of the plaintiff has been
mentioned.” In Ramakant Pathak v. State of MP145 following
observation occurs, “Although, in Kaifiyat column of some
years the possession of plaintiff’s father and plaintiff have been
recorded but no presumption of possession under Section 117
of M.P. Land Revenue Code could be drawn on the basis of
such entries.” In Badri Prasad v. Ganesh Prasad146 kaifiyat
entries were taken to be record of possession and not title. The
point, therefore, is that a ‘kaifiyat’ entry in land revenue
records indicates possession, user, or occupancy status rather
than actual ownership. And therefore, when the witnesses from
the revenue department say that the land is in the name of the
State Government, and the ‘kaifiyat’ in DGCA’s name, it
essentially means that ‘owner’ was the State Government
whilst the possession, user, or occupancy status rested with the
DGCA.
77.2 Now, this is to be juxtaposed with the evidence of
PW8 M. C. Dangi, who stated in his cross-examination,
“According to official records, DGCA was the owner of
Bilaspur Airport. ….Vol. Airport Controller Raipur has been
144
2007 SCC OnLine MP 152
145
2017 SCC OnLine MP 2160
146
2017 SCC OnLine All 4119
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 102 of 200
the custodian of Bilaspur Airport since Bilaspur Airport was
the property of Airports Authority of India…I am not in a
position to produce any revenue record showing ownership of
Bilaspur Airport. No revenue records was required to be seen
before writing letter dated 11.11.2008147. The land of Bilaspur
Airport was inherited by Airports Authority of India from
DGCA, as DGCA had claimed land of Bilaspur Airport as
belonging to them. I did not come across any document of
ownership of transfer of land in favour of DGCA concerning
Bilaspur Airport. The DGCA was the principal body, out of
which National Airport Authority of India was carved out.
Airports Authority of India was formed in 1995 by merging
National Airport Authority and International Airports
Authority of India. As per the Act (National Airport Authority)
the assets of DGCA stood transferred to National Airport
Authority of India.”
77.3 The aforenoted evidence of PW8 indicates that
AAI’s claim over Bilaspur Airport was based on the position
that DGCA’s assets stood transferred to it (AAI) by virtue of
legislative/executive action undertaken in 1995. The AAI,
having taken over the assets of the DGCA, could certainly not
have acquired any better title or claim over those assets than
what the DGCA itself possessed. Consequently, on and after
the legislative/executive action undertaken in 1995 for transfer
of DGCA’s assets to AAI, the latter had received only and only
the rights under the ‘kaifiyat’, that is, the possessory, user, or
147
Reference here is to the letter dt. 11.11.2008 (Ex. PW3/A3 at D-2) of PW8 Mr. M. C. Dangi, the
then Joint General Manager (OPS), AAI Headquarters, Delhi addressed to SFAPL (A-4). This letter has
been reproduced in paragraph no. 49.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 103 of 200
occupancy status rather than actual ownership. Therefore, the
sum and substance of the evidence of the land revenue officials
coupled with that of PW8 M. C. Dangi and the entries in the
land revenue records show that the ‘owner’ of the land
underneath the Bilaspur Airport was Chhattisgarh Airport and
not the AAI.
77.4 It is an admitted case of the prosecution that SFAPL
had been operating at Bilaspur Airport on permission so
granted by Chhattisgarh Airport. Chhattisgarh Government
vide its letter dt. 23.06.2007 [Ex. PW35/B (colly) – D-37],
acting as ‘owner’ of Bilaspur Airport, had granted permission
to SFAPL to utilise the Bilaspur airstrip for establishing and
operating a flying school for the next three years.
78. Given the above, the assertion of the prosecution that A-4
SFAPL was operating its flying training institute at Bilaspur sans
an NOC from ‘owner’ of the airport stands disproved.
79. We now come to the allegations against A-1 Alok K.
Sharan qua change of base. CBI alleges that A-1 Alok K. Sharan
abused his official position by approving the change of base from
Raipur to Bilaspur and by granting ‘in principle’ approval to
SFAPL to set up its flying institute at Bilaspur for six months. In
this regard, the very first thing that is noticeable is that A-1 Alok
K. Sharan did not blindly approve the change of base. Now, it is a
matter of record that it was late Kanu Gohain, the then Director
General of Civil Aviation, who had granted the initial approval to
SFAPL on 26.04.2007 to set up its flying training institute at
Raipur. Thereafter, Anil Kumar Mangal (A-5) on behalf of SFAPL
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 104 of 200
(A-4) submitted a letter dt. 16.07.2007 (Ex. PW2/A) to DGCA for
change of base. And together with this letter dt. 16.07.2007 (Ex.
PW2/A), SFAPL had also furnished copy of Chhattisgarh
Government’s letter dt. 23.06.2007 [Ex. PW35/B (colly)],
whereby the Government, acting as ‘owner’ of Bilaspur Airport,
had granted permission to SFAPL to utilise the Bilaspur airstrip to
establish and operate a flying school for the next three years. The
record reflects that on receipt of this letter dt. 16.07.2007 (Ex.
PW2/A) of SFAPL, A-1 Alok K. Sharan on 13.09.2007 in his
office noting recorded, “Why they want to change? They should
specify the reason.” This was then followed by a letter dt.
14.09.2007 of the DGCA (Ex. PW2/D) under the signature of its
officer PW16 S. C. Roy thereby asking SFAPL (A-4) to ‘ furnish
specific reason for change of operational base from Raipur to
Bilaspur’ in order to process the case further. This letter was then
replied to by A-5 Anil Kumar Mangal on 17.09.2007 (Ex.PW2/E)
and the reason(s) so mentioned therein is already set out in
paragraph no. 18 hereinabove. These circumstances very much
indicate that A-1 Alok K. Sharan did not hurriedly take the
decision for change of base. He took this decision on 18.09.2017
which was a good two months after the application for change of
base had first been moved and after taking a response from the
SFAPL about the reasons for the change. That apart, this approval
for change of base was subject to as many as 11 conditions as set
out in the letter dt. 18.09.2017 (Ex. PW2/F). Furthermore, it may
also be noted that SFAPL already had a letter/NOC from ‘ owner’
of the airport (Chattisgarh Government) vide letter dt. 23.06.2007
[Ex. PW35/B (colly)] granting permission to use the Bilaspur
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 105 of 200
Airport on lease basis for three years. Not only this, SFAPL had
also submitted documents of the land which it had purchased
adjoining the Bilaspur Airport for construction of parking and
hangar space. This approval for change of base was also founded
on letter dt. 25.06.2007 (Ex.PW7/A) of A-3 Prakash Shambharkar.
80. Now, the CBI alleges no malafide on the part of late Kanu
Gohain, the then Director General of Civil Aviation who had
allowed SFAPL to set up its flying training institute at Raipur on
the basis of letter dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex.PW9/C) of A-3 Prakash
Shambharkar, but with no NOC from airport’s owner. The point
therefore is that if the approval by late Kanu Gohain for the flying
training institute in Raipur was not bad, at least the prosecution
does not allege it to be so, despite the letter dt. 06.01.2007 (Ex.
PW9/C) of A-3 Prakash Shambharkar, then it is difficult to
comprehend as to how the mere approval for change of location
from one place to another on the basis of another letter (dt.
25.06.2007- Ex. PW7/A) of the very same person could be said to
be bad. I wonder if SFAPL had already been permitted by the
Director General of Civil Aviation to set up its flying training
institute, then how and in what manner the mere change of location
of the institute could be said to be bad and that too on the strength
of the letter, albeit of the very same person (A-3 Prakash
Shambharkar), but of a different date. There thus was no
procedural difference to establish flying training institute in
Bilaspur. In approving the change of base, A-1 Alok K. Sharan
merely followed the course earlier adopted by late Kanu Gohain.
In fact, the former’s approval for Bilaspur was supported by the
NOC of the owner of the airport, whereas the latter’s approval for
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 106 of 200
Raipur had been granted without such an NOC from the airport
owner.
81. To take this discussion about change of base forward, it
bears repetition to state that as per Gazette Notification S.O. 726
(E) dt. 04.10.1994 the powers of the Director General of Civil
Aviation to approve a flying training institute stood delegated to
four officers, and one amongst them was the Deputy Director
General of Civil Aviation (except Deputy Director General of
Civil Aviation Research & Development). It is not in dispute that
A-1 Alok K. Sharan in his capacity as the Deputy Director General
of Civil Aviation was within his authority to approve
establishment of a flying training institute in terms of the aforesaid
Gazette Notification.148 And, if this officer was within his
jurisdiction to approve establishment of a flying training institute,
it would, by necessary implication, follow that he also possessed
the authority to approve change in location of such an institute.
82. In this regard, it may also be noted that Dilawar Singh
Sadha (PW2), a DGCA official, in his cross-examination states,
“It is correct that once financial soundness of a company is
shown/approved, thereafter no subsequent requirement is to be
fulfilled even for the change of base.”
83. Next, there is nothing on record to suggest that there was
any malafide on the part of A-1 Alok K. Sharan in approving the
change of base. There is not an iota of proof to show that A-1 Alok
K. Sharan in approving the change of base had been motivated by
148
In this context, PW16 Subodh Chandra Ray in his cross-examination states, ” It is correct that
accused Alok Kumar Sharan was competent to grant approval as well as provisional approval to Flying
Training Institute.”
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 107 of 200
any extraneous consideration. There is no evidence to show that in
order to approve the change of base, his intention/motive was to
anyhow benefit A-4/A-5. There is no evidence on record to show
that A-1 Alok K. Sharan had in fact colluded with A-4/A-5 in
approving the change of base. Rather, the material on record
clearly shows that A-1 Alok K. Sharan did not hurriedly take the
decision for change of the base; he took the decision for change of
base on 18.09.2017, a good two months after the application for
change of base had first been moved and after calling for a
response from SFAPL vis-Ã -vis the reasons for change; and which
decision of his was merely a follow up exercise of the course
earlier adopted by his senior, namely, late Kanu Gohain.
84. Having covered the ground thus, the next aspect to be
now dealt with are the extensions of approval for the flying
training activities granted by A-1 Alok K. Sharan. As per the
chargesheet, the two extensions granted by him on 15.04.2008 and
22.07.2008 are alleged to be malafide. The charge, framed against
him on 04.09.2019, also proceeds on the footing that these very
two extensions that he granted were malafide. It is CBI’s
allegation that A-1 Alok K. Sharan had granted the two extensions
despite the Bilaspur Airport lacking the mandatory fencing and
boundary wall as required under CAR as a condition for the initial
approval. Now, it is a matter of record that it was not A-1 Alok K.
Sharan, but the then Joint Director General (JDG), Civil Aviation,
Mr. Arun Kumar Chopra (PW23), who had granted the initial
approval to SFAPL vide his note dt. 05.02.2008 to commence
flying training activities. Mr. Arun Kumar Chopra (PW23), in his
office note dt. 05.02.2008 had written, “we may grant provisional
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 108 of 200
approval for 3 months subject to condition that fencing will be
completed by then. Till that time minimum 4 guards will be posted
for safety of operations. We may issue letter accordingly.” But the
CBI in its chargesheet makes no allegation against PW23 Arun
Kumar Chopra. It does not allege that this course of action adopted
by PW23 Arun Kumar Chopra was bad for non-compliance of the
mandatory fencing and boundary wall required under the CAR.
85. It is certainly not in dispute that A-1 Alok K. Sharan had
the authority/power to grant extensions of approval for flying
training activities to a flying training institute. He had this
authority in terms of the power delegated to him under the Gazette
Notification S.O. 726 (E) dt. 04.10.1994 [Ex. PW21/A (colly) at
D-62]. PW21 Sunil Kumar, who in 2015 was Director (Regulation
and Information) in DGCA testified, “The Dy. DG, DGCA had the
power for granting extension of approval to Flying Training
School/Institutes.” Similarly, PW22 Arvind Sardana in his oral
evidence has admitted that Deputy Director General of Civil
Aviation can grant extension of temporary approval. Not only this,
A-1 Alok K. Sharan also had the delegated power to extend the
approval and/or relax any CAR condition by directing alternative
mode of compliance. The IO (PW49) in his oral evidence admits
that he had such authority when he states, “It is correct that A-1
Alok Kumar Sharan was the DDG, DGCA at the relevant point of
time and was empowered to grant approval and further extend
it……It is correct that A-1 Alok Kumar Sharan being the DDG,
DGCA was empowered to grant approval to flying training
institute, extend it and relax any condition of the CAR by directing
alternative mode of compliance. However, it is important to see
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 109 of 200
that this was delegated power and not absolute power, hence it was
required to be in consonance with the principal approval already
granted by the higher authority.” Thus, the allegation against him
is not that he lacked such authority/power, but that he had
exercised such authority/power malafidely by abusing his official
position. And, as per the CBI, he had abused his official position
by granting the extensions despite non-compliance of the
mandatory fencing and boundary wall required under the CAR.
86. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether
the requirement of fencing and/or boundary wall under the CAR
was ‘mandatory’ in nature, as is being put forth by the CBI. The
CBI avers in its chargesheet that it was mandatory.149 However, the
evidence on record does not prove this. Rather, the evidence
disproves this stand of the CBI. To begin with, as per the relevant
CAR (relevant portions are reproduced hereinabove in paragraph
no. 2) the requirement on this count was:
7.5 The aerodrome at the main base of the institute should
have proper fencing and adequate security arrangements. The
runway should be smooth with satisfactory runway markings,
threshold markings, windsock, signal square and adequate
display of signboards. Proper communication facility and
adequate safety services shall also be provided. The institute
shall be responsible for enforcing necessary security
arrangements.
87. PW48 Virendra Prakash Singh, who was the Director of
Operations in DGCA in 2015, when asked about the usage of
‘should’ in the aforesaid Rule 7.5 of CAR deposed as follows:
“Q. Is it correct that different meaning is attached to the
words ‘should’ and ‘shall’ in Civil Aviation Requirements?
A. In Civil Aviation where the words ‘shall’ is used, it149
Para 16.7 of the chargesheet states that fencing/boundary wall was ‘ mandatory’ under the CAR.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 110 of 200
become standard and has to be followed and wherever ‘should’
is used, it becomes recommended practice and should be
followed as far as practicable.”
88. Thus, as per the oral evidence of PW48 Virendra Prakash
Singh the usage of ‘should’ in the aforesaid Rule 7.5 of CAR
meant that requirement of fencing was a ‘recommended practice’
and was supposed to ‘be followed as far as practicable’.
89. Next, there is oral evidence to prove that it was a ‘standard
practice’ in civil aviation to relax the CAR conditions by way of
alternative mode of compliance, and this is so deposed in his cross-
examination by PW23 Arun Kumar Chopra, the then Joint
Director General of Civil Aviation; not only this, PW23 in his
examination-in-chief testified that he had given approval for
‘alternate compliance’ for the fencing with the condition that four
guards will be regularly positioned during operations.150 That
apart, the IO (PW49) in his cross-examination stated, “It is correct
that A-1 Alok Kumar Sharan being the DDG, DGCA was
empowered to grant approval to flying training institute, extend it
and relax any condition of the CAR by directing alternative mode
of compliance.”
90. Thus, a combined reading of the evidence of PW48,
PW23 and PW49 proves that the fencing was not a mandatory
requirement under the CAR on the subject ‘Approval of Flying
Training Institutes’.
91. The guidelines of ICAO (International Civil Aviation
Organization) also does not make perimeter fencing/compound
wall a mandatory requirement. India is a member of ICAO. The
150
Relevant extract of PW23’s evidence has been extracted hereinabove in paragraph no. 26.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 111 of 200
relevant part of ICAO guidelines (Annexure 14 -Aerodrome – Vol.
I; Ninth Edition – July 2022)151 in this context are asunder:
9.11 Fencing
Application
9.11.1 A fence or other suitable barrier shall be provided on an
aerodrome to prevent the entrance to the movement areas of
animals large enough to be a hazard to aircraft.
9.11.2 A fence or other suitable barrier shall be provided on an
aerodrome to deter the inadvertent or premeditated access of an
unauthorized person onto a non-public area of the aerodrome.
Note 1. – This is intended to include the barring of sewers,
ducts, tunnels, etc., where necessary to prevent access.
Note 2. – Special measures may be required to prevent the
access of an unauthorized person to runways or taxiways
which overpass public roads.
9.11.3 Suitable means of protection shall be provided to deter
the inadvertent or premeditated access of unauthorized persons
into ground installations and facilities essential for the safety of
civil aviation located off the aerodrome.
Location
9.11.4 The fence or barrier shall be located so as to separate the
movement area and other facilities or zones on the aerodrome
vital to the safe operation of aircraft from areas open to public
access.
9.11.5 Recommendation. – When greater security is thought
necessary, a cleared area shall be provided on both sides of the
fence or barrier to facilitate the work of patrols and to make
trespassing more difficult. Consideration should be given to the
provision of a perimeter road inside the aerodrome fencing for
the use of both maintenance personnel and security patrols.
(underlined for emphasis)
92. It is thus evident that under the ICAO guidelines
(extracted hereinabove) perimeter fencing/boundary wall is no
mandatory requirement.
93. There is a CAR Section 4 Series B Part IV dt. 22.03.2012
issued by DGCA on subject ‘Minimum Safety Requirements for
151
Accessed on 16.03.2026 at 11.54 a.m. IST on the following link –
https://elibrary.icao.int/reader/274803/&returnUrl%3DaHR0cHM6Ly9lbGlicmFyeS5pY2FvLmludC9
wcm9kdWN0LzI3NDgw Mw%3D%3D?productType=ebook
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 112 of 200
Temporary/Unlicensed Aerodromes’. It appears that this CAR
guideline is not filed on record by the prosecution. However, at the
stage of final arguments, learned counsel for A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi filed a copy of the same. I made several
unsuccessful attempts to access this CAR guideline on the DGCA
website as well as from other reliable sources on the internet.
However, despite repeated efforts, the DGCA website did not
open, and I was unable to locate the said CAR guideline on any
other website. Given this, I see no reason not to take this CAR
guideline, filed on record by learned counsel for A-3, as genuine.
This is more so when the prosecution did not, during the final
arguments, challenge its veracity or genuineness. Relevant extract
of this CAR guideline dt. 22.03.2012 is as follows :
4. Protection of site
4.1 Availability of fence or other suitable barrier to prevent
the entrance to the movement area of animals large enough to
be a hazard to aircraft.
4.2 Where required, the aspect of crowd control, security of
operation and separation of crowd from flying operations
shall also be ensured.
94. It is quite evident from the above that even the CAR dt.
22.03.2012 on the subject ‘Minimum Safety Requirements for
Temporary/Unlicensed Aerodromes’ does not stipulate that
perimeter fencing/boundary wall is a mandatory requirement for
an airstrip.
95. The multitude of circumstances, including evidence on
record, ICAO guidelines and the two CAR guidelines clearly show
that the protection of the airstrip could have been undertaken by an
alternative mode of compliance, and not necessarily by perimeter
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 113 of 200
fencing/boundary wall. The discussion on this aspect is being
closed with the observation that prosecution’s contentions that
under CAR perimeter fencing/boundary wall was a ‘mandatory’
requirement is incorrect.
96. Even assuming that perimeter fencing/boundary wall was
a mandatory compliance, yet I fail to comprehend as to how any of
the accused persons can be blamed for not meeting this mandatory
requirement at the actual site/ground. A-1 Alok K. Sharan and A-2
Captain L. Binodini Devi, who were working in DGCA, cannot be
blamed for the lack of perimeter fencing/boundary wall at the
airstrip. Neither can A-2 Prakash Shambharkar, who was working
in AAI, be blamed for this. Further, A-4/A-5 can also not be
blamed for the lack of perimeter fencing/boundary wall around the
airport; it was no part of their duty to construct the same. In fact,
the record shows that Chhattisgarh Government had initiated the
process of raising a compound wall around Bilaspur airstrip
through tender; the documents in this regard are [Ex. PW33/B
(colly) at D-43] and this has so come in the evidence of PW33 S.
K. Satpathi who was an officer of PWD, Bilaspur. However, as per
his (PW33’s) oral evidence, up till the date (09.08.2016152) he was
posted in the said PWD Sub-Division, the boundary wall work
could not be carried out as no sanction had been granted. The
evidence on record also shows that Kolkata office of AAI
(assuming itself to be the owner) had issued a tender notice dt.
21.05.2009 (Ex. PW3/A4 at D-78) for Bilaspur airport fencing,
and which tender was awarded to PW42 Rajesh Kumar Singh.
152
To put this in context, the FIR was registered on 17.09.2014 and the chargesheet came to be filed
on 23.12.2015.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 114 of 200
This fencing work (initiated by AAI) could not be completed due
to boundary dispute between AAI and Chattisgarh Government,
and this is so deposed by PW42 Rajesh Kumar Singh. The IO
(PW49) in his oral evidence very concedes that ‘ there was a
demarcation dispute for the airport land’. Not only this, a perusal
of AAI office file qua Raipur/Bilaspur [Ex. PW3/A (colly) at D-2]
clearly shows that Chhattisgarh Government and AAI were at
loggerheads with each other over issue of ownership of Bilaspur
Airport. Given this, PW8 M. C. Dangi’s claim in his cross-
examination that ‘there was no formal dispute between AAI and
Chhattisgarh Govt. with respect to ownership of Bilaspur Airport’
is highly misplaced.
97. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence that the work of
perimeter fencing/boundary wall at the site could not be
completed, though initiated, not for the fault of any of the accused
persons, but for the fact that AAI and Chhattisgarh Government
could not resolve their ownership issues /boundary dispute qua the
Bilaspur Airport.
98. It may also be noted here that on 25.01.2008 A-2 Captain
L. Binodini Devi had pointed out in her office note dt. 25.01.2008
that ‘…the inspection report153 has said that [Bilaspur] airport does
not have perimeter fencing. ATR [Ex. PW11/D] does not say that
perimeter fencing has been completed. It only say that the contract
for raising the perimeter fencing has been given to AAI.
Therefore, Sai-Fly-Tech’s final approval cannot be considered
under such conditions as per CAR.’ This was followed by note dt.
153
Reference here is to the first DGCA inspection conducted on 21/22.01.2008 by T. Mohan
Chandran, the then Assistant Director (operations), DGCA.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 115 of 200
28.01.2008 of A-1 Alok K. Sharan who stated ‘…fencing of
aerodrome has not yet started….Please advise.’ Then again on
01.02.2008 A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi recorded a note that
‘……In regards of ATR, Sai Fly Tech Aviation has submitted that
they have completed the Runway/taxiway marking, however the
Airport perimeter wall fencing is in progress as it is fencing done
by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, & it is expected to be completed
within three month’s time and they have assured that adequate
number of watch & ward will be deployed during operation & they
will be fully responsible for safety of the flying training operation
while perimeter wall fencing is being raised. And hence, Sai-Fly-
Tech have requested for Three month’s approval of their flying
training institute till the perimeter wall fencing could be
completed. DDG may pls see.” This note dt. 01.02.2008 does not
bear the signature of A-1 Alok K. Sharan, indicating that he was
not the one to approve it. This office note dt. 01.02.2008 was
however approved on 05.02.2008 by the then Joint Director
General (JDG) Civil Aviation, Mr. Arun Kumar Chopra (PW23).
The point therefore is that A-1 and A-2 had done all that they could
to point out that Bilaspur airport lacked perimeter fencing and
notwithstanding the same, Joint Director General (JDG) Civil
Aviation, Mr. Arun Kumar Chopra (PW23) granted the approval
by directing that alternative compliance shall be done. Therefore,
on this count, no blame can be attributed to A-1 Alok K. Sharan or,
for that matter, to A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi.
99. Next, from evidence led on record, it is this Court’s view
that prosecution has been unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that A-4/A-5 had not resorted to the alternative mode of
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 116 of 200
compliance for safety/security of Bilaspur airstrip. The evidence
clearly suggests that there were security guards at the airstrip,
though the witnesses differ over the number of such security
guards deployed. The evidence also suggests that there was a moat
around the airstrip, through the witnesses differ over its
dimensions or its date of construction. Relevant part of the oral
evidence of prosecution witnesses, in this regard, runs as follows:
PW11 Kalitosh Bagchi’s oral evidence
“I had visited Bilaspur airport. The fencing around the airport
was partially broken (from some places) and it was advised
that white (sic. wide) perimeter drain be formed so that no
cattle could enter the operational area. It is correct that guards
were deployed to secure the operational area including one
patrol jeep….It is correct that perimeter drain was constructed
at Bilaspur Airport and it was having depth of 5/6 feet and it
was having width of 7 feet…”
PW12 Chandradeep Ekka’s oral evidence
“I do not remember therefore cannot admit or deny whether
around the airport there were trenches or not. However, there
was barbed wire around the airport. There used to be guards
deployed at the airport to secure the runway but sufficient
number of guards were not deployed.”
PW14 Ashim Taxali’s oral evidence
“It is correct that while the perimeter fencing work was in
progress, adequate number of guards were deployed and there
was also a trench along with the boundary of the airport, so that
there are no cattle or any wildlife menace……It is correct that
when I joined the perimeter fencing work was in progress.
Despite fencing work was in progress there was no
impediment in carrying out the operation of flights as there was
no danger to the safety of aircrafts.”
PW15 B. S. Nehra’s oral evidence
“I might have stated in my statement dated 10.02.2015
(recorded u/s 161 CrPC) that fencing work was in progress and
pillars were erected [statement (portion A to A1) shown to the
witness and admitted as correct]. I did not mention this fact in
my report Ex. PW-15/B, as the report was only about the
existence of perimeter fencing, which was not there……there
were hardly about 2/3 security guards.”
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 117 of 200
PW17 Arun Mann’s oral evidence
“Yes, trenches were dugged but they were not all around the
runway and cattle movement was observed…There were only
one or two security guards. They were not all around the
runway.”
PW28 Amit Tirkey’s oral evidence
“The diameter of the trench surrounding the airstrip area would
be around 1.5 k.m.”
PW30 Sanjeev Kumar Gajender’s oral evidence
“It is correct that there are trenches around the airstrip.” To a
question whether cattle entered the airstrip, he replied in the
negative.
PW33 S. K. Satpathi’s oral evidence
“It is correct that there is a cow protection trench dug around
the above airport so as to prevent the invasion of the cattle into
the airstrip….I have visited the site area as it was under
maintenance of PWD…There are around 6-7 villages around
the airstrip i.e. to say it does not cater to commercial traffic,
however sometimes VIP movement is there. Sometimes there
used to be cattle and villagers as well passing, despite [through
the airstrip], despite there being clear sign boards not to
trespass. At that time when I saw the trenches, they must be 3/4
in depth. It is wrong to suggest that the trench was 6 feet deep.
It was 4 feet deep but the width of the same was 6 feet. It is
wrong to suggest that I never noticed any cattle or villagers at
the airstrip or within the compound of Bilaspur airport.”
PW34 V. K. Suri’s oral evidence
“…I had handed over certified copies of documents pertaining
to award of tender [by AAI] for construction of fencing wall
around the Bilaspur Airstrip…. There is a letter dated
24.12.2012 issued by me in respect of foreclosure of
construction work. The construction work of boundary wall
could not be completed, therefore, the work of boundary wall
was foreclosed finally on 19.10.2011…. It was reported to me
that the construction of boundary wall is not being carried out
and also some local persons have stolen the fencing and poles
from the site and due to these two reasons, agency or contractor
had submitted that he is unable to carry out the work,
accordingly, in my statement I have stated that in the year 2009
and 2011, my successor had fore-closed this work and I just
closed this work and made the balance payment to the agency.
PW42 Contractor Rajesh Kumar Singh’s oral evidence
“I was awarded the work of fencing of Bilaspur Airport by
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 118 of 200
Airports Authority of India. Since there was boundary dispute
between the Airport Authority of India and Chattisgarh Govt.
therefore, the said work contract could not be executed fully
and I only partially did some work and ultimately the contract
was foreclosed…. The Above work was partially done by us
prior to the year 2010. Vol. The trenches were dug where the
fencing was to be done…There were no security guards around
the air strip when my work was going on, however one guard
used to be there in the small airport building…..The villages
were far away from the airport. I had not seen the cattles or
villagers when I had gone there for work.”
PW46 security guard Gopal Dubey’s oral evidence
“There was no boundary wall around the air strip….I never
allowed any person or anybody to intrude around the air strip.
It is correct that there was a trench dug around the air strip, so
as to prevent intrusion of people and animals into the airstrip
area.”
PW46 security guard Gopal Dubey’s oral evidence
“There was no boundary wall around the air strip….I never
allowed any person or anybody to intrude around the air strip.
It is correct that there was a trench dug around the air strip, so
as to prevent intrusion of people and animals into the airstrip
area. Along with me, around 10 people used to work as
Security Guard and they were employed by the same
company.”
PW49 IO/DSP R. S. Solanki’s oral evidence
“It is correct that at Bilaspur Airport the trenches were dug and
the security guards were deployed by the Training Institute to
prevent any intruder human or animal. (Vol. As per inspection
record). As per the records, the fencing work was started but
not completed. Again said, the fencing work could not be
started in full earnest due to dispute in demarcation of the land.
[Not started in full earnest means] no tangible fencing work
done by the contractor as there was a demarcation dispute or
the airport land. Only raw material was collected at the site as
well as the digging was done. I am not aware if poles were
erected at the site for fencing purposes.”
(underlined for emphasis)
100. The discussion on this aspect is being closed with the
following conclusions:
100.1 Fencing and/or boundary wall was not a mandatory
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 119 of 200
requirement, and CBI’s averment in this regard is incorrect.
100.2 It was a ‘standard practice’ in Civil Aviation to relax
the CAR conditions by way of alternative mode of compliance.
100.3 Even assuming that perimeter fencing/boundary wall
was a mandatory compliance, yet none of the accused persons
can be blamed for not meeting this mandatory requirement at
the actual site/ground.
100.4 A-1 Alok K. Sharan as also A-2 Captain L. Binodini
Devi had very much pointed out in their respective office notes
that Bilaspur Airport lacked perimeter fencing and
notwithstanding the same the then Joint Director General
(JDG) Civil Aviation, Mr. Arun Kumar Chopra (PW23)
proceeded to grant the approval on 05.02.2008.
100.5 Chhattisgarh Government had initiated the process
for a tender for construction of compound wall, but as late as
09.08.2016 the boundary wall work could not be carried out as
no sanction had been granted.
100.6 AAI on its part had awarded the tender for
construction of fencing of Bilaspur airport to PW42 Rajesh
Kumar Singh. This work of fencing (on the tender of AAI)
could not be completed, though initiated, not for the fault of
any of the accused persons, but due to boundary dispute
between AAI and Chattisgarh Government.
100.7 The prosecution has been unable to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that A-4/A-5 had not resorted to the
alternative mode of compliance for safety/security of the
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 120 of 200
Bilaspur airstrip.
101. In his endeavour to bolster his allegations qua A-1 Alok
K. Sharan that his two extensions despite the Bilaspur Airport
lacking the mandatory fencing/boundary wall as required under
CAR as a condition for initial approval were malafide and abuse of
process, the IO (PW49) in his oral evidence stated that ‘ [his
power] was delegated power and not absolute power, hence it was
required to be in consonance with the principal approval already
granted by the higher authority’. It has already been held
hereinabove that A-1 Alok K. Sharan had the authority/power to
grant extensions of approval for flying training activities to a
flying training institute. Further, it was not A-1 Alok K. Sharan,
but the then Joint Director General (JDG), Civil Aviation, Arun
Kumar Chopra (PW23), who had granted the initial approval vide
his note dt. 05.02.2008 to commence flying training activities.
This course of conduct by PW23 Arun Kumar Chopra is not
alleged to be malafide or bad by the CBI. Now, it is a matter of
record, nay an admitted case of the prosecution, that A-1 Alok K.
Sharan, vested with the authority to grant the extensions in
question, had done so exactly on the very same terms and
conditions as that of PW23 Arun Kumar Chopra. The IO (PW49)
make an admission of this in his oral evidence when he stated, “It
is correct that the approval extended by A-1 Alok Kumar Sharan
was on the same terms and conditions, as levied by Sh. A. K.
Chopra in his approval dated 05.02.2008.” Thus, A-1 Alok K.
Sharan, while granting the two extensions, neither introduced any
new terms nor altered or diluted the conditions that had already
been stipulated by Arun Kumar Chopra (PW23); he merely acted
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 121 of 200
within the framework of the terms and conditions previously fixed
by the latter. There is also oral evidence of PW48 Virendra
Prakash Singh, who served as Director of Operations, DGCA in
year 2015 to the effect that after the initial approval the extension
is granted by the department concerned as a matter of practice or
routine. Thus, when this was the general norm within the DGCA,
no criminality can be said to be attached to the extensions granted
by him. Given this, it is difficult to comprehend as to how this can
be said to be a malafide exercise of power.
102. Nonetheless, the IO (PW49) persisted in his stand that
the extensions so granted by A-1 Alok K. Sharan was a malafide
exercise of power, for after the initial period of three months the
requirement of perimeter fencing was not completed. In this
regard, he deposed, “It is correct that alternate arrangements were
to be made by the flying institute, but the time granted was for
three months only, whereafter, the institute should have complied
with the main condition of fencing. The further extension was
given on the same conditions without compliance of the earlier
conditions.” It is clear to me that the IO is proceeding on this
aspect on the basis of his own opinion about the requirements to be
fulfilled for commencing flying training activities. It is already
held hereinabove that perimeter fencing/ boundary wall was not a
mandatory requirement and that there could certainly have been
alternative mode(s) of compliance. The CAR as also the ICAO
guidelines do not mandatorily require perimeter fencing/ boundary
wall; and they also do not mandate that alternative mode(s) of
compliance can be put in place only and only during the first three
months or only for the period given at the time of the first (initial)
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 122 of 200
approval. A-1 Alok K. Sharan, being within his authority to grant
extensions, was also within his authority to put in place the
alternative mode(s) of compliance. The stand that alternative
mode(s) of compliance could have been put in place only in the
first three months or only during the period given at the time of the
first (initial) approval and not thereafter when it came to A-1 Alok
K. Sharan to grant the extensions is sans any basis. This projection
finds no basis in any statute, rule or regulation. However, through
PW24 Yashraj Tongia (Director, Flying Training in DGCA in
2012) evidence was marshalled to the effect that in DGCA there a
practice/convention not to waive off the condition vis-Ã -vis the
fencing. True it is that in the evidence of this witness (PW24) it has
come forth that during the period 2007 to 2010 no flying training
institute, except A-4 SFAPL, was given approval by relaxing the
condition of perimeter fencing (Ex. PW24/B at D-70). However,
there are three things to be noted on this count. Firstly, no statute/
rule/ regulation holds perimeter fencing/ boundary wall as a
mandatory compliance. On the contrary, the regulation(s) permit
alternative compliance(s). Therefore, a decision seeking to enforce
regulation(s) that permit alternative compliance(s) cannot be said
to be ipso facto malafide. Secondly, I am unable to comprehend
how a decision to enforce regulation(s) that permit alternative
modes of compliance can be regarded as improper or untenable
merely on the ground that such a course had not been previously
adopted. The mere absence of prior instances of invoking such
alternatives cannot, ipso facto, render the decision flawed or
legally unsustainable. Thirdly, when a rule/regulation permits a
course of action to be followed, the reasons not to follow the same
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 123 of 200
ought to be founded thereunder itself. It is no argument to say that
notwithstanding the regulation permitting a particular course of
action the same could have not been adopted for the reason that
practice/convention was to the contrary. It may be noted here that
the regulation(s) requiring alternate mode of compliance are no
archaic regulations.
103. It was projected by the IO in his oral evidence that
though A-1 Alok K. Sharan had the authority to grant approval
and/or relax any condition, yet this power vested in him was only a
delegated power and not absolute. His (PW49) oral evidence in
this regard is as follows, “It is correct that A-1 Alok Kumar Sharan
being the DDG, DGCA was empowered to grant approval to
flying training institute, extend it and relax any condition of the
CAR by directing alternative mode of compliance. However, it is
important to see that this was delegated power and not absolute
power, hence it was required to be in consonance with the
principal approval already granted by the higher authority.” Here
again, the IO appears to be proceeding entirely on the basis of his
own opinion and personal assessment, rather than on the strength
of any cogent, authoritative, or legally tenable material. His
opinion appears to be founded largely upon his subjective
interpretation of the facts and material. True it is, that this power of
A-1 Alok K. Sharan (Deputy Director General of Civil Aviation)
was a delegated one in terms of the Gazette Notification S.O. 726
(E) dt. 04.10.1994. However, this Gazette Notification puts no
limitations over the mode and the manner of the exercise of the
power. There is neither any office order of the office of DGCA
putting any limitations over the mode and manner of the exercise
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 124 of 200
of the power delegated to him. Further, it may be noted that under
the law there is no power, be it even the highest rung, that can be
said to be absolute. There are in-built checks and balances on every
authority, however, high he/she may be. Therefore, to say that the
extensions or requiring alternate mode(s) of compliance could not
have been done by A-1 Alok K. Sharan because his power was
delegated one is misplaced. That apart, it is difficult for me to
comprehend as to how the extensions given by A-1 Alok K. Sharan
were not in consonance with the principal approval already
granted by [his] higher authority [PW23 Arun Kumar Chopra].
The IO (PW49) in his oral evidence very much admits this when he
states that the extensions given by A-1 Alok K. Sharan were ‘ on
the same terms and conditions, as levied by Sh. A. K. Chopra in his
approval dated 05.02.2008’.
104. I see no malafide in the exercise of his authority/power
by A-1 Alok K. Sharan in the matter of grant of two extensions.
There is not an iota of proof to show that A-1 Alok K. Sharan in
giving the two extensions had been motivated by any extraneous
consideration. There is no evidence to show that in order to grant
the two extensions, his intention/motive was to anyhow benefit
A-4/A-5. There is also no evidence on record to show that A-1
Alok K. Sharan had in fact colluded with A-4/A-5 in approving the
change of base.
105. Having covered the grounds thus, we now come to the
extensions that were granted by A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi. It is
not in dispute that under the Gazette Notification S.O. 726 (E) dt.
04.10.1994 [Ex. PW21/A (colly) at D-62] she was not empowered
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 125 of 200
to grant the extensions. She had no power, authority or the
jurisdiction to grant the extensions of her own accord. And
notwithstanding, this she granted several extensions to SFAPL.
106. Now, the argument raised on behalf of A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi, premised on the ‘Allocation of Duties to GAPS
(General Aviation Promotion and Surveillance) Cell Pilots’ (Ex.
PW15/A at D-33) issued by A-1 Alok K. Sharan, that by way of
her extensions she was merely ‘communicating’ to SFAPL about
the decisions taken by A-1 Alok K. Sharan does not impress this
Court. This contention on behalf of A-3 stems from the fact that
the said office order Ex. PW15/A issued by A-1 Alok K. Sharan
conferred several duties on her, including ‘any other duty that may
be assigned from time to time by the undersigned [A-1 Alok K.
Sharan]’. It may be noted that this office order Ex. PW15/A does
not expressly state that she would henceforth grant extensions of
approval to a flying training institute/SFAPL. The office notings to
extend the approvals that she granted do not bear the signature of
A-1 Alok K. Sharan. And therefore, qua the extensions that she
gave, it is futile to argue that ‘decisions’ in respect thereof had in
fact been taken by A-1 Alok K. Sharan and she was merely
conveying the same to SFAPL. There is another fallacy in this
argument, and which is more fundamental. A-1 Alok K. Sharan’s
power to grant approvals and/or extensions of approvals to a flying
training institute/SFAPL was a ‘delegated’ power in terms of the
Gazette Notification S.O. 726 (E) dt. 04.10.1994 [Ex. PW21/A
(colly) at D-62]. Now, it is a fundamental principle under the
Administrative Law that a delegated power generally cannot be
further delegated and this is enshrined in the Latin legal maxim
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 126 of 200
‘delegatus non potest delegare’. Under this principle, delegation
by an agent, that is entrusting to another person by an agent of the
exercise of a power or duty entrusted to him by his principal, is
generally prohibited, unless authorised by express words or by
necessary implication. Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295
said in respect of sub-delegation, “Bearing in mind that the maxim
delegatus non potest delegare sets out what is merely a rule of
construction, sub-delegation can be sustained if permitted by
express provision or by necessary implication. “ In Director
General, ESI v. T. Abdul Razak, AIR 1996 SC 2292 it was
observed: “The law is well settled that in accordance with the
maxim delegatus non potest delegare, a statutory power must be
exercised only by the body or officer in whom it has been
confided, unless sub-delegation of the power is authorised by
express words or necessary implication.” In the case at hand, there
is no express provision discernible on record, at least no such
provision was brought to court’s notice during the course of
arguments, which authorised A-1 Alok K. Sharan to resort to sub-
delegation of the powers or duties vested in him. Further, even by
necessary implication I cannot stretch the office order language
‘any other duty that may be assigned from time to time by the
undersigned [A-1 Alok K. Sharan]’ as used in the ‘Allocation of
Duties to GAPS (General Aviation Promotion and Surveillance)
Cell Pilots’ (Ex. PW15/A at D-33) to mean that she was impliedly
authorised to grant extension of approvals to a flying training
institute. And neither can I stretch the delegated powers under the
Gazette Notification S.O. 726 (E) dt. 04.10.1994 [Ex. PW21/A
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 127 of 200
(colly) at D-62] to mean that by necessary implication A-2 Captain
L. Binodini Devi too had the power to extend the approvals.
107. However, the fact of the matter is that, after she had
granted several extensions, the office file once again reached the
table of A-1 Alok K. Sharan and, on a subsequent occasion, the
table of the then Joint Director General (JDG), J. S. Rawat, for the
purpose of further extensions. It is a matter of record that A-1 Alok
K. Sharan had granted an extension and which he had conveyed to
SFAPL vide his letter dt. 08.11.2010 (Ex. PW16/M). Not only this,
the then Joint Director General (JDG) of Civil Aviation, J. S.
Rawat, had also approved an extension on 29.11.2010, as recorded
in the office notings file.
108. A-1 Alok K. Sharan takes the stand before this Court that
he had no knowledge whatsoever that A-2 Captain L. Binodini
Devi had been granting the extensions, as the department (DGCA)
had immense workload and he had been entrusted with multiple
responsibilities. He pointed out that none of the office notings,
whereby and whereunder A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi granted
the extensions, bear his signature. However, this Court is not
inclined to accept this submission of Alok K. Sharan (A-1) for a
very strong reason. The fact that he granted the extension on
08.11.2010 vide letter Ex. PW16/M clearly implies that he was
aware that, in the intervening period, extensions were being
granted by someone other than himself. Accordingly, he ought to,
at the very least, have verified whether such extensions had been
granted by a duly authorised officer. However, he takes the stand
that he did not check the record to verify this. However, what
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 128 of 200
ultimately tilts the balance in favour of the conclusion that A-1
Alok K. Sharan was aware that the ‘someone else’ granting
extensions in the interregnum was none other than A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi, are the following circumstances.
108.1 Vide his office note dt. 12.11.2008, A-1 Alok K.
Sharan had granted approval for travel of Captain B. S.
Nehra (PW15) to Bilaspur to carry out renewal
inspection.154 After the said inspection of Captain B.S.
Nehra, A-1 Alok K. Sharan on 17.12.2008 had approved the
proposal of PW15 Captain B. S. Nehra that further renewal
should be given subject to removal of deficiencies that were
serious in nature under ATR to this [DGCA] office and
renewal of more than three months should not be given due
to lack of fencing.
108.2 Then on 13.03.2009 A-1 Alok K. Sharan had
approved a note to send a communication to NIC
Headquarters to update SFAPL’s name on DGCA website.
108.3 Then on 27.10.2009 A-1 Alok K. Sharan had
granted approval for the travel of A-2 Captain L. Binodini
Devi to Bilaspur to carry out renewal inspection.155
108.4 Then on 10.12.2010, A-1 Alok K. Sharan had
granted approval for the travel of A-2 Captain L. Binodini
154
This has reference to second DGCA inspection conducted by PW15 Captain B. S. Nehra from
18th November 2008 to 20th November 2008.
155
This has reference to third DGCA inspection conducted by A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi from
05th November 2009 to 07th November 2009.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 129 of 200
Devi to Bilaspur to carry out renewal inspection.156
108.5 Thereafter the file once again had been placed
before A-1 Alok K. Sharan and he granted extension vide
his letter dt. 08.11.2010 (Ex. PW16/M).
109. These circumstances very much indicate that A-1 Alok
K. Sharan most likely had the knowledge that A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi had been granting the extensions to SFAPL. The
aforesaid would indicate that the file had been placed before him
on numerous occasions for perusal and/or for application of mind
on his part. All that it would have taken on his part was to flip
through one or two pages of the office notings to see what exactly
was underway in the matter. In terms of section 3 of Indian
Evidence Act, a fact is said to be proved when, after considering
the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or
considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under
the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the
supposition that it exists. On the anvil of this provision, I cannot
accept that A-1 Alok K. Sharan was unaware of the fact that A-2
Captain L. Binodini Devi had been granting the extensions. It
appears that this plea of A-1 Alok K. Sharan that he was unaware
of the extensions granted by A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi is an
afterthought. The prosecution is correct in its stand that
notwithstanding the knowledge that the extensions so given by
A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi were irregular, A-1 Alok K. Sharan
raised no objection to it. For that matter, it may also be added that
156
This has reference to fourth DGCA inspection conducted by A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi on
13th/14th December 2010.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 130 of 200
no other officer within the department (DGCA) raised any
objection or expressed any reservation in respect thereof at any
point in time. And this now leads to another aspect of the matter,
which would be clear from the next few judgments. National
Institute of Technology & Anr. v. Pannalal Choudhury & Anr.,
(2015) 11 SCC 669 was a case where dispute arose when Pannalal
Choudhury, serving as Registrar and Deputy Registrar (Accounts)
at the National Institute of Technology in Silchar, Assam, was
dismissed from service by Principal and Secretary following
allegations of financial and administrative irregularities. The
primary contention was that dismissal order was issued by
authority, not competent to do so, as prescribed under the
institutional rules. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of
Pannalal Choudhury, affirming that the Board of Governors (BoG)
of National Institute of Technology possessed authority to confer
the disciplinary powers upon the Principal and Secretary. The
Court found that the BoG had effectively ratified the actions taken
by the Principal and Secretary, thereby legitimising the dismissal
order despite initial procedural ambiguities regarding authority.
Additionally, the Court emphasised the role of ratification in
validating prior unauthorised actions when subsequent approvals
align with the institution’s governance framework. Further,
Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. Union of India, (1973) 2 SCC 543
affirmed that ratification by competent authority can validate prior
unauthorised actions. Further, High Court of Judicature of
Rajasthan v. P. P. Singh, (2003) 4 SCC 239 reinforced the concept
that subsequent ratification can legitimise actions taken without
prior authority. In Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. v. Sunil,
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 131 of 200
(2006) 5 SCC 96 Managing Director’s order dismissing the
respondent from the service was ratified by the Board of Directors,
which had the power to terminate the services of the respondent.
The Apex Court was of the view that since the order of Managing
Director was ratified by the Board of Directors, such ratification
related back to the date of the order and validated it. Apex Court
held:
“The High Court was right when it held that an act by a legally
incompetent authority is invalid. But it was entirely wrong in
holding that such an invalid act cannot be subsequently
“rectified” by ratification of the competent authority.
Ratification by definition means the making valid of an act
already done. The principle is derived from the Latin maxim
ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur, namely, “a subsequent
ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to
perform such act”. Therefore ratification assumes an invalid
act which is retrospectively validated.” [See P. Ramanatha
Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, (2005) Vol. 4, p. 3939 et seq.]
110. Therefore, it is but evident that the aforesaid precedents
hold how institutional authorities can retrospectively validate
actions taken within a department through ratification.
111. Therefore, given the above, this Court holds that the
extensions so given by A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi from
08.11.2008 till 07.11.2010 were “rectified” by ratification of the
competent authority. It is absolutely not in dispute that in terms of
the Gazette Notification S.O. 726 (E) dt. 04.10.1994, A-1 Alok K.
Sharan as also the then Joint Director General (JDG) J. S. Rawat
were the competent authorities in the matter of grant of approval to
a flying training institute. There is one more thing to be noted over
here. While granting the approval on 08.11.2010 (Ex. PW16/M),
A-1 Alok K. Sharan did not hold or write negatively in the office
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 132 of 200
file vis-Ã -vis the extensions given by A-2 Captain L. Binodini
Devi. For that matter, even his superior authority (the then Joint
Director General of Civil Aviation, J. S. Rawat) too in his office
noting dt. 29.11.2010 recorded no such disapproval. Therefore, the
crux of the matter is that the extensions given by Captain L.
Binodini Devi (A-2) from 08.11.2008 till 07.11.2010 stood
“rectified” by ratification.
112. Now to the extension granted to SFAPL on 30.12.2010.
It is a matter of record that in her office note dt. 30.12.2010
Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) recorded, “The u/s has carried out
renewal inspection for Sai-Fly-Tech Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur,
Chattisgarh on 13th & 14th December. The detailed report of the
inspection as per CAR Check List & Observation made during
inspection is submitted herewith for perusal. Observations have
been sent to Sai-Flytech Aviation & the operator has now
submitted ATR on the observations. They have also submitted an
amount of Rs. 25,000/- by pay-order No.059993 dated 03-11-10
towards renewal of organisation fee. As there is no such major
deficiencies, Sai-Flytech may be renewed for a period of one
year.” Thereafter, the office notings file was placed before the
Joint Director General (JDG) Mr. J. S. Rawat, who wrote, “Pl.
examine” and marked the file to Captain Arun Mann (PW17) who
at that time was a Consultant Director on contractual basis in
DGCA. Captain Arun Mann (PW17) in the said office notings
appended his signature on 31.12.2010, and then on the same day
(31.12.2010) A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi recorded, “Pls.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 133 of 200
Issue”.157 In this context, Captain Arun Mann (PW17) in his cross-
examination states as follows:
“Q. I put it to you that captain Binodini Devi had inspected the
Flying Training Institute on December 13/14, 2010 and
submitted a report to JDG for approval or not ?
Ans. It is correct. The same is at page 33 of the D-27 already
Ex. PW1/A (colly).
Q. I put it to you that thereafter the JDG marked the file to you
stating “please examine” ?
Ans. It is correct.
Q. I put it to you that can you infer anything from this wording
“please examine” ?
Ans. The report which was submitted by Captain Binodini was
examined and submitted back to Captain Binodini.
Q. I put it to you that thereafter what was captain Binodini
supposed to do in the matter on her behalf ?
Ans. She was supposed to issue letter.
Q. I put it to you that the issuance of letter for renewal was a
mere formality because the file had already been inspected by
not only JDG but also by you ?
Ans. The file was not inspected and cleared by me but only
observations again said the action taken report was checked by
the undersigned and it was forwarded to Cap. Binodini Devi
and she has ordered to the Section officer (SO) to issue the
letter.”
113. It may be also noted here that there is oral evidence of
PW18 Deepak Raina (a DGCA officer) stating that ‘ We did not
had any capacity or authority for issuance of renewal order of
Flying School…..after inspections are done and approved by
higher officer, renewal of flying license is a mere formality.’
114. Given the above, when A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi’s
recommendation dt. 30.12.2010 for a one-year renewal was put up
before the Joint Director of Civil Aviation, he remarked ” Pl.
examine” marked the file to Captain Arun Mann (PW17). Upon
157
This office note pertains to a year’s extension (from 30.12.2010 to 29.12.2011) granted to
SFAPL vide letter dt. 30.12.2010 (Ex. PW16/L).
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 134 of 200
examination, Captain Arun Mann (PW17) however, found nothing
amiss or objectionable in her recommendation dt. 30.12.2010
and/or in her Inspection Report (Ex. PW14/C), and accordingly
marked the file back to her; and as stated by Captain Arun Mann
(PW17), A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi then “was supposed to
issue letter”. We must appreciate the fact that this is a criminal
trial. A benefit of doubt in the facts pleaded by the prosecution
must enure to the benefit of the accused. It is often said that
everyone can be wise in the hindsight. Decisions and actions may
appear flawed when viewed with the benefit of subsequent
wisdom. However, such retrospective assessment cannot fairly be
applied to judge the conduct of individuals who acted in real time,
based on information and circumstances then available to them. In
the circumstances in which the office file moved – first with the
direction of the higher authority to “Pl. examine” and thereafter
with the clear understanding of Captain Arun Mann (PW17) that,
upon his examination, A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi “was
supposed to issue the letter” – it would be wholly unjust to attribute
culpability to her. In such a factual matrix, A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt vis-Ã -
vis recommendation dt. 30.12.2010 and the concomitant
extension. Any other individual placed in circumstances akin to
those of A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi could also have reasonably
and bonafidely believed that his/her recommendation had the
implicit approval or concurrence of the higher authority,
particularly when the file had moved through the proper channels
sans any objection or adverse remark.
115. Here it may also be added that CBI’s observations in its
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 135 of 200
chargesheet (paragraph 16.20) that Joint Director General of Civil
Aviation J. S. Rawat had marked the file to A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi with instructions of “Pl. examine”, but she did not
examine the matter and in order to facilitate extension recorded
“Please issue” just a day before her superannuation. This
observation of the CBI is factually incorrect in part. The record
shows that the Joint Director General of Civil Aviation J. S. Rawat
had marked the file not to A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi, but to
Captain Arun Mann (PW17). Further, the instructions of ” Pl.
examine” was for Captain Arun Mann (PW17) and not for A-2
Captain L. Binodini Devi. It bears repetition to state that Captain
Arun Mann (PW17) in his oral evidence admits that after
examining the report of A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi he had
submitted the file back to her, and thereupon she “was supposed to
issue letter”.
116. CBI’s contention that extension dt. 30.12.2010, granted
just a day before A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi’s superannuation,
smacked of malafide is noted only to be rejected. It is already held
hereinabove that with the benefit of hindsight one may find faults
in the decision taken on 30.12.2010. However, such retrospective
assessment cannot fairly be applied to judge her conduct who acted
in real time, based on information and circumstances then
available to her. That apart, it can be no argument that soon before
retirement, a government servant ought to stop working and refrain
from taking decisions. Furthermore, I find nothing on record to
indicate even remotely that in granting the extension on
30.12.2010, or for that matter, any of her extensions, she had been
motivated by any extraneous consideration.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 136 of 200
117. Next, there is an allegation of the CBI that A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi had granted the extensions despite several
deficiencies in the inspections of SFAPL, including the two
inspections that she herself had done. This Court has already
addressed hereinabove in detail CBI’s contentions with respect to
the principal deficiency i.e. absence of fencing/boundary wall. It
has already been held hereinabove that such a requirement was not
mandatory under the CAR. It has also been held hereinabove that
even assuming that perimeter fencing was a mandatory
requirement, yet none of the accused can be blamed for the same.
Further, it is also held hereinabove that the prosecution is unable to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that A-4/A-5 had not resorted to
the alternative mode of compliance for safety/security of Bilaspur
airstrip. The other deficiencies were by and large minor in nature;
several deficiencies had been actually addressed to in the ATRs
that were filed. This shall be clear from a perusal of the
deficiencies and the ATRs that are being reproduced hereinafter.
118. The very first DGCA inspection was conducted on
21st/22nd January 2008 by Mr. T. Mohan Chandran, the then
Assistant Director (operations), DGCA. Its ATR (Ex. PW11/D)
was submitted on 24.11.2008. The deficiencies, as pointed out
therein, and the Action Taken Report is being set out in tabular
form as under.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 137 of 200
The 1st DGCA Inspection
S. Deficiencies (Pointed out by Mr. Action Taken Report
No. Mohan Chandran) dt. 24.01.2008
(Ex. PW11/D)
1. A photocopy of only AIP is Original AIP is not available in
available. You are advised to the market; we have already
procure the original AIP from the ordered to supply the same.
approved source.
2. Documents carried on board check Documents carried out on board
are to be incorporated in the pre- are incorporated in the pre-flight
flight checklist. check list.
3. The classroom and library room The roof of the classroom and
are with open roof. The same are to the library have been
be provided with a roof to avoid completed.
from noise.
4. VHF set ICOM-A110 is available We have positioned the VHF set
and being processed for the WPC on the top floor of the existing
license. VHF Control room is terminal building. License from
planned on the top of existing WPC awaited.
terminal building and is not yet
commissioned. The same are to be
made available in the flying club.
5. Signal square area of minimum 9m Signal Square has been done as
x 9m sizes with all the required per the CAR section – 4, Series
panels is to be provided in F, Part I.
accordance with CAR Section – 4,
Series F, part I.
6. Existing runway markings We have initiated the action and
(Threshold, Centerline, Side taken the quotation. Work will
stripe) are of non-standard be completed shortly
specification. The same are to be (Quotation enclosed).
provided in accordance with CAR
Section – 4, Series F, part I.
7. Existing taxiway white markings Same as point 6 above.
(broken Centerline, single line
Side stripe) are of non-standard
specification. The same are to be
provided in accordance with CAR
Section – 4, Series F, part I.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 138 of 200
8. New Taxiway to flying club Work completed.
Hangar work is nearly in
completion stage. The new
taxiway and apron works are to be
completed and marked in
accordance with the requirement.
9. Wind sock pole base area is to be Work completed.
prepared and marked in
accordance with the CAR Section
- 4, Series F, part.
119. The second DGCA inspection (Ex. PW15/B) conducted
from 18.11.2008 to 20.11.2008 by Captain B.S. Nehra (PW15)
and its ATR was submitted on 27.01.2009. The deficiencies, as
pointed out therein, and the Action Taken Report is being set out in
the table as under.
The 2nd DGCA Inspection
S. Discrepancies (Pointed out by Action Taken Report
No. B. S. Nehra) (Ex. PW15/B) dt. 27.01.2009
1. No operation manual was Operations Manual, Training
available in the aircraft VT-JSN Manual, Security Manual have
and the manual shows Raipur as been amended and placed in
base and unwanted material and each aircraft along with other
manpower reflected in the Ops essential documents which are
manual shows gross negligence to be carried on board. Each
on part of CFI/Accountable copy of such manual is
Manager. submitted to D.G.C.A., D.A.W.
Mumbai.
2. Capt. Rajiv Jain, CFI, In respect of Instrument Rating
Touchwood Academy, has done Renewal Test of Capt. Sujit
illegal flying on 17.11.2008 on Krishna on VT-JSN dated 17th
VT-JSN with Capt. Sujit November 2008 it is submitted
Krishna for IRC renewal check that it was not in knowledge of
without DGCA permission and Accountable Manager, how
the flying not authorized by CFI ever will be careful in future.
of Sai Flytech Aviation
Academy.
3. Mr. Karmakar CGI approved on It is true that Capt. Karmakar
29th October but till date no discontinued in taking classes
classes had been conducted. after 22nd November 2008. We
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 139 of 200
Class conducted only on 17th have requested D.G.C.A. for
and 18th Nov. for regulation and approval of Chief Ground
Navigation and the CGI has Instructor in respect of Capt. K.
discontinued teaching soon after Bagchi.
the inspection.
4. No ground instructors have been We have inducted two Ground
appointed so far since the Instructors to cover entire
approval of the academy. course of Commercial Pilot
Licence. Ground instructors
are : 01. Capt. Prakash
Hotchandani 02. Capt. Gurpreet
Nijjer.
5. Students were not allotted In regard to Allotment of
Computer Number even though Computer Number we had
completing more than 100 hours submitted Applications for
for flying except for Virender Allotment of Computer
Singh and Alok. Number vide our letter No.
SFA/OPS/CA/01-2008/01
Dated 19th August 2008 (copy
attached).
6. Capt. N. K. Das CGI approved The Course Completion
on 26th June, 2008 and resigned Certificate is signed in respect
on 31st Aug. 2008 teaching only of Mr. Virender Singh, Trainee
Air Regulation and Met whereas Pilot was signed by Pilot
no other ground instructor Instructor Incharge (then) Capt.
available and course completion Bimal Kumar (Copy enclosed).
certificate issued to Birender
Singh a trainee pilot.
7. Proficiency check after 5 hours Lapsed on the part of Pilot
not reflected in FTPR of Instructor Incharge, will be
students. careful in future.
8. Personal Flying Log Book of Personal Flying Log Book not
Birender Singh neither filled nor available in respect of Mr.
certified by CFI after July. Virender Singh. He started his
Flying Training in our
Academy with effect from 23rd
May 2008 to 18th July 2008 and
from 13th November 2008 to
28th November 2008. We have
intimated Mr. Virender Singh to
bring his Log Book to get it
signed by Pilot Instructor
Incharge.
9. Capt. Bimal Kumar carried out Capt Bimal Kumar, Pilot
flying of a trainee pilot without Instructor Incharge carried out
being in possession of SPL. Flying in respect of Trainee
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 140 of 200
Pilot Mr. Gaurav Verma in July
2008. He was having Medical
Fitness issued by D.G.C.A. and
flying was carried out on 03rd
July 2008, that time as per Rule
6 of aircraft rules 1937 and
Circular in this respect of rule 6
was issued by D.G.C.A. on 01st
August 2008.
10. No previous inspection report The previous inspection was
available. carried out by D.G.C.A. team
headed by Mr. T.
Mohanchandra on 21 and 22nd
st
January 2008 (copy enclosed).
11. Refresher Course of Capt. Refresher course in respect of
Bimal Kumar expired on Capt. Bimal Kumar, Pilot
18.10.2008 and continued flying Instructor Incharge was expired
thereafter till the date of on 18th October 2008 and he
inspection. informed us that he would be
going for refresher course from
29th November 2008 and
however he left this
organization from 29th
November 2008. He may be in
better position to reply.
12. First aid kit with hardly any First Aid kits have been
medicine is placed in the updated.
Hanger.
13. No Check list is available in the Checklist made available in the
compendium. Compendium.
14. All Circulars pertaining to air All Circular pertaining to
safety, flying and training and Operations Circular, Training
operations circular need Circulars are updated along
immediate upgradation/ with checklist.
completion alongwith the check
list.
15. AIP not available in original a A.I.P. in original are not
photocopy has been kept in the available with A.A.I. however it
office. was available, which was
downloaded from A.A.I.
Website.
16. To make and display The Contingency plan has been
contingency plan along with the displayed.
phone Nos. of Doctors to be
displayed in Bold Letters in the
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 141 of 200
Hanger and all concerned
should be briefed about the
procedure in event of
Emergency.
17. Accountable Manager absent on Accountable Manager/C.E.O.
the day of inspection. Capt. K. Bagchi was on
Medical leave. We have change
the Accountable Manager.
Capt. Anil K Mangal and Capt.
K. Bagchi will be CEO.
18. A crash fire tender for safety A crash tender for safety
services was only positioned for services vehicle has been made
inspection purpose on 18th and serviceable and functioning.
19th Nov. and during demo the
pipes gave way and the mission
failed shows safety services are
just positioned for inspection.
19. No training manual available Training Manual is prepared
with the institute. and made available in institute
and copy enclosed.
20. One Ambulance parked only for The ambulance is being
inspection purpose which was available along with accessories
revealed by the records and first aid kits.
available with the driver Mr.
Khan and the ambulance did not
have any first aid kit.
21. Instead of the mandatory List of Nine Security Guards
EIGHT Guards only three were made available along with their
present on the inspection day Salary Sheets. Copy of the letter
and on enquiry from the Guards addressed to the Investigating
it was revealed that only three Bureau enclosed.
remain on rotation basis.
22. During inspection it was noticed We have intimated earlier that
that no fencing available leading the fencing work was progress.
to free access of villagers and The tender of contract in this
animals even during operational regard was given by the State
hours. Government. All the pillars
have been erected. Barbed wire
fencing is to be done by the
State Government which was in
their tender contract and as per
the advise of D.G.C.A. for
safety of air field and aircraft
operation we have continuously
positioned nine security guards.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 142 of 200
23. No simulator is available for We do not have Simulator/
simulator flying. Synthetic Trainer for Simulator
Training.
24. No audio video visuals available Audio/Video Visual available
for ground studies/ classes. for Ground Studies/Ground
Classes.
25. The runway needs re-carpeting For Re-Carpeting of runway
and no visual signs/markings and fencing work, we have
available as per CAR. requested State Government to
expedite the work. Visual
Signals and markings are
available and being maintained
by State Government, Civil
Aviation Department.
26. No standard operating Standard Operating Procedure
procedures have been has been established by Pilot
established by the CFI for Instructor Incharge for release
release of 1st solo, subsequent of Solo, subsequent Solo,
solo/cross country and night Cross-Country. Night flying is
flying. not being carried out at this
airfield.
27. Inspite of repeated request, the Police Verification in respect of
CFI and President could not Student Sponsored State
produce the police verification Government belonging to S.C./
records at least seven students S.T./O.B.C. Candidates is
which is a gross violation and enclosed.
should be viewed seriously.
28. To display emergency drill. Emergency drill permanently
displayed.
29. The signal square to be updated State Government Civil
as per CAR Requirement. Aviation Authority maintains
Signal Square. However, we
have requested them to upgrade
as per C.A.R.
30. One Jeep carrying fire The jeep carrying the Fire
extinguisher not in serviceable Extinguisher and Fire Fighting
condition has been positioned to services vehicle with
cater for flying at an un- accessories are made
controlled airfield and does not serviceable.
meet the requirement of flying
Circular No. 3/1974 shows
gross negligence on the part of
CFI who has conducted flying at
un-controlled base and the
Management which has not
complied for the requirement.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 143 of 200
31. The academy has submitted xxxxx
false information with regard to
action taken report with respect
to the initial inspection carried
out by Mr. Mohan Chandra
without rectifying the
deficiencies.
32. On day of the inspection the Not answered
academy was in possession of
4150 ltrs of fuel in the store
without having explosive permit
is a serious violation by the
QCM/Management.
33. The QCM needs to make the Not answered
bonded store/quarantine store
more hygienic and the records to
be scrupulously maintained.
We have requested/sent
reminder to State Government
to rectify deficiencies.
120. The third DGCA inspection (Ex. PW16/J) was conducted
from 05.11.2009 to 07.11.2009 by A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi
and its ATR (Ex. PW11/N) was submitted on 13.11.2009. The
deficiencies, as pointed out therein, and the Action Taken Report is
being set out in the table as under.
The 3rd DGCA Inspection
S. Deficiencies (Pointed out by Action Taken Report
No. Binodini Devi A-2) dt.13.11.2009
(Ex. PW16/J) (Ex. PW11/N)
1. Application for induction of new Sai Flytech Aviation wishes to
Board of Director Dr. Gunjan withdraw the application for
Gupta has been put up by Sai security clearance for Dr. (Mrs.)
Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd. without Gunjan Gupta as she has moved
fulfilling due formality under out of the country for her
form-32 from Registered profession.
Company Law Board. Hence,
MHA’s security clearance of Dr.
Gunjan Gupta could not be
processed by this office.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 144 of 200
Remarks – Operator is advised to
submit necessary documents duly
completed to DGCA for security
clearance.
2. Parameter fencing of the airport in Adequate watch and ward for
progress. preventing runway incursion
during aircraft operations is
Remarks – Operator is advised to provided till the wall fencing is
deploy with adequate watch and completed, and we are
wards for preventing runway maintaining the same.
incursion during aircraft operators
till the wall fencing is completed.
3. As per contingency plan, trained Sai Flytech Aviation has
manpower available with Sai planned on conducting a
Flytech to handle safety services programme quarterly, to
have not held any drill/ demonstrate the drills in
demonstration programme. handling safety services for
aircraft accident/emergency
Remarks – Sai Flytech is advised to during flying at the airport for
conduct a programme twice a year the benefit of all the staffs and
to demonstrate the drills to handle Trainees.
safety services for aircraft
accident/emergency during flying
at the airport for the benefit of all
the staff members.
4. Sai Flytech does not have the Sai Flytech Aviation is in
facility of synthetic flight process of purchasing a Flight
simulator training aid. Simulator (C.P.T.) meanwhile
our students are doing
Remarks – Operator is advised to Simulator Training at M.P.F.C.
enhance the training facility of Sai and A.P. Flying Club.
Flytech Aviation with the
provision of simulator training and
which will help the trainee pilots.
121. The fourth and the last DGCA inspection was conducted
from 13.12.2010 to 14.12.2010 by A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi
and its ATR was submitted on 30.12.2010. The deficiencies, as
pointed out therein, and the Action Taken Report is being set out in
the table as under.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 145 of 200
The 4th DGCA Inspection
S. Discrepancies (Pointed out by Action Taken Report
No. Binodini Devi, A-2) (Ex. 14/C) dt. 30.12.2010
(Ex. PW14/D)
1. Sai Flytech does not have the Sai Flytech Aviation has a
provision of synthetic flight contract with Govt. of
simulator for trainee pilot. Jharkhand for the 40 Hours of
instrument flying training of
Remarks – Operator is advised to students on aircrafts both on
acquire and provide training aid Single Engine and Multi Engine
facility for the same. Aircrafts. Due to recession in
the market most of the
simulators in flying training
institutes are under utilised, so
in when we require to do
simulator training we will be
using facilities of other flying
training institutes.
2. Sai Flytech does not have adequate Sai Flytech Aviation has
number of qualified Engineer to employed 2 engineers out of
work on Aircraft except one AME. which one has cleared Paper-4
written as well as oral for both
Remarks – Operator is advised to engines and Airframe and other
induct one more AME to ensure has cleared Paper-4 written and
that standard of aircraft cleared oral on airframe, which
maintenance is not compromise. would be sufficient for a fleet of
4 single engine aircrafts (i.e. 2
Cessna 152 and 2 Cessna 172).
3. It has been observed that the flight Sai Flytech has 1 flight assistant
assistant of Sai Flytech is utilized now on permanent payroll and
on temporary basis. another flight clerk has been
issued appointment letter, as he
Remarks – Operator is advised to is working elsewhere and he is
appoint a Flight Assistant on under notice period as per his
regular basis. Since the role of appointment terms and
Flight Assistant is important for conditions with his present
flying operations. employer, tentatively he will be
joining us in February 2011.
4. As per total ratio of students One of our Assistant Flight
available including 30 trainee Instructor has already
pilots allotted from Government of completed patter flying training
Jharkhand at Sai Flytech, for issue of FIR (A) and has
Qualified instructor available not adequate instructional flying
adequate. experience for the same. He
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 146 of 200
Remarks – It is therefore operator would be appearing for the oral
is advised to induct one more exam in the month of January
senior FIR instructor equally 2011 with the Board constituted
qualified next two CFI. by DGCA.
122. Therefore, it is to be noted that by and large the
deficiencies had been addressed. The above would also bear out
that several deficiencies were minor in nature.
123. In the context of SFAPL’s functioning and its several
inspections, I wish to add that no institution, however efficient or
well-administered it may be, can be said to be entirely immune
from shortcomings. Indeed, any comprehensive audit of its
functioning is likely to reveal certain deficiencies or areas
warranting improvement. This would be more so in case of nascent
stages of a new institution. For a new institution it is only natural,
and indeed inevitable, that numerous areas will emerge as
requiring refinement and improvement. Fledgling period of any
new department or institution is marked by many aspects of its
functioning still being in an evolving phase, requiring careful
attention and refinement.
124. It is next the CBI’s allegation that the office note dt.
30.12.2010 of A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi, mentioning absence
of major deficiencies and recommending extension to SFAPL for a
year, was a false one.158 It is difficult to comprehend as to how the
office note dt. 30.12.2010 (this note is reproduced in paragraphs
23 and 112 hereinabove) of A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi is a false
one. I have already recorded my finding hereinabove that the
principal deficiency of perimeter fencing was not a mandatory
158
Para 16.20 of the chargesheet.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 147 of 200
requirement under CAR. Further, Captain Arun Mann (PW-17),
who was specifically directed to “Pl. examine” the office note dt.
30.12.2010, found no irregularity whatsoever either in the said
note or in the accompanying Inspection Report Ex. PW14/C. In
these circumstances, when the prosecution’s own witness,
entrusted with the very task of examining the office note/document
at the relevant time, discerned nothing amiss, it is wholly
untenable for the CBI, with the advantage of hindsight, to now
contend that the note was false or misleading. Nonetheless, the
CBI alleges that Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) had wrongly
indicated ‘Yes’ regarding availability of airport perimeter fencing
in her Inspection Report – the 4 th DGCA Inspection – of 13th/14th
December 2010 (Ex. PW14/C), and for this reason her report is
false. This allegation is wholly unfounded. CBI appears to have
selectively relied upon only one portion of her observation qua the
fencing, while conveniently ignoring the remaining part of the
same observation, which is equally material and necessary for a
fair and complete appreciation of the record. Such selective
reading of the evidence renders the allegation untenable. The
entire observation on this count must be read in its entirety, and
which is as follows:
Aspects to be audited or questions Status Comments
to be answered
Whether airport perimeter fencing Yes Adequately trenched with
is available with adequate watch watch and ward staff.
and ward for preventing runaway
incursion during aircraft operation?
125. Therefore, when the observation is read as a whole, it
clearly conveys that her assessment was that the airport wasCBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 148 of 200
adequately secured through proper trenching as well as the
presence of watch and ward staff. That apart, there are three parts
to the question. The first aspect pertains to availability of airport
fencing. The second relates to whether adequate watch and ward
arrangements are in place, and the third concerns whether such
measures are sufficient to prevent runway incursions during
aircraft operations. It is thus evident that the question is broadly
framed, inasmuch as it admits of multiple, distinct responses. The
first part can be answered independently on its own terms; the
second part likewise calls for a separate and self-contained
response; and the third part, in turn, is capable of being answered
independently, irrespective of the responses to the first two parts.
This being a criminal trial, any benefit of reasonable doubt has to
be given to the accused. Consequently, I see nothing wrong in
Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) writing ‘Yes’ to this widely
worded question with the added observation ‘Adequately trenched
with watch and ward staff’. Most likely, she with the knowledge
that perimeter fencing is no mandatory requirement under CAR
was writing ‘Yes’ to the query, in the sense that it was secured with
watch and ward staff and adequate trenching.
126. The CBI contends that SFAPL sought to mislead DGCA
officers through its ATR dt. 24.01.2008, submitted in response to
the first DGCA inspection. It is alleged that this became evident
during the subsequent inspection conducted by PW15, Captain B.
S. Nehra, from 18.11.2008 to 20.11.2008 (Inspection Report – Ex.
PW15/B), wherein it was purportedly discovered that SFAPL had
provided false information in its ATR dt. 24.01.2008. The
inspection of B. S. Nehra revealed total 33 deficiencies in the
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 149 of 200
institute. In Inspection Report Ex. PW15/B of PW15 Captain B. S.
Nehra (the second DGCA inspection) it is indeed mentioned, “31.
The academy has submitted false information with regard to
action taken report with respect to the initial inspection carried out
by Mr. Mohan Chandra without rectifying the deficiencies. ” It
may be noted here that in the first DGCA inspection conducted on
21/22.01.2008 by T. Mohan Chandran, there were only nine (9)
deficiencies that were pointed out and subsequent thereto, on
24.01.2008, SFAPL had submitted its ATR (Ex. PW11/D) thereby
addressing the said deficiencies. Now, PW15 Captain B. S. Nehra
in his Inspection Report does not specifically set out as to which
information in the previous ATR dt. 24.01.2008 (Ex.PW11/D) was
false. It has neither come out in his oral evidence as to which
specific information submitted in the ATR dt. 24.01.2008 (Ex.
PW11/D) was false. This being a criminal trial, the prosecution
cannot proceed on vague or speculative assertions; it must clearly
identify and specify the exact information it alleges to be false,
rather than advancing accusations in the dark. A prosecution case
of this nature cannot be sustained on broad, generalised, or
omnibus allegations. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to
clearly delineate which specific issues, purportedly addressed in
the ATR dt. 24.01.2008 (Ex. PW11/D), later proved to be false.
127. The prosecution next contends that DGCA officials took
no action on the recommendations of PW15 Captain B. S. Nehra,
as set out in his second DGCA Inspection Report (Ex. PW15/B),
by not issuing a show-cause notice to SFAPL in respect of the
deficiencies identified during his inspection in November 2008. It
is a matter of record that SFAPL had indeed been asked to submit
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 150 of 200
its ATR and which was duly furnished vide communication dt.
27.01.2009. The Inspection Report(s) and the ATRs have been
discussed hereinabove and it is noticed that several deficiencies
were minor in nature and that by and large the deficiencies had
been addressed. Moreover, it has already been held hereinabove,
inter alia, that perimeter fencing did not constitute a mandatory
requirement; consequently, the alleged principal deficiency on this
count is devoid of merit. In any event, SFAPL (for that matter, any
of the accused) cannot be faulted for the absence of perimeter
fencing. Given this, I fail to see as to where was the need to issue
show-cause notice to SFAPL. Further, an investigating agency
cannot in its wisdom demand as to what course of action a
department ought to follow in a certain eventuality, so long as the
course which the department actually followed was not manifestly
arbitrary, malafide and undertaken for extraneous considerations.
An investigating agency cannot arrogate to itself the authority to
prescribe or dictate the course of action in matters that lie squarely
within the exclusive administrative domain of the administrative
authorities. Decisions of this nature necessarily involve exercise of
discretion by the concerned administrative body. Consequently,
the contention that, in light of PW15 Captain B. S. Nehra’s
Inspection Report (Ex. PW15/B), the DGCA officials were bound
to issue a show-cause notice to SFAPL is wholly untenable and
does not merit acceptance. It may be added here that in the case at
hand, I find no evidence whatsoever to show that accused public
servants were motivated by extraneous considerations in the
decisions that they took. I find no evidence of any malafide on the
part of the accused persons.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 151 of 200
128. It was contended on behalf of CBI that despite receiving
a complaint against SFAPL alleging unauthorised and illegal
flying training activities the same were not inquired into by
accused public servants. AAI had raised the issue of flying
operations of SFAPL on two counts, firstly that it had no NOC
from airport owner and secondly that it had no NOC from AAI
Headquarters from air traffic point of view. These two issues have
been dealt with extensively hereinabove, and are not being
repeated for the sake of brevity. That apart, there was one
complaint dt. 26.05.2008 of Ms. Rashmi Mittal alleging
unauthorised flying by SFAPL. Vide her letter dt. 21.07.2008,
Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2) had called upon SFAPL to offer
her comments thereon. However, it is not clear from the record as
to whether any reply thereto was submitted by SFAPL. That apart,
there were several complaints of the students alleging
unauthorised flying in 2011, by which time A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi had already superannuated. It is to be observed that
only one or two DGCA officials alone cannot be blamed for this.
That apart, in the context of section 13 of the PC Act, the crucial
inquiry is whether the conduct in question amounts to ‘ criminal
misconduct’, as clearly distinguished from a mere mistake, error,
or lapse in judgment on the part of the accused. The material on
record, at its highest, may suggest the possibility of a ‘ mistake’
attributable to the accused persons. However, there is a
conspicuous absence of any evidence whatsoever that could
reasonably sustain an allegation of criminal misconduct against
the accused public servants.
129. It was also the allegation that no action was initiated on
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 152 of 200
the Audit Report159 (audit conducted from 20.09.2011 to
23.09.2011) of Captain Arun Mann (PW17). It is to be noted that
A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi had already superannuated on
31.12.2010 and thus she could possibly have taken no action. This
leaves us with A-1 Alok K. Sharan. It is to be observed that only
one DGCA official alone cannot be blamed for this. In other
words, the collective inaction of the concerned branch of DGCA
cannot be attributed to a single individual. It would be unjust and
unreasonable to single out one individual for blame for matters that
are, by their nature, the responsibility of the concerned branch of
the DGCA as a whole. Relevant would it be to note that in his
statement under 313 CrPC A-1 Alok K. Sharan takes the stand that
at the relevant time he was not responsible for overseeing the
Flying Clubs so as to handle the complaints, and that Director,
Flying Training had been advised to examine the complaints vis-Ã -
vis quality of training and take action as per rules. The point
therefore the entire fault for the alleged inaction cannot be
attributed to one single individual out of the multitude of people
who worked in the department. That apart, for section 13 (1) (d) of
PC Act, what has to be looked into is whether there was any
‘criminal misconduct’, as distinct from ‘mistake’, or ‘error of
judgment’ on the part of A-1 Alok K. Sharan. There may be have
been a ‘mistake’, or ‘error of judgment’ on his part. However,
there is no evidence whatsoever to attribute criminal misconduct to
him or for that matter to any of the other accused persons.
130. It was alleged that A-1 Alok K. Sharan had furnished
159
Audit Report is Ex. PW17/A at D-29.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 153 of 200
wrong information to Jharkhand Government vide his letter dt.
13.09.2010 (Ex. PW49/DA) by stating therein that SFAPL
fulfilled all the CAR norms which resulted in selection of SFAPL
by Jharkhand Government. In the hindsight. one may say that this
letter of A-1 Alok K. Sharan contained wrong information.
However, such retrospective assessment cannot fairly be applied
to judge his conduct while acting in real time, based on
information and circumstances then available to him. The entire
DGCA department, including the officers at the highest rung had
been of the view that SFAPL had fulfilled all the CAR norms; that
alternative compliance in the form of trench and watch and ward
staff had been resorted to. The entire department from the lowest to
the highest rung was of the belief that the NOCs were in order. It is
also found that perimeter fencing was no mandatory requirement,
and as such the alleged principal deficiency was devoid of merit.
Given this, with the information then available to him and the
genuine belief that he had, there was nothing wrong on his part in
writing what he did write in his letter dt. 13.09.2010 (Ex.
PW49/DA) to the Jharkhand Government. I find nothing on record
to even remotely indicate that A-1 Alok K. Sharan had given such
information falsely, knowing fully well that the information that
he was conveying was actually incorrect. Given the circumstances,
it would not be incorrect to say that there could have been an ‘error
of judgment’ on the part of A-1 Alok K. Sharan. The prosecution
has failed to specifically point out from the record any malafide on
his part. I find nothing on record to show that A-1 Alok K. Sharan
had been actuated by extraneous considerations to jeopardise the
interests of the students and/or of Jharkhand Government.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 154 of 200
131. CBI alleged that SFAPL ‘cheated’ Jharkhand Government
to the tune of Rs. 95,22,215/-. It was also alleged that in this act of
cheating the other accused persons, particularly A-1 Alok K.
Sharan, had conspired. The prosecution emphasised that A-1 Alok
K. Sharan actively participated in the alleged cheating, particularly
by writing the letter dt. 13.09.2010 (Ex. PW49/DA) to Jharkhand
Government, and wherein he averred SFAPL had complied with
all the CAR norms. However, this contention of the prosecution
cannot be sustained. The offence of cheating is not at all made out
on the basis of material presented and the evidence led on record.
Reasons for holding so are myriad and which are as under:
131.1 Firstly, the purported victim, namely the
Government of Jharkhand, has not at any point alleged that it
was cheated by SFAPL. Jharkhand Government neither lodged
a police complaint nor communicated to any authority that
SFAPL had cheated it. There is neither record of any
correspondence of Jharkhand Government with the CBI
claiming that SFAPL had engaged in cheating. It is, therefore, a
peculiar situation where the prosecution is attempting to
establish a case of cheating despite the absence of any such
allegation from the supposed victim. Notably, PW41 Subarn
Bara, an officer from the office of the Tribal Welfare
Commissioner, Jharkhand Government, testified in court, yet
nowhere in his testimony did he claim that SFAPL had cheated
the Government. The alleged victim (Jharkhand Government)
nowhere claims that SFAPL deceived it, or that SFAPL
fraudulently or dishonestly induced it to part with any property.
The case thus presents an unusual scenario of the prosecution
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 155 of 200
striving to prove cheating sans any allegation of cheating on
the part of the alleged victim.
131.2 It is already held hereinabove that there is nothing on
record to even remotely indicate that A-1 Alok K. Sharan had
given the information, vide his letter dt. 13.09.2010 (Ex.
PW49/DA) to Jharkhand Government, falsely, knowing fully
well that the information that he was conveying was actually
incorrect. Given this, I fail to comprehend as to how A-1 Alok
K. Sharan can be guilty of participated in the alleged act of
cheating the Jharkhand Government.
131.3 Next, the behaviour of A-1 Alok K. Sharan, as
reflected in the record, hardly aligns with that of an individual
intent on deceiving or defrauding another. His actions do not
indicate any deceitful intention. It is a matter of record that
pursuant to the bids invited by Jharkhand Government, eleven
(11) institutes submitted their bids by the due date of
06.08.2010 and out of which six (6) were shortlisted with L-1
bidder being Garg Aviation Ltd., Kanpur and L-2 being A-4
SFAPL. Now, there is a Jharkhand Government’s inter-
departmental letter dt. 01.09.2010 noting that the L-1 bidder
(Garg Aviation Ltd., Kanpur) lacked the requisite facilities to
impart the training viz. Cessna 172 Aircraft(s), Flight
Instructor for Twin Engine Aircraft Cessna 310, Chief Flying
Instructor, improper hostel facilities etc. and was thus
unsuitable; and consequently, it was decided that the Selection
Committee would conduct inspection of the L-2 bidder i.e. A-4
SFAPL. Thereupon, a spot verification of A-4 SFAPL was
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 156 of 200
carried out at Bilaspur by a Committee comprising three
officers of Jharkhand Government and a member from the
office of DGCA on 04.09.2010; and pursuant thereto A-4
SFAPL was selected as the preferred bidder for training of 30
students of Jharkhand. Following this, an inter-departmental
letter dt. 06.09.2010 was exchanged in the administration of
Jharkhand Government and therein it was decided that before
execution of the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) views of
Alok K. Sharan (A-1), the then Deputy Director General of
DGCA, be elicited. On 08.09.2010, the Government of
Jharkhand issued a letter to A-1 Alok K. Sharan, enclosing the
site inspection report dt. 04.09.2010 of A-4 SFAPL and
requesting him to provide his observations thereon. It is also
noteworthy that the letter dt. 08.09.2010 of the Jharkhand
Government expressly records that A-1 Alok K. Sharan was
unable to be present for A-4 SFAPL’s inspection on
04.09.2010. It was then that A-1 Alok K. Sharan vide his letter
in question dt. 13.09.2010 (Ex. PW49/DA) wrote to the
Secretary, Welfare Department, Jharkhand Government
stating that SFAPL met the CAR norms. Now this conduct on
the part of A-1 Alok K. Sharan is not at all in consonance with
the conduct of an individual intending to cheat others. At the
bidding stage, A-1 Alok K. Sharan did not, at any point,
communicate with anyone in the Jharkhand Government to
extend favoritism towards SFAPL, despite it not being the L-1
bidder. Further, A-1 Alok K. Sharan had been invited for the
site inspection of A-4 SFAPL, but he did not present himself
for the same. In fact, the IO (PW49) in his oral evidence admits
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 157 of 200
that A-1 Alok K. Sharan could not appear for the site
inspection of SFAPL, when he states, “It is correct that vide
letter dated 13.09.2010 Ex.PW49/DA, A-1 Alok Kumar
Sharan had duly informed Jharkhand Government of his
inability to conduct physical inspection of M/s. SFAPL…..”.
There is neither any evidence that A-1 Alok K. Sharan was in
touch with any officer involved in SFAPL’s site inspection
with a view to influence them to prepare a favourable report
portraying SFAPL in a positive light. It has come on record that
SFAPL’s site inspection report had been sent to A-1 Alok K.
Sharan together with the formal letter dt. 08.09.2010 of
Jharkhand Government, requesting him to respond whether
SFAPL complied with the CAR norms. And it was in response
to this that he wrote the letter in question dt. 13.09.2010 (Ex.
PW49/DA) which is now being impugned by the prosecution
for its alleged ill-intent and lack of bonafides. This Court is
clear in its view that this letter dt. 13.09.2010 (Ex. PW49/DA)
of A-1 Alok K. Sharan cannot be looked into in isolation, de
hors all other antecedent circumstances and context outlined
hereinabove. To repeat, at no stage of the bidding process or at
the stage of site inspection or at the stage of preparation of site
inspection report, A-1 Alok K. Sharan ever contacted or tried
to get in touch with any of officer of Jharkhand Government to
show favoritism to SFAPL. Moreover, there is no evidence to
suggest that A-1 Alok K. Sharan was motivated by any
improper or outside influences in writing the letter dt.
13.09.2010 (Ex. PW49/DA). In fact, there is no evidence on
record to even remotely suggest that in order to write the letter
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 158 of 200
in question dt. 13.09.2010 (Ex. PW49/DA) A-1 Alok K.
Sharan had obtained any undue advantage from SFAPL or any
of its Directors, including A-5 Anil K. Mangal. In fact, the IO
(PW49) in his oral evidence states, “There was no specific
document/CDR/ money trail to suggest that the linkage
between the accused persons pertaining to the present case.
(Vol. However, conspiracy in the matter was inferred from the
general circumstances of the case.” Furthermore, it bears
repetition to state that there is nothing on record to indicate that
A-1 Alok K. Sharan had given the information, vide his letter
dt. 13.09.2010 (Ex. PW49/DA) to Jharkhand Government,
falsely and knowing fully well that the information that he was
conveying was actually incorrect.
131.4 The conduct of A-4 SFAPL and that of A-5 Anil
Kumar Mangal also do not bear out that their intention since
the very inception was to deceive Jharkhand Government by
fraudulently or dishonestly inducing it to deliver any property.
It is a matter of record that A-4 SFAPL had entered the bidding
process through legitimate method and it was the second
lowest (L-2) bidder. It was no fault of SFAPL that its
competitor Garg Aviation Limited, Kanpur (L-1) was rejected
in the site inspection. Further, at the relevant time, SFAPL had
the approval of DGCA. It had valid Air Defence Clearance
(ADC) and Flight Information Centre (FIC) numbers as well.
One may disagree with the process of grant of DGCA approval
as also with the process of grant of valid ADC and FIC
numbers. But the crucial point is that as on the date of
submitting its bid, there was nothing on record that could have
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 159 of 200
reasonably led SFAPL to believe that its flying school had been
established in deviation of the prescribed CAR norms, or that it
was, for that reason, ineligible to participate in the tender
process so initiated. It is indeed paradoxical that the very
circumstances now being effectively held out against SFAPL
in this case are that it secured the bid floated by Jharkhand
Government by quoting a competitive price and by
successfully clearing the site inspection with no adverse
findings.
131.5 It is certainly not that no training of the Jharkhand
students had been carried out by SFAPL at its flying academy
in Bilaspur. To put it in other words, SFAPL did not simply
vanish after taking away the money without imparting any
training. It definitely had a flying school. It definitely had
given training to the students. It is a different matter that due to
supervening circumstances its Academy at Bilaspur had to be
aborted. With the benefit of hindsight, it can be said that the
things were not within the control of A-4 or A-5 when its
Academy at Bilaspur was aborted and the training had to be
stopped. In order to bring home the offence of cheating it is
essential that there must have been fraudulent or dishonest
inducement. Dishonest or fraudulent inducement on the part of
any of the accused in this case is completely lacking.
131.6 It is also to be noted here that the entire contract for
imparting training to Jharkhand students was to the tune of
about Rs. 15 Crores, as was pointed out during the course of
arguments. However, what was paid to SFAPL was Rs.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 160 of 200
95,22,215/- only. The record would show that this payment of
Rs. 95,22,215/- was largely towards reimbursement of the
expenses, i.e. books, uniform, food and lodging etc. which
SFAPL had incurred on the students. Beyond that, no money
was paid to SFAPL by the Jharkhand Government.
132. Next, the material on record does not at all suffice to
establish the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under
section 120B of IPC by any stretch of imagination. The evidence
completely falls short of showing meeting of mind between the
accused persons. The IO (PW49) when asked about it in his cross-
examination stated, “There was no specific document/CDR/
money trail to suggest that the linkage between the accused
persons pertaining to the present case. (Vol. However, conspiracy
in the matter was inferred from the general circumstances of the
case.” In other words, despite there being lack of cogent material
to show meeting of mind between the accused persons, the IO
persisted that the conspiracy could be inferred from general
circumstances. The prosecution relied on the judgment of Yash Pal
Mittal (supra)160 to contend that for section 120B of IPC it is not
necessary that all the parties should agree to do a single act and that
conspiracy may comprise of a number of acts. In this regard, the
following passage out of Yash Pal Mittal (supra) was cited during
the course of arguments:
9. The offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is a
distinct offence introduced for the first time in 1913 in Chapter
V-A of the Penal Code. The very agreement, concert or league
is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the
conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy160
Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2433CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 161 of 200
as long as they are co-participators in the main object of the
conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques
adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and
there may be division of performances in the chain of actions
with one object to achieve the real end of which every
collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must
be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but
there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to
one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal
several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators
even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all
means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to
be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though
there may be sometimes mis-fire or over-shooting by some of
the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or
two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it
will not affect the culpability of those others when they are
associated with the object of the conspiracy. The significance
of criminal conspiracy, under Section 120-A is brought out
pithily by this Court in Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay
[AIR 1961 SC 1762 : (1962) 2 SCR 195, 228 : (1962) 2 Cri LJ
828] thus:
“The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law.
The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of
criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be
done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of
the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single
illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number
of acts. Under Section 43 of the Penal Code, 1860, an act
would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by
law. Under the first charge the accused are charged with
having conspired to do three categories of illegal acts and
the mere fact that all of them could not be convicted
separately in respect of each of the offences has no
relevancy in considering the question whether the
offence of conspiracy has been committed. They are all
guilty of the offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts,
though for individual offences all of them may not be
liable.”
We are in respectful agreement with the above observations
with regard to the offence of criminal conspiracy.
133. However, the above judgment is of no help to the
prosecution. As already observed hereinabove, the evidence
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 162 of 200
marshalled by the prosecution in this case completely falls short of
showing meeting of mind between the accused persons for the
intended object of committing an illegal act. Scattered fragments
of evidence, selectively relied upon, cannot be deemed sufficient
to establish a credible link between the accused persons and the
alleged offence of criminal conspiracy. Rather, in the case at hand,
I find no element of criminality on the part of any accused; the
evidence and the material would, at the most, suggest that at best
there may have been violations of codal formalities and non-
compliance of procedural norms. In Parveen v. State of Haryana,
AIR 2022 SC 270 it was observed:
“It is fairly well settled, to prove the charge of conspiracy,
within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish
that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an
unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is
difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at
the same time, in absence of any evidence to show meeting of
minds between the conspirators for the intended object of
committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty
for offences under Section 120-B of IPC. A few bits here and a
few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be
adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of
crime of criminal conspiracy.”
134. In Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 10 SCC 394 it
was observed:
“Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more
persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine
qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to
prove the agreement between them by direct proof.
Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can
be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the
conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances
must form a chain of events from which a conclusion about the
guilt of the accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an
offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the
mere agreement to commit an offence punishable even if an
offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement.”
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 163 of 200
135. In the case at hand, I find nothing on record to establish
meeting of mind between the accused persons. Ex facie the
material does not show that any conspiracy had been hatched by
the accused persons. No direct evidence of any prior meeting of
minds has been marshalled on record by the prosecution. The
material on record also does not point towards any incriminating
circumstances regarding prior meeting of minds. And lastly, it is
extremely incomprehensible that, in relation to a tender floated by
the Jharkhand Government in 2010, all the accused persons could
have possessed foreknowledge as far back as 2007, and on that
speculative basis, embarked upon a conspiracy in anticipation of a
scheme or tender that had not even been conceived at that time.
Criminal Law cannot fasten culpability by imputing
foreknowledge of future events. Permutations and combinations of
future events are infinite and no person can be presumed to have
foreknowledge of the same. Unless endowed with omniscient and
prescient powers, the accused persons could not have hatched a
picture perfect conspiracy precisely contemplating future events.
One wonders whether if SFAPL had not been the successful
bidder, the prosecution would yet have imputed criminality on its
part.
136. Now to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption
Act. The offences alleged in the chargesheet include, inter alia,
those under section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13(2) of the PC
Act, 1988, without specifying which particular limb of the
provision is said to have been attracted. The charge framed on
04.09.2019, is, inter alia, section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13(2)
of the PC Act, 1988. At the outset, it may be noted that it is not the
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 164 of 200
prosecution case that any of the accused public servants made a
demand for any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, or that any
of them derived any such thing or advantage from the acts alleged
against them. Now, sections 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of PC Act,
1988161 read as under:
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct, —
(a) xxxx
(b) xxxx
(c) xxxx
(d) if he, —
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any
other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;
or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for
himself or for any other person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any
person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage
without any public interest; or
(d) xxxx
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not
less than one year but which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to fine.
137. It is noted that ‘obtains’ is the common ingredient in all the
three limbs of section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. It is not established
on record that any of the accused public servants had obtained for
themselves or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage.
138. Now, insofar as section 13 (1) (d) (i) of the PC Act is
concerned, it is evident that it covers those cases of a public
servant who: (i) by using ‘corrupt or illegal means’, (ii) ‘obtains’
161
As it stood on the statute book at the relevant time of commission of offence.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 165 of 200
for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage. It thus covers case of a public servant who uses
‘corrupt and illegal means’ such as accepting a bribe or other
valuable thing to grant a favor. In A. Subair v. State of Kerala,
(2009) 6 SCC 587 it was observed, “The legal position is no more
res integra that primary requisite of an offence under Section 13(1)
(d) of the Act is proof of a demand or request of a valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In other words, in
the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant
for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under
Section 13(1)(d) cannot be held to be established.” In the case at
hand, there is absolutely no proof of demand or request for
valuable thing or pecuniary emanating from any public servant. As
such, there is no question of application of section 13 (1) (d) (i) of
the PC Act.
139. Next, for section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the PC Act, 1988 the
prosecution is required to establish that: (i) the public servant
‘obtains’ valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or any
other public servant, and (ii) such ‘obtainment’ of valuable thing
or pecuniary advantage is by ‘abusing’ his position as a public
servant. Now, as in the context of section 13 (1) (d) (i) of the PC
Act, as discussed hereinabove, it bears repetition to state that there
is no proof of any ‘obtainment’ on the part of accused public
servants. Not only this, there is also no proof of ‘abuse’ of position
as public servant. In M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala,
AIR 1963 SC 1116 it was observed – “Abuse” means misuse i.e.
using his position for something for which it is not intended. In the
case at hand, as already discussed hereinabove, I find no ‘abuse’ of
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 166 of 200
position as a public servant by any of the accused public servants.
At its highest, the prosecution case suggests an error of judgment
in decision making, or inadvertent mistakes committed in the
course of discharging official duties, rather than any criminality or
culpable misconduct of a criminal nature. That apart, mens rea is
also an essential ingredient of this offence, and which mens rea is
not established on record. In R. Balakrishna Pillai (supra)162 it was
observed, “Thus, looking to the definition of the crime in the case
in hand, namely, clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the
Act163, according to the principle indicated above, it is necessary
that the act must have been done illegally abusing his position as a
public servant for obtaining benefit, pecuniary or otherwise, for
himself or for someone else. This is an offence which would
require an intention to accompany the act. The element of mental
state would be necessary to do a conscious act to get the required
result of pecuniary advantage or to obtain any valuable thing, even
if it is for someone else, then too element of mental state must be
there at the relevant time. In view of the facts and circumstances
indicated in the discussion held earlier in this judgment, and
findings recorded on facts, we firstly hold that facts leading to the
charges are not proved and we also find that the element of mens
rea and intention is totally lacking.” In C. K. Jaffer Shareif
(supra)164 it was observed, “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.
A similar view has also been expressed by this Court in M.
162
R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2003) 9 SCC 700
163
Reference here is to The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
164
C. K. Jaffer Shareif v. State, through CBI, (2013) 1 SCC 205
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 167 of 200
Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala [AIR 1963 SC 1116 :
(1963) 2 Cri LJ 186 : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 724] while considering
the provisions of Section 5 of the 1947 Act. ” In A. Sivaprakash
(supra)165 it was observed, “It was not even the case set up by the
prosecution that the appellant had taken that money from some
person and had obtained any pecuniary advantage thereby. It was
the obligation of the prosecution to satisfy the aforesaid
mandatory ingredients which could implicate the appellant under
the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(ii). The attempt of the
prosecution was to bring the case within the fold of sub-clause (ii)
alleging that he misused his official position in issuing the
certificate utterly fails as it is not even alleged in the charge-sheet
and not even an iota of evidence is led as to what kind of pecuniary
advantage was obtained by the appellant in issuing the said letter.”
In this case, the prosecution has failed to establish any dishonest
intention on the part of the accused public servants. It is also not
the prosecution case that accused public servants had benefitted in
any manner from the decisions that they took. The evidence does
not even remotely suggest that the accused public servants had any
nexus with SFAPL (A-4) and/or Anil K. Mangal (A-5). Therefore,
not only the ‘actus reus’, but also the ‘mens rea’ for the offence
under section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the PC Act, 1988 is not made out.
140. Now, to the last limb of section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, that
is, section 13 (1) (d) (iii). Learned Public Prosecutor for CBI relied
on Runu Ghosh v. CBI, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5501 to contend
that for an offence under section 13 (1) (d) (iii) of PC Act, 1988, it
165
A. Sivaprakash v. State of Kerala, (2016) 12 SCC 273
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 168 of 200
is not necessary to prove a quid pro quo between the accused
public and non-public servants, and that this provision does not
require the prosecution to adduce proof of mens rea. It was his
submission that the accused public servants by their very act of
permitting setting up of a flying training school by SFAPL in
unauthorised manner and never flagging any violations of CAR
norms actually acted contrary to the public interest. He submitted
that setting up of the flying training institute in violation of the
CAR norms was in fact contrary to the public interest. This
argument of the prosecution cannot be accepted. It is to be noted
that for section 13 (1) (d) (iii) of the PC Act, 1988 as well there has
to be ‘obtainment’ for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage ‘without any public interest’. The phrase ‘without any
public interest’ as used in section 13 (1) (d) (iii) of PC Act came up
for a discussion by a Single Bench of Madras High Court in J.
Jayalalitha v. State, MANU/TN/1423/2001, and it was observed:
“68. I have already extracted Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and in that, the words,
“without any public interest” (emphasis supplied) are found.
The words, “without any public interest” used in the said
Section show that for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(iii),
the prosecution must establish that the interest shown for
obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, was private
interest and even if the act serves one public interest and if the
said one public interest is against another public interest, a
person cannot be prosecuted, since the Section states
emphatically that the act shall be done without any public
interest. The word ‘any’ is therefore to be understood that there
should be a zero public interest. The word ‘any’ is defined in
Judicial Dictionary of words and Phrases (Fifth Edition by
John S. James) as a word which excludes limitation or
qualification. Therefore, the word ‘any’ used in Section 13(1)
(d)(iii) is absolute. The trial Judge has also conceded in his
judgment that tourism involves public interest, but went on to
hold that it cannot override another public interest, i.e.
Ecological system. Therefore, it is not a case where we can fitCBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 169 of 200
in the words “without any public interest”. To make out an
offence of criminal misconduct, two requirements are
necessary and they are, (1) the absence of any public interest
whatsoever, and (2) the knowledge of the accused that his act is
without any public interest. The first requirement is the
objective absence, as a fact, of any public interest and the
second requirement flows from the legal maxim regarding
mens rea. If the accused acted bona fide without any public
interest, believing that he is acting in the public interest, he is
not guilty of the offence of criminal misconduct.”
141. Now, in the case at hand, it is difficult to comprehend as
to how the establishment of flying club in Bilaspur was ‘ without
any public interest’. In other words, it would be incorrect to say
that the establishment of flying club in Bilaspur had zero public
interest. It is a matter of record that one of the stated objectives of
the Chhattisgarh Government was to utilise the Bilaspur airstrip
for imparting training to SC/ST and OBC trainees of the State,
with a concession of 20% in the applicable charges, and that such
training was envisaged to benefit candidates from SC/ST/OBC
communities belonging to below poverty line categories.166 That
apart, the material on record167 also indicates that Bilaspur airstrip
remained, to a considerable extent, under-utilised, its use being
largely confined to occasional VVIP movements and limited
government flights, with no substantial or regular operational
deployment otherwise. A letter dt. 07.08.2009 [Ex. PW3/A (colly)
at D-2] under the signature of Jyoti Prasad, an officer of AAI,
shows that even in August 2009 there were no schedule flight
operations at Bilaspur. Therefore, given these circumstances I fail
to comprehend as to how permitting Bilaspur airstrip to serve as a
base for institutional learning of students, particularly those below
166
Document(s) at D-37.
167
Document(s) at D-37.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 170 of 200
the poverty line and belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities, did
not serve ‘any public interest’ at all. It is evident that the Bilaspur
airstrip was substantially under-utilised. In this backdrop, SFAPL
setting up a training base served several facets of public interests,
inasmuch as a government asset that was lying underused was
allowed to be put to productive use for a broader and larger public
good, namely, to impart aviation training to students, particularly
the underprivileged ones. Furthermore, the training base at
Bilaspur was not allowed to be set up free of cost; SFAPL (as per
the documents on record) was required to pay annual ground rent
of Rs. 1 lac to the State Government. There may have been
procedural mistakes/errors in the office files in the matter of initial
permission and the renewals granted to SFAPL, but such
procedural mistakes will not by any stretch of imagination
translate to a finding that in the ultimate analysis the decision to set
up the base at Bilaspur did not serve ‘any public interest’. Given
the circumstances, I do not think that any reasonable man can say
that SFAPL’s training base at Bilaspur did not serve ‘any public
interest’.
142. There is no evidence to record to taint the decisions of
the accused public servants with any criminality. The accused
public servants had apparently acted bonafidely. There is no
evidence to connect accused persons with each other. There is
neither any evidence to show extension of any undue advantage to
any of the accused public servants. The IO (PW49) in his oral
evidence admits, “There was no specific document/CDR/ money
trail to suggest that the linkage between the accused persons
pertaining to the present case.” Given this, I do not think that the
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 171 of 200
offence under section 13 (1) (d) (iii) of the PC Act is attracted.
143. Therefore, to sum up the discussion on section 13 (1) (d)
of the PC Act, this court holds that the prosecution is unable to
establish the guilt of accused persons under any of its three limbs.
144. The discussion now turns to the issue of sanction under
section 197 (1) of CrPC. In this case, the accused public servants
are, inter alia, charged for the offence under section 120B of IPC.
The accused public servants are also charged with the offence
under section 420 of IPC with the aid of section 120B of IPC. In
the case at hand, the prosecution obtained the sanction under
section 197 (1) of CrPC only against A-3 Prakash Shambharkar.
There is no sanction under section 197 (1) of CrPC qua A-1 Alok
K. Sharan and A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi. When asked about
this, the IO (PW49) in his cross-examination stated:
“There was no need of sanction for prosecution of L. Binodini
Devi as at the time of charge-sheet, she was no more a public
servant……
Que. I find in the charge-sheet that you has sought for the
sanction order in the case of Sh. Prakash Sambhalkar but I do
not find you taking up in sanction in respect of either accused
L. Binodini Devi or accused Alok Kumar Sharan?
Ans: The other two accused persons, namely, L. Binodini Devi
or accused Alok Kumar Sharan were not in public service at
the time of charge-sheet.”
145. It is evident that the prosecution is proceeding on wrong
footing in toeing the line that in respect of retired public servants,
no sanction for prosecution under section 197 (1) of CrPC is
required. In fact, this approach of the prosecution is contrary to the
very language of section 197 (1) of CrPC. A plain reading of
section 197 (1) CrPC indicates that requirement of prior sanction
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 172 of 200
under this provision does not lapse merely because the public
servant has retired from service. Section 197 (1) of CrPC reads as
under:
197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants. — (1) When
any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public
servant not removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged
to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to
act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take
cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction
save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act,
2013 —
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case
may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged
offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the
Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case
may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged
offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State,
of the State Government:
xxxxxxxx
146. Thus the language of section 197 (1) of CrPC is clear
in the sense that the need for a prior sanction under this
provision does not lapse merely because the public servant
has superannuated. If any citation on this count is required,
then the Apex Court decision of Sheetla Sahai (supra)168 can
be fruitfully referred to, wherein it was observed:
“This leaves us with the question as to whether an order of
sanction was required to be obtained. There exists a distinction
between a sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act
and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Whereas
in terms of Section 19, it would not be necessary to obtain
sanction in respect of those who had ceased to be a public
servant, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
requires sanction both for those who were or are public
servants.”
168
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai & Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 617
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 173 of 200
147. Next, it is not at all in dispute that A-1 Alok K.
Sharan and A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi were appointed by
the President of India. Document Ex. PW19/C (colly) at D-34
(notification dt. 03.04.2007) shows that A-1 Alok K. Sharan
was appointed as Deputy Director General of Civil Aviation
by President of India. His service records (D-33 and D-34)
clearly show that since the beginning he was selected through
examination of Union Public Service Commission and was
appointed and thereafter promoted by the order of the
President of India. A-2 L. Binodini Devi too was a public
servant appointed by the President of India. DW2A2 Sunil
Kumar Adlakha entered the witness box with the service
record of A-2 L. Binodini Devi, and as per which record, she
had been appointed as Junior Pilot by the President of India
vide a notification dt. 14.09.1982 (Ex. DW2/A2-D1); her
services was confirmed with effect from 02.08.1984 vide
notification dt. 30.09.1985 (Ex. DW2/A2-D2). As per the
oral evidence of DW2A2 she retired on 31.12.2010 as Senior
Pilot. Thus, the evidence and the material establishes that
both these individuals (A-1 Alok K. Sharan and A-2 Captain
L. Binodini Devi) were public servants appointed by the
President of India to their respective posts.
148. Now, one of the basic requirements for the
application of section 197 (1) CrPC is that the act(s)
complained of must have been done ‘in the discharge of
official duty’. Relying on Shadakshari169 and Prakash Singh
169
Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2024 SC 590
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 174 of 200
Badal (supra)170 it was urged by the prosecution that entering
into criminal conspiracy can be no part of official duty of any
public servant. This issue as to whether section 197 (1) CrPC
does not cover cases under section 120B of IPC was
specifically addressed by the Apex Court in R. Balakrishna
Pillai171 (supra) as follows:
6. The next question is whether the offence alleged against the
appellant can be said to have been committed by him while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the State that the
charge of conspiracy would not attract Section 197 of the Code
for the simple reason that it is no part of the duty of a Minister
while discharging his official duties to enter into a criminal
conspiracy. In support of his contention, he placed strong
reliance on the decision of this Court in Harihar Prasad v. State
of Bihar [(1972) 3 SCC 89 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 409 : 1972 Cri LJ
707]. He drew our attention to the observations in paragraph 74
of the judgment where the Court, while considering the
question whether the acts complained of were directly
concerned with the official duties of the public servants
concerned, observed that it was no duty of a public servant to
enter into a criminal conspiracy and hence want of sanction
under Section 197 of the Code was no bar to the prosecution.
The question whether the acts complained of had a direct nexus
or relation with the discharge of official duties by the public
servant concerned would depend on the facts of each case.
There can be no general proposition that whenever there is a
charge of criminal conspiracy levelled against a public servant
in or out of office the bar of Section 197(1) of the Code would
have no application. Such a view would render Section 197(1)
of the Code specious. Therefore, the question would have to be
examined in the facts of each case. The observations were
made by the Court in the special facts of that case which clearly
indicated that the criminal conspiracy entered into by the three
delinquent public servants had no relation whatsoever with
their official duties and, therefore, the bar of Section 197(1)
was not attracted. It must also be remembered that the said
decision was rendered keeping in view Section 197(1), as it
then stood, but we do not base our decision on that distinction.
170
Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) SCC 1
171
R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, (1996) 1 SCC 478
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 175 of 200
Our attention was next invited to a three-Judge decision in B.
Saha v. M.S. Kochar [(1979) 4 SCC 177 : 1979 SCC (Cri)
939]. The relevant observations relied upon are to be found in
paragraph 17 of the judgment. It is pointed out that the words
“any offence alleged to have been committed by him while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty”
employed Section 197(1) of the Code, are capable of both a
narrow and a wide interpretation but their Lordships pointed
out that if they were construed too narrowly, the section will be
rendered altogether sterile, for, “it is no part of an official duty
to commit an offence, and never can be”. At the same time, if
they were too widely construed, they will take under their
umbrella every act constituting an offence committed in the
course of the same transaction in which the official duty is
performed or is purported to be performed. The right approach,
it was pointed out, was to see that the meaning of this
expression lies between these two extremes. While on the one
hand, it is not every offence committed by a public servant
while engaged in the performance of his official duty, which is
entitled to the protection. Only an act constituting an offence
directly or reasonably connected with his official duty will
require sanction for prosecution. To put it briefly, it is the
quality of the act that is important, and if it falls within the
scope of the aforequoted words, the protection of Section 197
will have to be extended to the public servant concerned. This
decision, therefore, points out what approach the Court should
adopt while construing Section 197(1) of the Code and its
application to the facts of the case on hand.
149. Prof. N. K. Ganguly (supra)172 is another decision to hold
that the mere fact that section 120B of IPC is invoked does not
mean that the case would be out of the purview of section 197 (1)
of CrPC. It was observed therein:
11. On the basis of the factual evidence on record produced
before us, the circumstances of the case and also in the light of
the rival legal contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel
for both the parties, we have broadly framed the following
points that would arise for our consideration:
11.1. (i) Whether an offence under Section 120-B IPC is
made out against the appellants, and if so, whether previous
sanction of the Central Government is required to prosecute
them for the same?
172
Prof. N. K. Ganguly v. CBI, 2016 (2) SCC 143
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 176 of 200
11.2. (ii) Whether the order dated 8-11-2012 passed by the
learned Special Judge taking cognizance of the offence against
the appellants is legal and valid?
11.3. (iii) What order?
19. In the instant case, it is alleged in the charge-sheet that
the appellants entered into an agreement to commit an illegal
act, which is an offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC.
Therefore, the provision of Section 197 CrPC is squarely
applicable to the facts of the case. Prior sanction of the Central
Government was required to be taken by the respondent before
the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence once
the final report was filed under Section 173(2) CrPC. In this
regard, Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant has very aptly placed
reliance on the decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in
R.R. Chari v. State of U.P. [R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., 1951
SCC 250 : AIR 1951 SC 207 : (1951) 52 Cri LJ 775], wherein,
while examining the scope of Section 197 CrPC, this Court
made an observation indicating that the term ” cognizance”
indicates the stage of initiation of proceedings against a public
servant. The Court placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Calcutta High Court delivered in Supt. and Remembrancer of
Legal Affairs v. Abani Kumar Banerjee [Supt. and
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Abani Kumar Banerjee,
1950 SCC OnLine Cal 49 : AIR 1950 Cal 437], wherein it was
held that before taking cognizance of any offence, a Magistrate
must not only be said to have applied his mind to the contents
of the petition : (Supt. and Remembrancer case [Supt. and
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Abani Kumar Banerjee,
1950 SCC OnLine Cal 49 : AIR 1950 Cal 437], SCC OnLine
Cal para 8)
“8. … but he must have done so for the purpose of
proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the
subsequent provisions of this Chapter–proceeding under
Section 200, and thereafter sending it for enquiry and report
under Section 202. When the Magistrate applies his mind
not for the purpose of proceeding under the subsequent
sections of this Chapter, but for taking action of some other
kind, e.g., ordering investigation under Section 156(3), or
issuing a search warrant for the purpose of the
investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of
the offence.”
32. The learned Additional Solicitor General, on the other
hand, appearing on behalf of CBI placed strong reliance on the
decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badal v. State of
Punjab [Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 177 of 200
1 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 193] to buttress his contention that no
sanction was required to be taken in the instant case as the
appellants have entered into a criminal conspiracy, therefore, it
cannot be said to be a part of their official duty as the public
servants. The act of the appellants of transferring the plot in
question in favour of the aforesaid Society, allotted in favour of
ICMR for the purpose of construction of the flats and allotting
the same in favour of the employees of the ICPO-ICMR
Society without obtaining the order from either CEO or
Chairman of Noida with a motive to make wrongful gain for
themselves after entering into a conspiracy cannot be said to be
an act that has been carried out in discharge of their official
duty. The learned Additional Solicitor General placed reliance
on the following paragraphs of Parkash Singh Badal case
[Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1 :
(2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 193] : (SCC pp. 37-38, paras 49-50)
“49. Great emphasis has been laid on certain decisions
of this Court to show that even in relation to offences
punishable under Sections 467 and 468 sanction is
necessary. The foundation of the position has reference to
some offences in Rakesh Kumar Mishra case [Rakesh
Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar, (2006) 1 SCC 557 : (2006)
1 SCC (Cri) 432] . That decision has no relevance because
ultimately this Court has held that the absence of search
warrant was intricately (sic linked) with the making of
search and the allegations about alleged offences had their
matrix on the absence of search warrant and other
circumstances had a determinative role in the issue. A
decision is an authority for what it actually decides.
Reference to a particular sentence in the context of the
factual scenario cannot be read out of context.
50. The offence of cheating under Section 420 or for
that matter offences relatable to Sections 467, 468, 471 and
120-B can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature
be regarded as having been committed by any public
servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of
official duty. In such cases, official status only provides an
opportunity for commission of the offence.”
33. Mr P.P. Khurana and Mr Gopal Subramanium, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the
appellants, on the other hand, contend that the decision in
Parkash Singh Badal case [Parkash Singh Badal v. State of
Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 193] needs to be
appreciated in light of the facts of that case. Thus, while stating
that the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B
IPC can by no stretch of imagination and by their very nature
be regarded as having been committed by any public servant
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 178 of 200
while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official
duty, this Court did not mean that merely because an official
was charged with an offence under these sections, no sanction
was required to be taken. The learned counsel placed reliance
on the following paragraph of the judgment to emphasise the
same : (SCC p. 38, para 51)
“51. In Baijnath v. State of M.P. [Baijnath v. State of
M.P., AIR 1966 SC 220 : 1966 Cri LJ 179 : (1966) 1 SCR
210] the position was succinctly stated as follows : (AIR p.
227, para 16)
’16. …it is the quality of the Act that is important
and if it falls within the scope and range of his official
duties the protection contemplated by Section 197 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure will be attracted.'”
35. From a perusal of the case law referred to supra, it becomes
clear that for the purpose of obtaining previous sanction from
the appropriate Government under Section 197 CrPC, it is
imperative that the alleged offence is committed in discharge
of official duty by the accused. It is also important for the Court
to examine the allegations contained in the final report against
the appellants, to decide whether previous sanction is required
to be obtained by the respondent from the appropriate
Government before taking cognizance of the alleged offence
by the learned Special Judge against the accused. In the instant
case, since the allegations made against the appellants in the
final report filed by the respondent that the alleged offences
were committed by them in discharge of their official duty,
therefore, it was essential for the learned Special Judge to
correctly decide as to whether the previous sanction from the
Central Government under Section 197 CrPC was required to
be taken by the respondent, before taking cognizance and
passing an order issuing summons to the appellants for their
presence.
150. In CBI v Ramesh Chander Diwan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
871, a public servant has been charged for the offences under
sections 120B/420 of IPC besides the offences under the PC Act,
1988. The Apex Court was of the view that given the nature of the
act alleged against the accused public servant therein sanction
under section 197(1) of CrPC was necessary.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 179 of 200
151. Reliance placed by the prosecution on Shadakshari173 is
also misplaced, as in the said case the allegations against the public
servant therein pertained to committing forgery and creating fake /
fabricated official documents. In the present case, the case of the
prosecution does not extend to alleging that accused public
servants had committed forgery or fabrication of documents. The
prosecution rather alleges that the accused public servants had
improperly facilitated setting up a training base of A-4 SFAPL at
Bilaspur and granted irregular renewals.
152. It may be noted that the decision of Prakash Singh Badal
(supra)174, relied upon by the prosecution, was distinguished in
Prof. N. K. Ganguly (supra)175.
153. Therefore, under the extant law, it is the quality of the act
that is important; the question whether sanction under section 197
(1) of CrPC is required would depend on the facts of each case;
there is no general proposition that whenever there is a charge of
criminal conspiracy levelled against a public servant in or out of
office the bar of section 197(1) of CrPC would have no
application.
154. A. Srinivasulu v. The State, (2023) 13 SCC 705 is also an
authority for the proposition that the question whether sanction
under section 197 (1) of CrPC is required or not is substantially
one of fact, to be determined with reference to the act complained
of and the attendant circumstances. Taking note of the decision of
the Federal Court in Dr. Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown, 1939 SCC
173
Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2024 SC 590
174
Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) SCC 1
175
Prof. N. K. Ganguly v. CBI, 2016 (2) SCC 143
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 180 of 200
OnLine FC 2, it was observed that there must be something in the
nature of the act complained of that attaches it to the official
character of the person doing it. In State of Orissa v. Ganesh
Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40, it was held that if in doing his
official act, the public servant acted in excess of his duty, but there
is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of
the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to
deprive the public servant of the protection under section 197 (1)
of CrPC.
155. This Court is of the view that the acts complained of
against A-1 Alok K. Sharan and A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi was
under the colour of their official duties. There is a reasonable
connection between the acts complained of against A-1 Alok K.
Sharan and A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi and the performance of
their official duties. It is evident from the judicial pronouncements
that the excess in the discharge of the official duty is no sufficient
ground to deprive the public servant of the protection under section
197 (1) of CrPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that sanction
for prosecution under section 197 (1) of CrPC was a must qua A-1
Alok K. Sharan and A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi in relation to the
offences complained of against them. This aspect can be looked at
from another angle. Qua A-3 Prakash Shambharkar, the CBI
obtained the requisite sanction under section 197(1) of CrPC.
However, qua A-1 Alok K. Sharan and A-2 Captain L. Binodini
Devi, it did not obtain the said sanction not because the acts
complained of against them was any graver or completely beyond
the realm of their official duties, but because they had
superannuated by the time the chargesheet was filed. The point
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 181 of 200
therefore is that even qua A-1 Alok K. Sharan and A-2 Captain L.
Binodini Devi, the sanction under section 197(1) of CrPC was
necessarily required.
156. Further, the material on record at the most suggests codal
violations or procedural irregularities. There may have been
‘mistakes’, or errors of judgment on the part of the accused public
servants. However, I find nothing on record to impute any
criminality to the accused public servants. The conduct of the
accused public servants that has come on record does not bespeak
of any malafide intentions in order to defraud the public and/or the
Government. In this regard in C. Chenga Reddy (supra)176, it was
observed, “On a careful consideration of the material on the
record, we are of the opinion that though the prosecution has
established that the 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, none 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
the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants and wholly
incompatible with their innocence. In Abdulla Mohd.
Pagarkar v. State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and
Diu) [(1980) 3 SCC 110 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 546] under somewhat
similar circumstances this Court opined that mere disregard of
176
C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 10 SCC 193
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 182 of 200
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 established
circumstances in this case also do not establish criminality of the
appellants beyond the realm of suspicion and, in our opinion, the
approach of the trial court and the High Court to the requirements
of proof in relation to a criminal charge was not proper. That
because of the actions of the appellants in breach of codal
provisions, instructions and procedural safeguards, the State may
have suffered financially, particularly by allotment of work on
nomination basis without inviting tenders, but those acts of
omission and commission by themselves do not establish the
commission of criminal offences alleged against them.” In C. K.
Jaffer Shareif (supra)177 it was observed, “….If in the process, the
Rules or Norms applicable were violated or the decision taken
shows an extravagant display of redundance 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 a
dishonest intention to obtain an undue pecuniary advantage will
not be correct.”
157. To sum up the discussion so far :
a) The prosecution is unable to prove its allegations
against the accused persons under the Prevention of177
C. K. Jaffer Shareif v. State, through CBI, (2013) 1 SCC 205CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 183 of 200
Corruption Act, 1988.
b) The prosecution is unable to prove that any of the
accused, particularly A-4 SFAPL and A-5 Anil K. Mangal,
had committed the offence of cheating.
c) The prosecution is unable to prove that the accused
persons had entered into criminal conspiracy punishable
under section 120B of IPC. It is not proved that the accused
persons had agreed to do, or cause to be done an illegal act,
or an act which is not illegal by illegal means.
d) Given the nature of acts complained of against A-1
Alok K. Sharan and A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi, sanction
under section 197(1) of CrPC was necessarily required.
158. In view of the above, all the accused persons are hereby
acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. File be
consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
MURARI
MURARI PRASAD
PRASAD SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.03.25
Announced in the open Court
15:39:10
+0200
today i.e. 25.03.2026 M. P. Singh
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-02
RACC/New Delhi/25.03.2026
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 184 of 200
ANNEXURE178
Chart for Prosecution Witnesses Examined :
Prosecution Witness No. Name of Witness Description
Details thereof are already set out in paragraph no. 59
Chart for Defence Witnesses Examined :
Defence Witness No. Name of Witness Description
Details thereof are already set out in paragraph no. 62Chart for Material Objects/Muddamals :
Material Object No. Description of the Proved by/Attested by
ExhibitNone
Chart of Exhibited Documents :
Sl. Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ No. Attested By
1. Ex. PW1/A DGCA office file (file no. AV-2211/3/2007- PW1, PW2,
PW11, PW12,
(colly) D-27 FG) relating to approval and operation of the PW13, PW14,
flying training institute (SFAPL). PW15, PW16,
PW18, PW20
PW22, PW23,
PW26, PW39,
PW40, PW43,
PW49
2. Ex. PW1/A1 SFAPL’s application dt. 25.01.2007 (together PW1, PW2,
(colly) D-27 with the annexures) to DGCA seeking PW11,
approval to establish flying training school. PW18178
This Annexure is appended in terms of the Apex Court judgment dt. 15.12.2015 titled Manojbhai
Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2803.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 185 of 200
3. Ex. PW1/A2 Two letters, both dt. 02.02.2007, of PW1 PW1
(colly) D-27 Praveen Kumar on DGCA’s behalf to
SFAPL. The first letter requires it to furnish
(i) NOC from airport owner, and (ii) the
financial soundness papers. The second letter
asks it to furnish security clearance of
Managing Director and six other Directors.
4. Ex. PW1/A3 SFAPL’s letter dt. 19.02.2007 together with PW1
D-27 financial soundness certificate issued by UTI
Bank, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi.
5. Ex. PW1/A4 DGCA’s letter dt. 27.04.2007, under Alok K. PW1, PW2
D-27 Sharan’s signature, to SFAPL thereby
permitting the latter to set up flying training
institute at Raipur Airport subject to 11
conditions specified therein.
6. Ex. PW2/A SFAPL’s letter dt. 16.07.2007, through its PW2,
D-27 Managing Director Anil K. Mangal, to PW11
DGCA for change of base to Bilaspur.
Together with this letter, copy of letter dt.
23.06.2007 of Anil Tuteja (Chhattisgarh
Government) was furnished whereby SFAPL
was given permission to use Bilaspur Airport
to establish a flying training school.
7. Ex. PW2/B Letter dt. 08.08.2007 of DGCA Section PW2
D-27 Officer S. C. Roy asking SFAPL to furnish
NOC from AAI from air traffic point of view
and space for parking and hangarage facility.
8. Ex. PW2/C Anil Kumar Mangal’s letter dt. 02.09.2007 PW2
D-27 submitting therewith letter/ NOC dt.
25.06.2007 issued by Prakash Shambharkar,
Airport Controller, AAI, Raipur qua Bilaspur
Airport.
9. Ex. PW2/D Letter dt. 14.09.2007 of Section Officer S.C. PW2
D-27 Roy to SFAPL’s Managing Director thereby
asking the latter to furnish specific reason for
change of base.
10. Ex. PW2/E SFAPL’s reply dt. 17.09.2007 in response to PW2
D-27 aforesaid letter dt. 14.09.2007 Ex. PW2/D.
11. Ex. PW2/F Alok K. Sharan’s letter dt. 18.09.2007 to PW2
D-27 SFAPL conveying approval of change of base
from Raipur to Bilaspur subject to 11
specified conditions.
12. Ex. PW3/A Office file no. AAI/ATM/OPS/04-66/2008 PW3, PW8
D-2 captioned ‘Works & Operation : Raipur
Airport’ that was maintained in office of AAI,
Delhi.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 186 of 200
13. Ex. PW3/A1 Letter dt. 24.06.2008 of S. P. Saha, Airport PW3
D-2 Controller, AAI, Raipur to Regional
Executive Director, AAI, Western Region,
Mumbai.
14. Ex. PW3/A2 Letter dt. 05.08.2008 of S. P. Saha, Airport PW3
D-2 Controller, AAI, Raipur to Directorate of
Aviation, Chhattisgarh Government thereby
conveying that SFAPL has been asked to stop
its flight operations forthwith.
15. Ex. PW3/A3 Letter dt. 11.11.2008 of PW8 M. C. Dangi, Jt. PW3, PW8
D-2 General Manager (OPS.), AAI, Delhi to
SFAPL thereby ‘once again advising’ the
latter to stop its flying operations, if not
already stopped.
16. Ex. PW3/A4 Tender notice dt. 21.05.2009 issued by AAI, PW3
D-2 Kolkata for construction of boundary wall
around AAI land at Bilaspur Airport.
17. Ex. PW3/B PW3’s letter dt. 06.02.2015 on AAI’s behalf PW3,
D-36 to CBI submitting thereby documents Ex. PW49
PW3/C.
18. Ex. PW3/C Internet downloaded copy of : (i) National PW3,
(colly) D-36 Airports Authority Act, 1985 (ii) Airports PW49
Authority of India Act, 1994, and (iii)
DGCA’s AIC179 no. 18/1996 dt. 21.05.1996.
19. Ex. PW3/D PW3’s letter dt. 04.03.2015 on AAI’s behalf PW3, PW8,
(colly) D-39 to CBI submitting therewith AAI’s Internal PW49
Office Note (ION) dt. 30.05.2006 vide which
a four member committee was set up to issue
NOC from air traffic point of view as also to
look into feasibility of land for hangar and
office space etc.
20. Ex. PW3/E PW3’s letter dt. 24.03.2015 on AAI’s behalf PW3,
D-51 to CBI submitting therewith the office file of PW49
M/s Touchwood Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
21. Ex. PW3/F (i) AAI’s ION dt. 30.05.2006 requiring PW3,
(colly) applicants to furnish specified information for PW49
D-52, D-53, D-54, NOC from air traffic point of view, (ii) NOC
D-55, D-56, D-57, dt. 04.01.2006 from air traffic point of view to
D-58 and D-59 Trade Wings Ltd. to establish Pilot Training
respectively
Academy at Sholapur, Maharashtra, (iii)
NOC dt. 01.03.2006 from air traffic point of
view to Multiple Manpower Development
Pvt. Ltd. to establish Flying Training
Institute/ College at Behala Aerodrome
(Kolkata), (iv) NOC dt. 02.05.2006 from air
traffic point of view to Amber Aviation
[India] Pvt. Ltd. to establish Flying Training
179
Acronym for ‘Aeronautical Information Circular’.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 187 of 200
Institute at Dehradun, (v) NOC dt.
20.03.2008 from air traffic point of view to
VKN Aviation Academy [P] Ltd. to establish
Flying Training Institute at Trichy Airport,
(vi) NOC dt. 17.02.2012 from air traffic point
of view to Blue Ray Aviation Pvt. Ltd. for
flying training activities at Osmanabad
Airport, (vii) NOC dt. 18.11.2013 from air
traffic point of view to Aditi Sky Hawks
Aviation Pvt. Ltd. for flying training
activities at Darima Airstrip, Ambikapur,
Chhattisgarh, (viii) NOC dt. 20.04.2014 to
Focus Energy Ltd. permitting construction of
airstrip and operation of aircraft operations at
village Langtala, Jaisalmer subject to the
specified conditions, including a need for
NOC from Air Force. AAI (HQs) issued all
these NOCs.
22. Ex. PW3/G Office file (file no. AAI/19-7/2006) qua M/s PW3,
(colly) D-63 Touchwood Entertainment Ltd. maintained in PW49
office of AAI (HQs).
23. Ex. PW4/A Letter dt. 06.06.2015 of Axis Bank, Lajpat PW4,
(colly) D-77 Nagar to CBI submitting therewith (i) copy of PW49
Akash Mangal’s bank account statement, (ii)
copy of voucher qua pay order dt. 13.01.2007
of Rs. 25,000/- favouring Central Pay &
Accounts Office, DGCA, and (iii) certificate
under The Bankers’ Books Evidence Act,
1891 and/or IT Act, 2000.
24. Ex. PW4/B Letter dt. 19.06.2015 of Axis Bank, Lajpat PW4,
(colly) D-78 Nagar to CBI furnishing therewith (i) copy of PW49
SFAPL’s account opening form, (ii) copy of
SFAPL’s bank account statement, and (iii)
certificate under The Bankers’ Books
Evidence Act, 1891 and/or IT Act, 2000.
25. Ex. PW5/A Letter dt. 08.06.2012 PW5 Pramod Kumar PW5
D-71 (AAI Raipur officer) to CBI on behalf of
AAI, Raipur furnishing therewith two office
files [Ex. PW5/B (colly) and Ex. PW5/C
(colly] of SFAPL.
26. Ex. PW5/B Office file of SFAPL (file no.1) maintained in PW5
(colly) D-72 the office of AAI, Raipur.
27. Ex. PW5/B-1 PW5’s letter dt. 31.08.2009 to Deputy PW5
D-72 Director, Air Traffic Management (ATM),
AAI, Delhi seeking advice whether SFAPL’s
flying activities be allowed to operate at
Raipur Airport. This letter was issued in
reference to letter dt. 11.11.2008 (Ex.
PW3/A3 at D-2) of PW8 M. C. Dangi.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 188 of 200
28. Ex. PW5/C Another office file of SFAPL (file no.2) PW5,
(colly) D-73 maintained in office of AAI, Raipur. PW10,
PW39
29. Ex. PW6/A PW6’s letter dt. 02.12.2014 to CBI PW6
(colly) D-30 submitting therewith documents qua
SFAPL’s registration (certificate of
incorporation, Memorandum and Articles of
Association etc.).
30. Ex. PW6/B PW6’s letter dt. 20.01.2015 to CBI PW6
(colly) D-31 submitting therewith few other documents
qua registration of SFAPL as a company
together with certificate under section 65B,
Indian Evidence Act.
31. Ex. PW7/A A-3 Prakash Shambharkar’s letter/NOC dt. PW7, PW2,
D-4 25.06.2007 issued to SFAPL qua Bilaspur PW8,
Airport. PW26
32. Ex. PW8/A Letter 28/29 September 2009 of Sunil Kumar PW8
D-2 Arora, General Manager, Land Management,
AAI, Delhi to the Army with respect to
latter’s request for transfer of 377 acres of
AAI land on permanent basis at Bilaspur
Airport.
33. Ex. PW8/DA Inter-departmental letter of Jyoti Prasad, PW8
General Manager (OPS), AAI, Delhi written
in July/August 2009 stating therein that issue
of Bilaspur Airport’s ownership may first be
resolved before formally acceding to Army’s
request to set up an aviation base at
Bilaspur.180
34. Ex. PW9/A Fax copy of letter at Page 11-C in file Ex. PW9
D-63 PW3/G having admitted signature of Prakash
Shambharkar at point A.
35. Ex. PW9/B letter dt. 05.01.2007 of A-5 Anil Kumar PW9,
D-79 Mangal on SFAPL’s behalf to the Airport PW26
Controller, AAI, Raipur seeking allotment of
space for parking, hangar, use of runway
provision for ATC services etc. at Raipur
Airport.
180
On record (D-2) there is a letter dt. 03.08.2009 (at page 224/C) under the signature of Jyoti
Prasad. Right beneath this, there is an unsigned letter (Draft For Approval) dt. 29.07.2009 (at page
223/C) with somewhat similar contents and bearing Jyoti Prasad’s name as the purported signatory. In
this context, in PW8’s oral evidence, it is mentioned, ” I identify the signatures of Jyoti Prasad on the
letter dated July 2009 concerning ownership of Bilaspur Airport and the said letter is Ex. PW-8/DA. ”
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 189 of 200
36. Ex. PW9/C Letter/NOC dt. 06.01.2007 A-3 Prakash PW9, PW8,
D-3 Shambharkar issued to SFAPL qua the PW26,
Raipur Airport. PW39
37. Ex. PW10/A AAI’s Internal Office Note (ION) dt. PW10
D-73 10.03.2008 issued under the signature of
PW10 Wilfred Kerketta, Manager (ATC),
Raipur concerning a complaint of Chief
Flying Instructor of Touchwood Aviation
against SFAPL qua an incident at Bilaspur.
38. Ex. PW11/A A-5 Anil K. Mangal’s letter dt. 19.02.2007 on PW11
D-27 SFAPL’s behalf to DGCA and SFAPL’s
financial soundness papers that were
submitted therewith.
39. Ex. PW11/B Letter dt. 24.04.2007 of A-5 Anil Kumar PW11
D-27 Mangal on SFAPL’s behalf submitting
therewith Form 32 papers of his company to
DGCA.
40. Ex. PW11/C SFAPL’s letter dt. 10.01.2008 under PW11’s PW11
D-27 signature to DGCA seeking approval for the
Academy at Bilaspur.
41. Ex. PW11/D A-5 Anil Kumar Mangal letter dt. 24.01.2008 PW11,
D-27 on SFAPL’s behalf to DGCA submitting PW16
therein the ATR (Action Taken Report) in
response to SFAPL’s inspection (first DGCA
inspection) conducted on 21/22.01.2008 by
T. Mohan Chandran, the then Assistant
Director (operations), DGCA
42. Ex. PW11/E SFAPL’s letters dt. 30.01.2008 to DGCA PW11
(colly) seeking approval for the Academy at the
D-27 earliest; another letter dt. 10.01.2008 of
SFAPL to DGCA submitting therewith three
copies of Operational Manual and Security
Manual.
43. Ex. PW11/F PW11’s letter dt. 11.04.2008 on SFAPL’s PW11
D-27 behalf to DGCA seeking extension of
approval for six months.
44. Ex. PW11/G PW11’s letter dt. 14.07.2008 on SFAPL’s PW11
D-27 behalf to DGCA seeking extension of
approval for six months.
45. Ex. PW11/H PW11’s letter dt. 29.10.2008 on SFAPL’s PW11
D-27 behalf to DGCA seeking extension of
approval for one year.
46. Ex. PW11/J Director Akash Mangal’s letter dt. PW11
D-27 27.01.2009 on SFAPL’s behalf to DGCA for
extension of approval by six months.
47. Ex. PW11/K Director Akash Mangal’s letter dt. PW11
D-27 20.07.2009 on SFAPL’s behalf to DGCA for
extension of approval.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 190 of 200
48. Ex. PW11/L Director Akash Mangal’s letter dt. PW11
D-27 22.10.2009 on SFAPL’s behalf to DGCA for
extension of approval.
49. Ex. PW11/M Director Akash Mangal’s letter dt. PW11
D-27 03.11.2010 on SFAPL’s behalf to DGCA for
extension of approval.
50. Ex. PW11/N Managing Director Anil K. Mangal’s letter PW11
D-27 dt. 13.11.2009 on SFAPL’s behalf to DGCA
submitting therewith the ATR (Action Taken
Report) on observations made in SFAPL’s
inspection (third DGCA inspection)
conducted by A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi
between 05.11.2009 to 07.11.2009.
51. Ex. PW12/A Undated complaint of Chandradeep Ekka PW12
D-27 (PW12/student) to Director of Training and
Licensing, DGCA against SFAPL.
52. Ex. PW13/A Complaint dt. 21.09.2011 to Director of PW13
D-27 Training and Licensing, DGCA against
SFAPL by PW13 (student).
53. Ex. PW14/A Report dt. 03.11.2009 prepared on the basis PW14
D-27 of inspection of SFAPL done by PW14
Ashim Taxali, Chief Flying Instructor of
SFAPL.
54. Ex. PW14/B Checklist for Oversight Programme of PW14
D-27 SFAPL dt. 06.10.2010 prepared by PW14
Ashim Taxali, Chief Flying Instructor of
SFAPL.
55. Ex. PW14/C Report dt. 29.12.2010 on SFAPL’s inspection PW14,
D-27 conducted (fourth DGCA inspection) on PW40
13/14.12.2010 by A-2 Captain L. Binodini
Devi.
56. Ex. PW14/D Action Taken Report dt. 30.12.2010 under PW14
D-27 Director Barkha Mangal’s signature in
response to the Inspection Report Ex.
PW14/C (fourth DGCA inspection).
57. Ex. PW15/A Certified copy of office Order dt. 02.01.2007 PW15,
D-33 on ‘Allocation of Duties to GAPS (General PW18
Aviation Promotion and Surveillance) Cell
Pilots’ issued by A-1 Alok K. Sharan.
58. Ex. PW15/B Report on the inspection (second DGCA PW15
D-27 inspection) conducted by Captain B. S. Nehra
(PW15) from 18.11.2008 to 20.11.2008.
59. Ex. PW15/C Letter dt. 03.12.2008 of A-2 Captain L. PW15
D-27 Binodini Devi to Director of Civil Aviation
(Ops.), Raipur, seeking clarification as to
whether AAI or State Government is the
rightful owner of the Bilaspur Airport.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 191 of 200
60. Ex. PW15/D Letter dt. 05.11.2008 of A-2 Captain L. PW15
D-27 Binodini Devi to SFAPL conveying
extension of approval from 08.11.2008 to
07.02.2009. This is the 3rd extension to
SFAPL and the 1st one by A-2.
61. Ex. PW15/E DGCA letter dt. 01.01.2009 under the PW15
D-27 signature of its Section Officer Ram Charan
forwarding therewith Inspection report (Ex.
PW15/B) to SFAPL and asking the latter to
file ATR.
62. Ex. PW16/A PW16’s letter dt. 19.09.2007 on DGCA’s PW16
D-27 behalf to Secretary, Ministry of Civil
Aviation conveying DGCA’s no objection to
import of two Cessna-152 aircrafts for flying
training.
63. Ex. PW16/B DGCA’s letter dt. 07.02.2008 (Ex. PW16/B) PW16
D-27 under A-1 Alok K. Sharan’s signature to
SFAPL conveying grant of ‘provisional
approval’ to start flying training activities at
Bilaspur Airport for three months, subject to
the specified conditions. This has its
foundation in the approval dt. 05.02.2008
given by the then Joint Director General of
Civil Aviation, Arun Kumar Chopra (PW23).
64. Ex. PW16/C A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi’s letter dt. PW16
D-27 21.07.2008 to SFAPL asking it to offer its
comments on complaint dt. 26.05.2008 of one
Rashmi Mittal about illegal flying.
65. Ex. PW16/D A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi’s letter dt. PW16
D-27 30.01.2009 to SFAPL conveying extension of
approval for six months from 08.02.2009 to
07.08.2009. This is the 4th extension to
SFAPL and the 2nd one by A-2.
66. Ex. PW16/E A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi’s letter dt. PW16
D-27 30.09.2009 to SFAPL conveying extension of
approval for a month from 08.10.2009 to
07.11.2009. This is the 6th extension to
SFAPL and the 4th by A-2.
67. Ex. PW16/F A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi’s letter dt. PW16
D-27 09.11.2009181 to SFAPL conveying extension
of approval for a month from 07.11.2009 to
06.12.2009. This is the 7th extension to
SFAPL and the 5th one by A-2. Vide this
letter, SFAPL was also asked to furnish ATR
on the observations made in inspection
conducted by A-2 Capt. L. Binodini Devi
from 05.11.2009 to 07.11.2009.
181
In PW16’s oral evidence the date of this letter is wrongly mentioned as 09.09.2009 .
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 192 of 200
68. Ex. PW16/G Surveillance inspection summary dt. PW16
D-27 09.11.2009 of the inspection done by Capt. L.
Binodini Devi (A-2) from 05.11.2009 to
07.11.2009.
69. Ex. PW16/H A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi’s letter dt. PW16
D-27 30.11.2009 to SFAPL conveying extension of
approval for a year from 08.11.2009 to
07.11.2010. This is the 8th extension to
SFAPL and the 6th by A-2.
70. Ex. PW16/J Inspection Report qua third DGCA inspection PW16
D-27 of SFAPL done by A-2 Captain L. Binodini
Devi from 05.11.2009 to 07.11.2009.
71. Ex. PW16/K Letter dt. 09.09.2010 of A-1 Alok K. Sharan PW16
D-27 in vernacular Hindi asking SFAPL to convey
a date for its inspection and to cooperate in
the inspection.
72. Ex. PW16/L A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi’s letter dt. PW16
D-27 30.12.2010 to SFAPL conveying extension of
approval for a year from 30.12.2010 to
29.12.2011. This is the 11th extension to
SFAPL and the 7th by A-2.
73. Ex. PW16/M A-1 Alok K. Sharan’s letter dt. 08.11.2010 to PW16
D-27 SFAPL conveying temporary extension of
approval till 30.11.2010. This is the 9th
extension to SFAPL and the 3rd by A-1.
74. Ex. PW16/N A-2 Captain L. Binodini Devi’s letter dt. PW16
D-27 28.10.2010 to SFAPL asking it to submit
ATR within 15 days qua the inspection (4th
DGCA inspection of SFAPL) conducted from
13.12.2010 to 14.12.2010 by A-2.
75. Ex. PW17/A Report of Special Audit of SFAPL conducted PW17
(colly) D-29 by a team of three officers that included
PW17 Captain Arun Mann. This special audit
was conducted in Bilaspur between
20.09.2011 to 23.09.2011.
76. Mark DGCA Office noting dt. 27.10.2010. PW17
PW-17/A-2/D
-1
D-27
77. Ex. PW18 Deepak Raina’s statement under PW18
PW18/A-1/D- section 161 CrPC.
1
78. Ex. PW19/A Letter dt. 08.12.2014182 of PW19 Gopal Singh PW19
(colly) D-32 (a DGCA official) to CBI, submitting
therewith several DGCA office orders.
182
In PW19’s oral evidence the date of this letter is wrongly mentioned as 08.12.2016.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 193 of 200
79. Ex. PW19/B Letter dt. 19.12.2014 of PW19 Gopal Singh PW19
(colly) D-33 (DGCA officer) to CBI, submitting therewith
service particulars of A-1 Alok K. Sharan and
A-2 Capt. L. Binodini Devi.
80. Ex. PW19/C Letter dt. 19.01.2015 of PW19 Gopal Singh PW19,
(colly) D-34 (DGCA officer) to CBI submitting therewith PW49
copies of Alok K. Sharan’s promotion orders.
81. Ex. PW20/A Complaint dt. 21.09.2011 of PW20 Arun PW20
D-27 Kumar Singh (student) against SFAPL.
82. Ex. PW21/A DGCA officer PW21 Sunil Kumar’s letter dt. PW21,
(colly) 26.05.2015 to CBI submitting therewith copy PW49
D-61 and D-62 of Gazette Notification S.O. 726 (E) dt.
04.10.1994.
83. Ex. PW21/B DGCA officer PW21 Sunil Kumar’s letter dt. PW21,
D-64 17.04.2015 to CBI submitting therewith PW49
documents Ex. PW21/C, Ex. PW21/D (colly).
84. Ex. PW21/C The Aircraft Manual containing the Aircraft PW21,
D-65 Act, 1934 and several Rules made thereunder PW49
including Aircraft Rules, 1937.
85. Ex. PW21/D Several CARs issued by DGCA, including PW21,
(colly) D-66 the CAR, Section 7 Series ‘D’ Part 1 Issue 1 PW49
on the subject ‘Approval of Flying Training
Institutes’.
86. Ex. PW22/A Complaint dt. 02.06.2009 of one Sanjay Kr. PW22
D-27 Pandey to DGCA alleging that SFAPL’s
Director, Dr. Gunjan Gupta, misled the public
by falsely claiming in a press statement that
six SFAPL students were appointed as pilots
in Air India, and by stating that Physics or
Mathematics at 10+2 level was mandatory for
pilot training.
87. Ex. Section 161 CrPC statement of PW22 Arvind PW22
PW22/D1A1 Sardana, a DGCA officer.
88. Ex. Section 161 CrPC statement of PW23 Arun PW23
PW23/D1A5 Kr. Chopra, the then Joint Director General of
Civil Aviation.
89. Ex. PW24/A Letter dt. 06.07.2012 of PW24 Yashraj PW24,
D-69 Tongia (DGCA) to CBI, addressing few PW49
queries on DGCA’s decisions regarding
SFAPL; to one query he stated that Capt. L.
Binodini Devi (A-2) was incompetent to
grant extensions.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 194 of 200
90. Ex. PW24/B Letter dt. 23.08.2012 of PW24 Yashraj PW24,
D-70 Tongia (DGCA) to CBI, addressing two PW49
queries about : (i) number of DGCA
approvals granted from 2007 to 2010 sans
NOC from airport owner and AAI, (ii) and
number of approvals granted during same
period by relaxing fencing condition.
91. Ex. Section 161 CrPC statement of PW24 PW24
PW24/D1A3 Yashraj Tongia.
92. Ex. PW25/A Income Tax Returns of Wohlstand Impex Pvt. PW25,
D-60 Ltd. (earlier Sai Flytech Aviation Pvt. Ltd.) of PW49
AY 2007-08 to AY 2012-13.
93. Ex. PW25/B Letter dt. 21.05.2015 to CBI by PW25 Tunda PW25,
D-60 Ram Meena (Income Tax Officer). PW49
94. Ex. PW26/A CFSL handwriting report dt. 02.12.2015 of PW26,
D-81 PW26 Dr. Reeta R. Gupta. PW49
95. Ex. PW26/B CFSL letter dt. 11.12.2015 thereby PW26,
D-81 forwarding CFSL Report (Ex. PW26/A) to PW49
CBI.
96. Ex. PW27/A Letter dt. 20.04.2015 of SDM, Tehsil Bilha, PW27,
(colly) D-41 Bilaspur to CBI together with revenue PW49
records and map of Chakarbhata (Bilaspur)
Airstrip.
97. Ex. PW28/A Khasra form of villages Chakrabhata and PW28,
(colly) D-41 Tilsara that surround Bilaspur airstrip. PW31
98. Ex. PW29/A Khasra form of village Bodari that surrounds PW29,
(colly) D-41 Bilaspur airstrip. PW31
99. Ex. PW30/A Khasra form of village Rehangi that PW30,
(colly) D-41 surrounds Bilaspur airstrip. PW31
100. Ex. PW31/A PW31’s letter dt. 20.04.2015 to CBI PW31,
D-42 forwarding therewith documents Ex. PW31/B PW49
(colly).
101. Ex. PW31/B Certified copies of order sheets and order of PW31,
(colly) D-42 Tehsildar and SDO of Tehsil Bilha and other PW49
revenue records.
102. Ex. Section 161 CrPC statement of PW31 Jugal PW31
PW31/A4-D1 Kishore Urvasha.
103. Ex. PW32/A Letter dt. 22.04.2015 of PW32 Niraj PW32,
D-44 Srivastava (AAI Raipur official) to CBI PW49
forwarding therewith documents Ex. PW32/B
(colly).
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 195 of 200
104. Ex. PW32/B Certified copy of statement of arrival and PW32,
(colly) D-44 departure of SFAPL’s flights operations at PW49
Raipur from 01.01.2008 to 30.12.2010 with
certificate of section 65B, Indian Evidence
Act.
105. Ex. PW32/C Admitted signatures of Prakash Shambharkar PW32,
(colly) (A-3) on the following: (i) Fax message dt. PW26,
D-82, D-83, D-84 29.11.2006 to GM (Engg.), WR, Mumbai PW49
and D-85 containing his admitted signature, (b) undated
respectively letter to Hotel Babylon International Ltd.,
Raipur asking it to furnish specified
information, for AAI was in process of
empanelment of hotels in Raipur for its
executives on tour from different stations, (c)
report of survey conducted from 08.11.2006
to 11.11.2006 of vehicles parked in car
parking area of Raipur Airport, and (d) letter
dt. 04.01.2007 addressed to Flyjet Airways
Pvt. Ltd., Delhi.
106. Ex. PW33/A Letter dt. 20.04.2015 of V. S. Koram, PW33,
D-43 Executive Engineer, Sub-Division-1, PWD, PW49
Bilaspur to CBI furnishing therewith
documents Ex. PW33/B (colly).
107. Ex. PW33/B PWD’s letter of estimate qua boundary wall PW33,
(colly) D-43 of Chakrabhata airstrip, proforma of PW49
expenditure for inclusion/addition in the
budget, and detailed estimate of construction
of compound wall around the airstrip.
108. Ex. Section 161 CrPC statement of PW33 S. K. PW33
PW33/A1D1 Satpathi (a PWD Bilaspur official)
109. Ex. PW34/A Letter dt. 22.04.2015 of PW34 V. K. Suri PW34,
D-45 (AAI Raipur official) to CBI furnishing PW49
therewith documents Ex. PW34/B (colly).
110. Ex. PW34/B Certified copies of documents pertaining to PW34,
(colly) D-45 award of tender by AAI for raising of fencing PW42,
wall around Bilaspur airstrip, including PW49
PW34’s letter dt. 24.12.2012 qua foreclosure
of the fencing work.
111. Ex. Section 161 CrPC statement of PW34 V. K. PW34
PW34/DA- Suri.
4&5
112. Ex. PW35/A Letter dt. 10.02.2015 of PW35 Shripal PW35,
D-37 (official of Directorate of Aviation, PW49
Chhattisgarh Govt.) to CBI furnishing
therewith documents Ex. PW35/B (colly).
113. Ex. PW35/B Chhattisgarh Govt. notice dt. 30.03.2007 PW35
D-37 inviting proposals from DGCA approved
aviation organisations to establish Flying
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 196 of 200
Club/Academy in Chhattisgarh and other
related papers, including (a) State Govt. letter
dt. 23.06.2007 to SFAPL conveying that it
had been awarded the tender to establish
flying club at Bilaspur Airport and another
State Govt., (b) letter dt. 19.10.2007 to AAI,
Delhi asking it to look into the matter of
construction of boundary wall around
Bilaspur Airport and do the needful at the
earliest, and (c) letter dt. 26.02.2009 of S. P.
Saha (Airport Controller, AAI, Raipur) to
Collector, Bilaspur requesting for land
demarcation as AAI was taking up fencing
work of Bilaspur Airport.
114. Ex. PW36/A Specimen writings/signatures [S-37 to S-50] PW36,
(colly) D-90 of Captain L. Binodini Devi (A-2). PW26,
PW49
115. Ex. PW37/A Specimen signatures/ writings [S-1 to S-15] PW37,
(colly) D-86 of Prakash Shambharkar (A-3). PW26,
PW49
116. Ex. PW38/A Specimen writings/signatures of A-1 Alok K. PW38,
(colly) Sharan [S-26 to S-30]. PW26,
D-88 PW49
117. Ex. PW38/B Specimen writings/signatures of A-1 Alok K. PW38,
(colly) Sharan [S-31 to S-36] PW26,
D-89 PW49
118. Ex. PW38/C Specimen writings/signatures of A-5 Anil K. PW38,
(colly) Mangal [S-16 to S-25] PW26,
D-87 PW49
119. Ex. PW39/A Letter dt. 06.02.2015 of PW39 Anil Kumar PW39,
D-76 Rai (Airport Controller, Raipur in 2009-2015) PW49
to CBI furnishing therewith documents Ex.
PW39/B (colly).
120. Ex. PW39/B Copy of Flight Arrival Departure Register of PW39,
D-76 Raipur Airport from March 2008 to PW49
December 2010.
121. Ex. PW39/C Letter dt. 10.03.2008 of G. K. Khare (Airport PW39
D-73 Controller, AAI, Raipur) to SFAPL asking it
to immediately stop its flying activities.
122. Ex. PW39/D Letter dt. 05.05.2011 of PW39 Anil Kumar PW39
D-73 Rai (Airport Controller, AAI, Raipur) to
Executive Director (LM), AAI, Delhi
conveying SFAPL’s position that it saw no
reason to stop flying.
123. Ex. PW40/A Preliminary inquiry submitted in the form of PW40,
D-38 complaint dt. 17.09.2014 to SP, CBI. PW49
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 197 of 200
124. Ex. PW40/B Letter dt. 15.05.2012 of E. Lakra (DGCA PW40
in chargesheet file officer) thereby furnishing to CBI : (i) Ex.
PW1/A (colly) at D-27, (ii) CAR on subject
‘Approval of Flying Training Institutes’ at
D-28 (iii) Special Audit Ex. PW17/A at
(D-29).
125. Ex. PW40/C Handing / taking over memo dt. 13.07.2012 PW40
in chargesheet file under the signatures of PW40 DSP Satendra
Singh and A-5 Anil K. Mangal whereby the
latter submitted to former several documents
relating to flight authorisations and engine
log books which are at D-19 to D-26.
126. Ex. PW40/D Handing / taking over memo dt. 08.06.2012 PW40
in chargesheet file under the signatures of PW40 DSP Satendra
Singh and A-5 Anil K. Mangal whereby the
latter submitted to former several documents
relating to this case.
127. Ex. PW40/E Letter dt. 07.06.2012 of A-5 Anil K. Mangal PW40
in chargesheet file thereby
forwarding certain information as
also documents to PW40 DSP Satendra
Singh.
128. Ex. PW41/A Letter dt. 29.06.2015 of Praveen Kr. Topo, PW41,
D-75 Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Jharkhand PW49
Govt. to CBI together with documents qua
award of tender and payment to SFAPL for
training of 30 Jharkhand students. This
includes : (i) Alok K. Sharan’s letter dt.
13.09.2010 to Jharkhand Govt. stating that
SFAPL fulfilled all CAR conditions, and (ii)
Agreement dt. 22.10.2010 executed between
SFAPL and Jharkhand Govt.
129. Ex. PW43/A Complaint dt. 24.10.2011 of student Ashwin PW43
D-27 Bikrant Tete (PW43) against SFAPL.
130. Ex. PW44/A Sanction for prosecution dt. 31.12.2015 qua PW44,
in chargesheet file Prakash Shambharkar (A-3) under section 19 PW49
(1) (c) of PC Act and section 197 of CrPC.
131. Ex. PW45/A Memorandum of Association and Articles of PW45
D-27 Association of SFAPL.
132. Ex. PW48/A Vide his letter dt. 01.05.2015 PW48 Virendra PW48,
D-74 Prakash Singh (DGCA officer) had handed PW49
over to CBI the following: (a) DGCA office
file Ex. PW48/B (colly), (b) DGCA office file
Ex. PW48/C (colly), (c) DGCA office file Ex.
PW48/D (colly), (d) DGCA office file Ex.
PW48/E (colly), and (e) DGCA office file Ex.
PW48/F (colly).
133. Ex. PW48/B DGCA office file qua Rainbow Aviation PW48,
(colly) D-46 Academy for approval of flying school at PW49
Surat.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 198 of 200
134. Ex. PW48/C DGCA office file qua Sky Master Aviation PW48,
(colly) D-47 for approval of flying school at Rewa Airport, PW49
Madhya Pradesh.
135. Ex. PW48/D DGCA office file qua Trans Bharat Aviation PW48,
(colly) D-48 Pvt. Ltd. for approval of flying school at PW49
Behala Airport, Kolkata.
136. Ex. PW48/E DGCA office file qua International Aviation PW48,
(colly) D-49 Academy for approval of flying school at PW49
Salem Airport.
137. Ex. PW48/F DGCA office file qua Southern Pilot Training PW48,
(colly) D-50 Academy for approval of flying school at PW49
Salem Airport.
138. Ex. PW48/G Covering letter dt. 21.05.2015 of V. K. Gupta PW48,
(colly) D-40 (DGCA officer) addressed to CBI along with PW49
response of PW22 Arvind Sardana, the then
Joint Director General of Civil Aviation
addressing various queries of CBI on
interpretation of CAR.
139. Ex. Section 161 CrPC statement of PW48 PW48
PW48/DA-1 Virendra Prakash Singh (DGCA officer).
140. Ex. PW49/A FIR PW49
in chargesheet file
and also at D-1
141. Ex. PW49/B Letter dt. 23.01.2015 of N. V. Subbarayudu PW49
D-35 (AAI officer) to CBI together with AAI ION
dt. 20.01.2015 that was submitted therewith.
142. Ex. PW49/C Letter dt. 13.05.2015 of V. K. Gupta (DGCA PW49
D-67 and D-68 officer) to CBI together with Special Audit
file of SFAPL.
143. Ex. PW49/D Akash Mangal’s covering letter to CBI dt. PW49
D-79 27.04.2015 forwarding therewith copy of
Anil K. Mangal’s letter dt. 05.01.2007 written
to AAI, Raipur seeking allotment of parking
space, hangar, runway etc. at Raipur.
144. Ex. PW49/E CBI’s letter dt. 30.04.2015 to CFSL seeking PW49
D-80 forensic opinion on handwritings/signatures
of A-3 Prakash Shambharkar.
145. Ex. PW49/F CBI’s letter dt. 20.08.2015 to CFSL seeking PW49
D-80 forensic opinion on handwritings/signatures
of A-1 Alok K. Sharan, A-2 Capt. L. Binodini
Devi and A-5 Anil K. Mangal.
CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 199 of 200
146. Ex.PW49/DA Alok K. Sharan’s letter dt. 13.09.2010 to PW49
D-27 (also at Jharkhand Govt. to the effect, inter alia, that
D-75) SFAPL fulfilled all CAR guidelines.
147. Ex. DW1/A2- Letter no. A-22012/02/2007-EA(Pt.-I) dt. DW1A2
D1 15th/27th June, 2007 of AAI, Raipur to
in evidence file Regional Executive Director, AAI, Mumbai
conveying that Air Controller Raipur, (A-3
Prakash Shambharkar) stood transferred to
Mumbai with immediate effect.
148. Ex. DW2- Notification no. 32-10/81/PPS dt. 14.09.1982 DW2A2
A2/D1 whereby President of India appointed L.
in evidence file Binodini Devi (A-2) as Junior Pilot with
effect from 02.08.1982.
149. Ex. DW2- Notification dt. 30.09.1985 confirming the DW2A2
A2/D2 services of L. Binodini Devi with effect from
in evidence file 02.08.1984
Digitally signed
MURARI by MURARI
PRASAD SINGH
PRASAD Date:
SINGH 15:38:56 +0200
2026.03.25M. P. Singh
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-02
RACC/New Delhi/25.03.2026CBI/378/19 CBI v. Alok Kumar Sharan & Ors. Page 200 of 200
