Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Brij Mohan Sethi(New Anamika Cghs) on 29 July, 2025
DLCT110009422019
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI KLER
SPL. JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI-18
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
CNR No. DLCT110009422019
Case No. CBI/244/2019
FIR No. : RC-10A/2006/SCU-V/SCR-II/CBI
u/Sec. 120B r/w 419/420/465/468/471 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act.
Central Bureau of Investigation
Vs.
1. Brij Mohan Sethi (Proceedings abated vide Order dated 20.10.2009)
S/o Late Sh. Hira Lal Sethi
R/o L-8, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi
2. Narender Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Jagat Ram
R/o House No. 394, D, J & K Pocket
Dilshand Garden, Delhi
3. Sri Chand (Proceedings abated vide Order dated 23.12.2024)
S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh
R/o House No. 274-A, Pocket-C
Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi
4. Raman Kumar Vij
S/o Late Raghubir Saran Vij
R/o House No. A-85, Preet Vihar
Delhi-110092
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 1/168
5. Nitesh Kumar Vij
S/o Sh. Raman Kumar Vij
R/o House No. A-85, Preet Vihar
Delhi-110092
6. Karam Vir Singh
S/o Late Sh. Shobha Chand
R/o 1908-M, Regalia Height
Indirapuram, Shipra Sun City
Ghaziabad, U.P. - 201014
Earlier at:
House No. D-36, Pocket-B
Mayur Vihar, Phase-II
Delhi
7. Harvinder Singh
S/o Sardar Harbhansh Singh
R/o House No. 353-354, Bharat Nagar
Near Ashok Vihar
Delhi - 110052
8. Baij Nath (Proceedings abated vide Order dated 07.04.2014)
S/o Late Sohan Lal
R/o House No. 29/13, Old Rajender Nagar
New Delhi
9. Vijay Kishan Chaturvedi
(Proceedings abated vide Order dated 30.09.2013)
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishore Chaturvedi
R/o House No. 1786, Sohan Ganj
Subzi Mandi
New Delhi-110007.
.....Accused Persons
Date of Institution : 26.05.2008
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 2/168
Date on which Judgment Reserved : 26.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 29.07.2025
Decision : Acquittal
JUDGMENT
Background
1. The Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 (erstwhile ‘Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act, 1972‘, in short ‘ DCS’ Act) was enacted with an
objective ‘to facilitate the voluntary formation and democratic functioning of
co-operatives as people’s institutions based on self help & mutual aid to
enable them to promote their economic & social betterment and to provide
for better regulation, management & functional autonomy of such societies.’
2. The Co-operative Group Housing Societies (hereinafter ‘CGHS’)
registered under the DCS Act, 1972 were formed with an objective to provide
affordable housing to its members. Profit making was not the aim of these
societies. Land used to be allotted to these societies by the Delhi
Development Authority (hereinafter ‘DDA’) on concessional rates to enable
them to achieve their objective.
3. This co-operative movement took a hit in Delhi as a nexus had
developed between the builders & officials of Registrar of Co-Operative
Societies (hereinafter ‘RCS’) & DDA, which led to selling of houses built
under the CGHS scheme, at market value. The unholy alliance of builders
and officials earned huge profits under the garb of co-operative movement
thereby defeating its purpose. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi made these
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 3/168
observations in the Criminal Writ Petition No. 10066/20041 and directed vide
Order dated 13.02.2006 that an investigation be carried out into the nexus of
builders and officials of DDA & RCS. 97 CGHS were investigated pursuant
to the said Order. New Anamika CGHS (hereinafter also referred as
‘Society’) was one of those.
Preliminary Inquiry
4. CBI conducted a preliminary inquiry against New Anamika CGHS
before registration of FIR, which revealed that the Society had submitted
false documents in the office of RCS with their request for revival and the
RCS officials did not follow the prescribed procedure while dealing with that
application. Hence, the FIR, which is subject matter of this trial, was
registered.
Allegations
5. It is alleged in the FIR that New Anamika CGHS was registered with
the RCS on 19.11.1983. It was liquidated under the Order dated 25.01.1991.
On 03.12.1998, a letter, purportedly written by one R. K. Chaudhary, for
seeking revival of the Society, was received in the office of RCS. Another
letter for seeking change of address of the Society had been received before
the aforesaid letter for seeking of revival. False documents were filed in the
office of RCS in support of the application for revival. The Society was
revived illegally in conspiracy with the officials of RCS.
1
Yogi Raj Krishna CGHS v. DDA & Ors.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 4/168
6. The accused Sri Chand (since expired), Raman Kumar Vij, Narender
Kumar and B. M. Sethi were named in the FIR as co-conspirators. The FIR
was registered with the allegations that the afore-named accused persons had
committed the offences punishable u/Sec. 120B r/w Section 419/420/468/471
IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (hereinafter ‘PC Act‘) in conspiracy with other unknown persons.
Investigation & Chargesheet
7. Investigation was conducted by the CBI after registration of FIR. It
emerged from the investigation as below:-
7.1. The New Anamika CGHS was registered on 19.11.1983 with address
as 1786, Sohanganj, Sabji Mandi, Delhi. It consisted of 60 promoter
members.
7.2. The Society was not functioning in accordance with the provisions of
DCS Act, 1972 and the rules & bye-laws framed thereunder. Hence, an Order
for its winding up was issued on 25.01.1991.
7.3. A letter dated 27.10.1998, purportedly signed by one R. K.
Chaudhary as Secretary of the Society, was received in the office of RCS,
Delhi. Vide this letter Society had intimated about the change of its address to
D-9, Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi.
7.4. Another letter dated 03.12.1998 was received in the office of RCS
wherein a request was made on behalf of the Society for its revival. It was
disclosed in this letter that the Society had resolved in its General Body
Meeting held on 20.11.1998 that its revival be sought.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 5/168
7.5. It was found out during the investigation that aforesaid two letters,
purportedly signed by R. K. Chaudhary, were actually signed by the accused
Sri Chand (since expired). He had forged the signatures of R. K. Chaudhary,
who was not at all associated with the Society. Accused Sri Chand had shown
his relatives as Office bearers of the Society and forged their signature on
various documents. Kamal Singh, brother-in-law of accused Sri Chand, was
shown by him as President of the Society during its revival.
7.6. The accused Brij Mohan Sethi (B. M. Sethi), Narender Kumar,
Karamvir Singh and Harvinder Singh were working in the office of RCS
during the year 1998 to 2000 as Assistant Registrar, UDC (Grade-IV),
UDC/Liquidator and Statistical Investigator/Dealing Assistant respectively.
Hence, they fell in the ambit of the term ‘public servant’.
7.7. The accused Karamvir Singh was appointed as liquidator vide Order
dated 18.01.1999 by the Deputy Registrar (South). He sought permission for
conducting a special GBM of the members of the Society to discuss the
matter of revival. Permission was granted by the RCS on 21.01.1999.
Karamvir Singh however did not conduct the special GBM and instead
submitted a false and fabricated report dated 08.02.1999 to the Assistant
Registrar intimating that special GBM of the Society was held on 06.02.1999
at D-9, Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi. The persons who were shown
to have attended the aforesaid special GBM were examined by the CBI in the
course of investigation. They denied their signature on the minutes of
meeting and disclosed that no such meeting was ever held. Owner of the
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 6/168
premises bearing No. D-9, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, namely, K.L.
Pehlwal, also disclosed to the same effect during his examination.
7.8. Accused Karamvir Singh recommended for revival of the Society
through an Office Noting dated 15.02.1999. The Society was revived vide
Order dated 26.04.1999 by the then RCS Gopal Dixit, on the basis of false
report of accused Karamvir Singh.
7.9. Accused Narender Kumar was appointed as Election Officer for
electing the office bearers of the Society, after its revival. He did not conduct
the election and rather submitted a false report along with false election
proceedings dated 06.06.1999. The persons who were shown to have
attended the election, disclosed to the CBI during their examination in the
course of investigation that they did not participate in any election. They also
denied their signatures on the election proceedings.
7.10. Accused Harvinder Singh submitted a false and incorrect Office
Noting on 21.06.1999 in the office of RCS. He mentioned in the Noting that
the documents filed by the Society had been verified. He recommended for
approval of the final list of 75 members of the Society for further
transmission to DDA for allotment of land. This Noting was recommended
for approval by the accused B. M. Sethi, however, the JR (South) referred the
file back asking if the resignations were genuine and all the enrollments were
strictly as per applicable rules.
7.11. Accused Harvinder Singh had again put up a Noting dated
06.07.1999 in response to the above, informing that the resignations were
checked and found in order. Accused Harvinder Singh also informed that four
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 7/168
resignations were verified as test check and found to be correct. However,
investigation disclosed that out of the four resignations claimed to have been
verified by accused Harvinder Singh, 3 resignations were bogus.
7.12. Accused B. M. Sethi deliberately and dishonestly recommended for
revival of the Society despite the fact that the revival application, affidavit of
Secretary, minutes of meeting etc. were forged. He acted dishonestly even
while recommending for the approval of final list of members.
7.13. The Society came under the control of accused Raman Kumar Vij
and his son Nitesh Kumar Vij after revival and approval of final list. They
appointed the accused Sri Chand as consultant and in furtherance of criminal
conspiracy forged resignations, audit reports and also got enrolled their own
relatives / employees as members of the Society. This false record was
submitted to the office of RCS by the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij.
7.14. The GEQD opined that the accused Raman Kumar Vij had written
bogus proceedings dated 11.03.2003 and 15.07.2003 (mentioned as
15.03.2003 in the charge-sheet but no such proceedings on record ). Nitesh
Kumar Vij had submitted bogus minutes of meetings regarding change of
address, to the office of RCS. He had written the letters dated 17.02.2002 and
03.06.2002 to the DDA. He was shown elected in the meeting dated
24.11.2002 but no such meeting had taken place. A sum of Rs.25 lacs, for
making payment towards the land allotted by the DDA, was also arranged by
the accused Raman Kumar Vij and Nitesh Kumar Vij from one Sunil Kumar
Kohli on the condition that the work related to construction of flats of the
Society shall be given to him at competitive market rates.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 8/168
7.15. DDA had allotted land to the Society at Plot No.9, Dhirpur, but its
possession was not taken by the Society.
7.16. Investigation also revealed that accused Baij Nath (since expired) and
Vijay Kishan Chaturvedi (since expired) were the Secretaries of the Society
respectively when the Society was wound up and when it was formed. They
were part of criminal conspiracy as they had signed the bogus minutes of
meetings dated 11.11.1990, 25.01.1991 and 14.04.1991, for the period prior
to the revival of the Society. Accused Baij Nath was also the custodian of the
record of the Society.
8. In view of the aforesaid revelations during investigation, CBI filed a
chargesheet against all the afore-named nine accused persons for the offences
punishable u/Sec. 120B IPC r/w Section 419/420/468/471 IPC and Section
13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. Sanction for prosecution as
per Section 19 PC Act, 1988 was obtained against the accused public
servants, namely, Narender Kumar, Karam Vir Singh and Harvinder Singh.
B. M. Sethi was also an official of RCS, however, sanction for his prosecution
was not obtained because he had already retired from service when the
chargesheet in this case was filed.
Pre-Trial Proceedings
9. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Court on filing of
chargesheet. Section 207 Cr.P.C. was complied.
10. Arguments on the point of charge were heard.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 9/168
11. Charge for the offences punishable u/Sec. 120B & Section
419/420/468/471 IPC & Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
r/w Sec. 120B IPC as well as the substantive offences thereof, was framed
against all the above-named nine accused persons on 24.01.2012. The charge
was explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
12. Accused Brij Mohan Sethi had expired during pendency of the case
and proceedings against him stood abated vide Order dated 20.10.2009 i.e.
before framing of charge. However, since the allegations were of conspiracy,
while charging the other 8 accused persons, reference to accused Brij Mohan
Sethi has also been made in the charge.
13. Accused Baij Nath, Vijay Kishan Chaturvedi and Sri Chand had
expired during pendency of the trial after framing of charge. The proceedings
against them stood abated vide Orders dated 07.04.2014, 30.09.2013 and
23.12.2024 respectively.
Evidence of Prosecution
14. The prosecution has examined total 45 witnesses in order to prove its
case. These witnesses can be put into various categories. The testimonies of
prosecution witnesses under each category shall be discussed in brief in the
forthcoming paragraphs.
15. The first category is of those witnesses who stated that they became
members of the Society around the time of its formation in the year
1983/1984. The details of those 10 witnesses are as below: –
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 10/168
S.No. Name of Witness Examined as If cross-examined
15.1. Gulshan Kumar PW-1 by A-6.
15.2. Arun Kumar PW-2 by A-3, A-6 & A-7.
15.3. Ved Kumar PW-3 by CBI on having been
declared hostile.
15.4. Sarbjeet Singh Sandhu PW-8 No.
15.5. Promod Kishan Nigam PW-11 by A-3 & A-6
15.6. Som Nath Dem PW-15 by A-3 & A-6
15.7. Kedar Nath PW-17 by A-2, A-6 & A-7
15.8. Anil Mohan Chaturvedi PW-18 by A-2 & A-6
15.9. Kamal Krishan Nigam PW-22 by A-2 & A-6
15.10. Ashok Kumar PW-28 by CBI on having been
declared hostile;
by A-3 & A-6
16. Various documents were put to these witnesses and their signatures
were shown to them. Some of the signatures were identified and owned up by
the witnesses while the remaining ones were denied. Details of the
documents are as below: –
S.No. Description of the Document Exhibit No. Relevant
Document No. & Page Deposition
No.
16.1. Bye-laws of the D-2 Ex.PW1/A His signature
Society with list of (Page 3/C identified by
promoter members to PW-1 at serial
appended along. 10/C) no. 32 marked as
point X.His signature
identified by
PW-8 at serialCBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 11/168
no. 37 marked as
point X.
16.2. Affidavit dated D-2 Ex.PW1/A-1 His signature
01.09.1983. (Page 39/C) identified by
PW1 at two
points each
marked as A.
16.3. Intensive Enquiry D-2 Ex.PW1/A-2 Signature denied
Proforma. (Page 1/C) by PW-1 at serial
No.32 marked as
point X.Signature denied
by PW-8 at serial
No.37 marked as
point X.
16.4. Application for D-2 Ex.PW1/A-3 His signature
Registration of a (Page 76/C identified by
Co-operative & PW1 at serial
Society. 77/C) No. 32 marked as
point X.His signature
identified by
PW8 at serial no.
37 marked as
point X.16.5. Confirmation of D-6 Ex.PW1/A-4 Signature denied
Resignation. (Page 96) by PW-1 at Q-61
marked as point
X.
16.6. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW1/A-5 All specimen
signatures/writing. (Page S-41 identified by
to PW-1
S-45)CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 12/168
16.7. Request letter dated D-4 Ex.PW2/A Signature denied
10.05.2000 for (Page 42) by PW-2 at Q-16
seeking refund from marked as point
the Society. X.
16.8. Receipt of Rs.100/- D-4 Ex.PW2/A-1 Signature at
dated 20.05.2000. (Page 44) Q-14 marked as
point X denied
by PW-2.
16.9. Resignation letter D-4 Ex.PW2/A-2 His signature
dated 10.05.2000. (Page 43) identified by
PW-2 at Q-15
marked as point
X.
16.10. Minutes of Meeting D-12 Ex.PW2/A-3 Signature
dated 06.02.1999 in (Page 102- denied:
Ex.PW6/PX. 105)
by PW-2 at serial
no. 30, marked
as Q-1194 &
point X;
by PW3 at serial
no. 3, marked as
Q-1184 & point
X;
by PW-8 at serial
no. 25, marked
as Q-1191 &
point X;
by PW-17 at
serial no. 26,
marked as
Q-1192 & point
A;
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 13/168
by PW-18 at
point B against
serial no. 7;
by PW-22 at
serial no. 32,
marked as
Q-1195 & point
A;
Signature
admitted by
PW-28 at point A
against serial no.
22 but he stated
that he did not
recollect if he
had attended the
meeting.
16.11. Minutes of Meeting D-12 Ex.PW2/A-4 Signature
dated 06.06.1999 in (Page 107- denied:
Ex.PW6/PX. 111)
by PW-2 at serial
no. 35 against
Q-1217 marked
as point X;
by PW-3 at serial
no. 27 against
Q-1214 marked
as point X;
by PW-8 at point
X against serial
no. 11;
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 14/168
by PW-17 at
serial no. 12
marked as point
A;
by PW-18 at
point B against
serial no.8;
by PW-22 at
serial no. 16;
His signature
admitted by
PW-28 at point A
against serial no.
32 but he stated
that he did not
recollect if he
had attended the
meeting.
16.12. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW2/A-5 All specimen
signatures/writing. (Page S-56 identified by
to PW-2.
S-60)
16.13. Request letter dated D-4 Ex.PW3/A Signature at
10.05.2000 for (Page 40) Q-18 marked as
seeking refund from point X denied
the Society. by PW3.
16.14. Receipt of Rs.100/- D-4 Ex.PW3/A-1 Signature at
dated 20.05.2000. (Page 41) Q-17 marked as
point X denied
by PW-3.
16.15. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW3/A-2 All specimen
signatures/writing. (Page S-61 identified by
to PW3
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 15/168
S-65)
16.16. Affidavit dated D-2 Ex.PW8/A His signature
01.09.1983. (Page 34/C) identified by
PW8 at two
points each
marked as X.
16.17. Minutes of Meeting D-12 Ex.PW8/B His signature
dated 06.10.1983 in (Page 1-4) identified by
Ex.PW6/PX. PW8 at serial no.
37 marked as
point X.
His signature
identified by
PW17 at serial
No.51 marked as
point A;
His signature
identified by
PW22 at serial
no. 31.
16.18. Resignation Letter D-4 Ex.PW8/C Signature at
dated 20.12.2001. (Page 76) Q-11 marked as
point X denied
by PW-8.
16.19. Receipt dated D-4 Ex.PW8/D Signature at
30.12.2001. (Page 77/C) Q-10 marked as
point X denied
by PW-8.
16.20. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW8/E All specimen
signatures/writings. (S-101 (Colly) identified by
to PW8.
S-105)
16.21. Affidavit dated nil D-6 Ex.PW11/A His signature at
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 16/168
attested on (Page 4/C) two points both
12.09.1984. marked as point
A, identified by
PW-11
16.22. List of 75 Members D-6 Ex.PW11/B PW-11 pointed
of the Society sent (Page 32/C out his name at
for verification & to serial no. 72 of
approval vide letter 34/C) the list.
dated 13.09.1984.
16.23 Resignation Letter D-4 Ex.PW11/C Signature at
dated 10.05.2000. (Page 16) Q-24 marked as
point A denied
by PW-11.
16.24. Receipt dated D-4 Ex.PW11/D Signature at
20.05.2000 for (Page 17) Q-23 marked as
Rs.100/-. point X denied
by PW11.
16.25. Application for D-5 Ex.PW11/E Signature at
Membership dated (Page 11) Q-41 marked as
27.07.1984. point A denied
by PW11.
16.26. Application for D-5 Ex.PW15/A Signature at
membership dated (Page 6) Q-40 marked as
14.04.1984. point A denied
by PW15.
16.27. Affidavit dated D-6 Ex.PW15/B His signature
23.07.1984. (Page 9/C) identified by
PW-15 at points
A & B.
16.28. Resignation Letter D-4 Ex.PW15/C Signature at
dated 20.01.2001. (Page 22) Q-22 denied by
PW15.
16.29. Receipt of Share D-4 Ex.PW15/D Signature at
Money dated (Page 23) Q-21 marked as
30.12.2001. point B denied
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 17/168
by PW15.
16.30. Entry No. 51 of D-2 Ex.PW17/A His signature
Ex.PW1/A-3. (Page 76/C) identified by
PW-17 at point
A.
16.31. Affidavit dated D-2 Ex.PW17/B His signature
01.09.1983. (Page 20/C) identified by
PW-17 at point A
& B.
16.32. Entry No. 51 of D-2 Ex.PW17/C His signature
Ex.PW1/A. (Page 3/C) identified by
PW17.
16.33. Entry No. 51 of D-2 Ex.PW17/D His signature
Ex.PW1/A-2. (Page 1/C ) identified by
PW-17.
16.34. Resignation Letter D-4 Ex.PW17/E Signature at
dated 20.12.2001 & (Page 62) & Q-13 marked as
its photocopy. & Ex.PW17/F point A &
D-8 writing of the
(Page 386/C) contents denied
by PW17.
16.35. Refund Voucher D-4 Ex.PW17/G Signature at
dated 30.12.2001 & (Page 63) & Q-12 marked as
its photocopy. & Ex.PW17/H point A and
D-8 receipt of
(Page 385/C) Rs.100/- denied
by PW-17.
16.36. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW17/J All specimen
signatures/writing. (S-111 (Colly) identified by
to PW17.
S-115)
16.37. Entry No. 10 of D-2 Ex.PW18/A His signature
Ex.PW1/A-3. (Page 77/C) identified by
PW18.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 18/168
16.38. Affidavit dated D-2 Ex.PW18/B His signature
01.09.1983. (Page 61/C) identified by
PW18 at point A
& B.
16.39. Entry No. 10 of D-2 Ex.PW18/C His signature
Ex.PW1/A. (Page 4/C) identified by
PW18 at point A.
16.40. Entry No. 10 of D-2 Ex.PW18/D His signature
Ex.PW1/A-2. (Page 2/C) identified by
PW18 at point A.
16.41. Resignation Letter D-4 Ex.PW18/E Signature and
dated 01.02.2000 & (Page 134) & writing of the
its photocopy. & Ex.PW18/F contents denied
D-8 by PW-18.
(Page 445/C)
16.42. Refund Voucher D-4 Ex.PW18/G Signature and
dated 10.02.2000 & (Page 135) & receipt of
its photocopy. & Ex.PW18/H Rs.100/- denied
D-8 by PW-18.
(Page 444/C)
16.43. Minutes of Meeting D-12 Ex.PW18/J Signature at
dated 12.08.1984 in (Page 17) point A against
Ex.PW6/PX. serial no. 2
identified by
PW-18.
16.44. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW18/K All specimen
signatures/writing. (S-121 (Colly) identified by
to PW18.
S-125)
16.45. Entry No. 31 of D-2 Ex.PW22/A His signature
Ex.PW1/A-3. (Page 77/C). identified by
PW22 at point A.
16.46. Affidavit dated D-2 Ex.PW22/B His signature
01.09.1983. (Page 40/C) identified by
PW22 at points A
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 19/168
& B.
16.47. Entry No. 31 of D-2 Ex.PW22/C His signature
Ex.PW1/A. (Page 3/C) identified by
PW22 at point A.
16.48. Entry No. 31 of D-2 Ex.PW22/D His signature
Ex.PW1/A-2. (Page 1/C) identified by
PW22 at point A.
16.49. Resignation Letter D-4 Ex.PW22/E Signature at Q-8
dated 05.10.2000 & (Page 85) marked as point
its photocopy. & A and writing of
D-8 contents denied
(Page 408) by PW22.
16.50. Receipt dated D-4 Ex.PW22/F Signature at Q-9
15.10.2000 & its (Page 85) marked as point
photocopy. & A and receipt of
D-8 Rs.100/- denied
(Page 408) by PW-22.
16.51. Minutes of General D-12 Ex.PW22/L His signature
Body Meeting dated (Page 9 identified by
11.03.1984 in to PW22 at point A
Ex.PW6/PX. 11) against serial no.
4.
16.52. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW22/M Signature of
Managing (Page 55) PW-22 not there.
Committee Meeting
dated 10.11.1990 in
Ex.PW6/PX.
16.53. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW22/N All specimen
signatures/writing (S-126 to (Colly) identified by
S-130) PW22.
16.54. Application for D-5 Ex.PW28/A His signature
Membership dated (Page 4) identified by
07.04.1984 PW28 at Q-39
marked as Point
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 20/168
A.
16.55. Resignation Letter D-4 Ex.PW28/B His signature
dated 20.12.2001. (Page 26) identified by
PW28 at Q-20
marked as point
A.
16.56. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW28/C All specimen
signatures/writing. (S-51 (Colly) identified by
to PW28.
S-55)
17. In addition to the documents hereinabove, the following more
documents were put to PW22 during the recording of his testimony however
these were not admitted in evidence being the photocopies:
S.No. Description of Document Marked as Relevant Deposition
Document No. & Page
No.
17.1. Photocopy of the D-6 Mark Signature at serial no.
Minutes of (Page 42/C) PW22/G 1 & attending of
Executive meeting denied by
Committee PW-22.
Meeting of the
Society, dated
11.07.1984.
17.2. Photocopy of the D-6 Mark Signature at serial no.
Minutes of (Page 43/C) PW22/H 1 & attending of the
Executive meeting denied by
Committee PW22.
Meeting of the
Society, dated
18.06.1984.
17.3. Photocopy of the D-6 Mark No signature of
Minutes of (Page 44/C) PW22/J PW22. Witness stated
Executive that he did not
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 21/168
Committee remember if he had
Meeting of the attended the meeting.
Society, dated
13.05.1984.
17.4. Photocopy of the D-6 Mark No signature of
Minutes of (Page 45/C PW22/K PW22. Witness stated
Executive & that he did not
Committee Page 46/C) remember if he had
Meeting of the attended the meeting.
Society dated
08.04.1984.
18. The second category of witnesses are those who stated that they
became members of the Society soon before, or after its winding up. The
details of those 8 witnesses are as below:-
S.No. Name of Witness Examined If cross-examined
as
18.1. Kailash Chand PW-5 by CBI on having been
declared hostile.
18.2. Bhanwar Pal PW-6 by A-3 & A-6
18.3. Manbir Singh Bhatia PW-9 No
18.4. Manish Kashyap PW-23 by A-3, A-4, A-5 & A-6
18.5. Davinder Singh PW-24 by A-4 & A-5
18.6. Neelam Bajaj PW-34 by A-4 & A-5
18.7. Vikas Dixit PW-36 by A-4 & A-5
18.8. Ramji Lal Dua PW-37 by A-4 & A-5
19. Out of the 8 afore-named, 2 witnesses, namely, PW5 & PW6, were
declared hostile by the prosecution.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 22/168
20. It is case of the prosecution that PW-5 had disclosed to the IO during
his examination in the course of investigation that he had never become a
member of New Anamika CGHS and his signatures on various documents
had been forged by someone. However, PW-5 deposed before the Court that
he became a member of New Anamika CGHS in the year 1990. He owned up
signatures on the following documents:-
S.No. Description of Document Exhibit No. Relevant
Documents No. & Page Testimony
No.
20.1. Application for D-5 Ex.PW5/A Signature at Q-48
Membership dated (Page 26) marked as point A
01.07.1990. identified.
20.2. Resignation Form D-4 Ex.PW5/A-1 Signature at Q-27
dated 10.05.2000. (Page 10) marked as point A
identified.
20.3. Receipt dated D-4 Ex.PW5/A-2 Signature at Q-27/1
20.05.2000. (Page 10) marked as point A
identified and
receipt of Rs.100/-
from the Society
admitted.
20.4. Minutes of General D-12 Ex.PW2/A-4 Signature in Hindi
Body Meeting (Page 107 at point X against
dated 06.06.1999 in to serial no. 36
Ex.PW6/PX. 111) identified.
20.5. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW5/A-4 All specimen
signatures/writings. (S-66 to 70 admitted.
in Hindi)
&
(S-71 to 75
in English)
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 23/168
21. PW-5 however denied his signature on the minutes of General Body
Meeting dated 20.11.98 (D-12, Ex.PW5/A-3) against serial no. 4 at point X
though deposed that he had attended the said meeting which was held at
Greater Kailash. He also deposed that the General Body Meeting dated
06.06.1999 too was held at Greater Kailash which he attended, and it was
convened by a lady who had enrolled him as a member of the Society but he
was unaware of the purpose for which the said meeting was called.
22. On having been declared hostile, PW-5 was cross-examined by Ld.
Sr. PP for CBI. He disclosed during his cross-examination that accused Sri
Chand was his brother-in-law. He had three brothers against whom CBI had
initiated criminal proceedings in matters pertaining to CGHS. He admitted
that he was also arrayed as an accused by the CBI in one of the cases
pertaining to CGHS but he was acquitted in the said case by a Court at Tis
Hazari. He further deposed that the New Anamika CGHS was being run by a
lady known as Chander Prabha.
23. PW-5 was confronted by the prosecution with his statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C, which is Ex.PW5/PX, but he denied it in entirety. He also
took a u-turn and deposed during his cross-examination that the meeting
dated 06.06.1999 was not attended by him and the signature on the minutes of
the said meeting were not his signature.
24. PW-6 also took a u-turn from his earlier statement u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.
and deposed that his wife had filled up a form for allotment of a flat. She took
him once to Greater Kailash for attending a meeting. The said meeting was
conducted by a lady under a tent in a park at Greater Kailash.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 24/168
25. Since he was declared hostile, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI cross-examined
PW-6 during which various documents were put to him and he denied his
signatures on the following:
S.No. Description of Document Exhibit No. Relevant Testimony
Documents No.
&
Page No.
25.1. Application for D-5 Ex.PW6/A Signature at Q-50
Membership dated (Page 28) marked as Point A
01.07.1990. denied.
25.2. Resignation Form D-4 Ex.PW6/A-1 Signature at Q-30
dated 20.12.2001. (Page 8) marked as Point A
denied.
25.3. Receipt dated D-4 Ex.PW6/A-2 Signature at Q-31
30.12.2001 for (Page 8) marked as point A
Rs.100/-. denied though
receipt of Rs.100/-
by his wife is
admitted.
25.4. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW6/PX Signature denied on
Meetings dated each of these
25.01.91, 28.02.91, minutes. He deposed
14.04.91, 24.04.91, that his signature
25.05.91, 15.08.91, may have been done
10.11.91, 20.02.92, by his Late wife on
14.05.92, 16.08.92, these minutes.
05.11.92, 06.02.93,
11.05.93, 21.08.93, His testimony is
13.11.93, 16.02.94, contradictory with
20.05.94, 22.08.94, respect to signature
09.11.94, 17.02.94, on minutes of
13.05.95, 07.08.95, meeting dated
19.11.95, 24.02.96, 06.06.1999
08.05.96, 06.08.96, (Ex.PW2/A-4)
18.11.96, 03.02.97, because he first
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 25/168
14.05.97, 15.08.97, deposed that the said
10.11.97, 08.02.98, meeting was
12.03.98, 15.05.98, attended by him at
15.07.98, 15.08.98, Greater Kailash but
20.10.98, 20.11.98 he did not know
(already about the purpose of
Ex.PW5/A-3), meeting, and
25.11.98, 06.02.99 signature at point X
(already against serial no. 6
Ex.PW2/A-3), were his but later he
15.05.99, 06.06.99 denied his signature
(already when all the minutes
Ex.PW2/A-4). were put to him
together. He also
deposed that only
one meeting of the
Society was attended
by him.
25.5 Specimen D-25 Ex.PW6/A-3 All specimen
signatures/writing (S-81 admitted.
to
S-85)
25.6 Statement u/Sec. -- Ex.PW6/PA Confronted with the
161 Cr.P.C. statement but he
denied making it and
stated that he neither
ever resigned from
the Society nor
attended any meeting
of it.
26. The remaining 6 witnesses of the second category supported the case
of the prosecution. The following documents were put to these witnesses:
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 26/168
S.No. Description of Document Exhibit No. Relevant
Documents No. & Testimony
Page No.
26.1. Application for D-5 Ex.PW9/A Signature at Q-43
Membership dated (Page 19) marked as point X
01.12.1989. denied by PW-9.
26.2. List of Members D-6 Ex.PW14/C Expressed
Resigned. (Page 102/C) (Colly) unawareness
regarding
inclusion of his
name at Sr. no. 28
& deposed that he
never resigned
from the Society.
26.3. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW9/B All specimen
signatures/writing. (S-106 to admitted
S-110)
26.4. Application Form D-5 Ex.PW23/A Signature at
for Membership (Page 72) Q-52H marked as
dated 10.12.2000 & point A admitted
& its photocopy. D-9 by PW-23 but
(Page185) handwriting of
particulars denied.
26.5. Resignation Letter D-3 Ex.PW23/B Handwriting of
dated 20.02.2002. (Page 120) contents &
signature at point A
admitted by
PW-23.
26.6. Refund Voucher D-3 Ex.PW23/C Signature at point
dated 28.02.2002j (Page 119) A and receipt of
for Rs.100/-. Rs.100/- denied by
PW-23.
26.7. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW23/D All specimen
signatures. (S-160 to (Colly) admitted.
S-164)
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 27/168
26.8. Ration Card in the D-9 Ex.PW23/ Ration card holder
name of Vikas (Page 233/C) DX-1 is related & name
Chand Tyagi S/o of PW-23 is
Sh. Pramod Tyagi. reflected at serial
no. 5 but he did not
give its copy to
anyone.
26.9. Application Form D-5 Ex.PW24/A Signature at
for Membership & (Page 41) Q-52D marked as
its photocopy as & point A and
well as photocopy D-9 handwriting of
of Ration Card. (Page 242 & particulars
243) admitted by
PW-24.
26.10. Affidavit dated Nil D-9 Ex.PW24/B Signature at point
attested on (Page 296/C) A & B admitted by
14.01.2003. PW-24.
26.11. Resignation Letter D-3 Ex.PW24/C Writing of contents
dated 15.03.2004. (Page 117) and his signature at
point A admitted
by PW-24 but
writing of date is
denied.
26.12. Refund Voucher D-3 Ex.PW24/D Signature at point
for Rs.50,100/- (Page 116) A admitted by
dated 05.06.2004. PW-24 who also
deposed that
Rs.50,100/- was
received by him
through cheque &
after withdrawal it
was paid back to
one S.S. Bajaj
since that person
had paid the
subscription on his
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 28/168
behalf.
26.13. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW24/E All specimen
signatures. (S-150 to (Colly) admitted.
S-154)
26.14. Application Form D-5 Ex.PW24/F Signature of
for Membership of (Page 44) Ravinder Pal
Ravinder Pal & Singh, his brother,
Singh & its D-9 admitted by
photocopy (Page 236 & PW-24 at point A.
alongwith copy of 237) PW-24 also
Ration Card. admitted that the
contents were
written by him.
26.15. Affidavit dated Nil D-9 Ex.PW24/G Signature of Sh.
attested on (Page 293/C) Ravinder Pal, his
14.01.2003. brother, admitted
by PW24 at point
A & B.
26.16. Resignation Letter D-3 Ex.PW24/H Signature of Sh.
dated 05.02.2004. (Page 111) Ravinder Pal, his
brother, admitted
by PW-24 at point
A.
26.17. Refund Voucher D-3 Ex.PW24/J Signature of his
dated 24.05.2004 (Page 110) brother at point A
for Rs.11,000/-. admitted by PW-24
but receipt of
money is denied.
26.18. Letter addressed to D-11 Ex.PW34/A Signature as
the Deputy (Page 145) Treasurer of the
Director (GH), Society at point A
DDA for admitted by
intimating about PW-34.
the details of
members of the
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 29/168
Managing
Committee of the
Society in
Ex.PW25/A
(Colly).
26.19. Letter dated D-11 Ex.PW34/B Her signature at
02.01.2006 (Page 144) point A admitted
addressed to the by PW-34.
Dy. Director (GH),
DDA, New Delhi
regarding
authorization of
Sh. B.R. Jaggi and
Sh. S.K. Sharma
for collecting &
submitting the
documents on
behalf of the
Society in
Ex.PW25/A
(Colly).
26.20. Handing/Taking D-27 Ex.PW34/C Her signature at
Over Memo dated point A &
12.10.2006 signature of her
through which husband at point B
documents of the admitted by
society were given PW-34.
to CBI.
26.21. Application Form D-5 Ex.PW36/A His signature at
for Membership (Page 40) Q-52C marked as
dated 05.03.2000. point A admitted
by PW-36. Address
identified to be of
one S.S. Bajaj.
26.22. Affidavit dated Nil D-9 Ex.PW36/B Signature at point
attested on (Page 297/C) B admitted by
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 30/168
14.01.2003. PW-36.
Handwriting of
contents and
address on
affidavit identified
to be of one S.S.
Bajaj.
26.23. List of Total D-8 Ex.PW36/C Signature at Q-270
Resigned (Page 466/C & Q-271 as
Members after to 468/C) Treasurer marked
verification of as point A & B
final list (from respectively,
01.02.2000 to denied by PW-36.
25.11.2002). Signature at Q-268
& Q-269 marked
as point C denied
by PW-37.
26.24. Audit Report of the D-14 Ex.PW36/D Signature at point
Society from A on each page as
01.04.1999 to Treasurer denied
31.03.2002. by PW-36.
Signature at point
B denied by
PW-37.
26.25. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW36/E Signature at point
General Body (Page-129 A identified by
Meeting dated to PW-36.
24.11.2002 in 131)
Ex.PW6/PX.
26.26. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW36/F Signature at point
Managing (Page-132) A identified by
Committee PW-36.
Meeting dated Signature at point
24.11.2002 in B denied by
Ex.PW6/PX. PW-37
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 31/168
26.27. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW36/G Signature at point
Managing (Page-133) X identified by
Committee PW-36.
Meeting dated Signature at point
30.11.2002 in B denied by
Ex.PW6/PX. PW-37.
26.28. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW36/H Signature at point
Managing (Page 134) A identified by
Committee PW-36.
Meeting dated Signature at point
15.01.2003 in B denied by
Ex.PW6/PX. PW-37.
26.29. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW36/J Signature at point
Managing (Page 135) A identified by
Committee PW-36.
Meeting dated Signature at point
10.02.2003 in B denied by
Ex.PW6/PX. PW-37.
26.30. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW36/K Signature at point
Managing (Page 143 A identified by
Committee to PW-36.
Meeting dated 144) Signature at point
15.05.2003 in B denied by
Ex.PW6/PX. PW-37.
26.31. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW36/L Signature at point
Managing (Page 146 A identified by
Committee to PW-36.
Meeting dated 148) Signature at point
25.07.2003 in B denied by
Ex.PW6/PX. PW-37.
26.32. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW36/M All specimen
signatures (S-165 (Colly) identified by
to PW-36.
S-169)
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 32/168
26.33. Application Form D-5 Ex.PW37/A His signature at
for Membership (Page 60) Q52G marked as
dated 15.06.2000. point A identified
by PW-37
26.34. Affidavit dated Nil D-9 Ex. PW37/B Handwriting on the
attested on (Page 280/C) affidavit denied
13/12/2002. but signature at
point B admitted
by PW-37. Address
stated to be of a
friend, namely, Y.P.
Gupta, which was
furnished as
PW-37 had no
permanent address
in Delhi at that
time.
26.35. List of Total D-9 Ex.PW37/C Signature at Q-419
Enrolled Members (Page 310/C) marked as point A
of the Society. to denied by PW-37.
311/C)
26.36. List of Total D-9 Ex.PW37/D Signature at Q-418
Existing Members (Page 312/C marked as point A
after verification to denied by PW-37.
of list (from 313/C)
05.03.2000 to
10.01.2003)
26.37. Letter dated D-11 Ex.PW25/O Signature at Q-549
01/11/2003 sent by (Page 101) (Point B) denied
the Society to the by PW-37.
Dy. Director (GH)
DDA for
intimating about
change of address
of the Society.
26.38. Extracts of the D-11 Ex. PW37/E The signature at
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 33/168
Minutes of (Page 100) Q-548 marked as
Meeting of the Point A denied by
Managing PW-37.
Committee dated
26/10/2003.
26.39. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW37/F PW-37 asserted
General Body (Page 150 that the said
Meeting dated to meeting was never
07.08.2003 in 154) conducted by him
Ex.PW6/PX) as President of the
Society. He also
denied the
signature at point
A.
26.40. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW 37/G All specimen
signatures. (S-155 to (Colly) admitted.
S-159)
27. Some more documents which were put to the 6 above-named
witnesses, but were not admitted in evidence, being photocopies, are as
below:-
S.No. Description of Document Marked as Relevant Deposition
Documents No. &
Page No.
27.1. Photocopies of D-9 Mark PW Genuinity of copy,
Application Form (Page 36/X impression of signature
for Membership & 243/C & (Colly) at point A (Q451) of the
Ration Card. 244/C) ration card denied by
PW-36. Address
identified to be of one
S. S. Bajaj. PW-36
deposed that the
address of S. S. Bajaj
was used because he
had no permanentCBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 34/168
address in Delhi during
that time and he used to
stay at the office of S.
S. Bajaj.
27.2. Photocopies of D-9 Mark The copy of ration card
Application Form (Page PW37/X denied as not belonging
for Membership & 205/C & (Colly) to him, by PW-37.
Ration Card. 206/C) Witness asserted he
was not related to Sh.
Vikas Chand Tyagi
who was the holder of
said ration card as there
is no such person in his
family with that name
neither the address
belonged to him. He
also asserted that the
signature on the ration
card at point A did not
belong to any of his
family members.
27.3 Photocopy of the D-11 Mark Signature at Q 551
letter dated (Page 117) PW37/X1 marked as point A
14.08.2003/31.11. denied by PW-37.
2003 for Change of
Allotment of Plot
of Land from
Dheerpur to
Dwarka Sub-city.
28. The following documents were put to the above-named witnesses
during their cross-examination:-
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 35/168
S.No. Description of Document Exhibit No. Relevant
Documents No. & Page Deposition
No.
28.1. Letter written by Sh. D-11 Ex.PW36/D1 Handwriting
S.S. Bajaj to Dy. (Page 97) on the letter
Director (GH), identified to
regarding Receipt of be of S.S.
Challans for Payments Bajaj by
made towards land PW-36.
costs.
28.2. Letter written by the D-11 Ex.PW36/D2 Handwriting
Society to Dy. (Page 91) on the letter
Director (GH) DDA, identified to
for payment towards be of S.S.
the cost of Plot no. 09, Bajaj by
Dheerpur. PW-36.
28.3 Letter dated D-11 Part of Handwriting
28.02.2002 written by (Page 37) Ex.PW25/C on the said
the Society to the (Colly) letter
Deputy Director (GH), identified to
DDA be of S.S.
Bajaj by
PW-36 but
signature at
Q-533
marked as
point B
denied to be
of S. S. Bajaj.
29. The third category of witnesses are those who had deposed that they
never became members of New Anamika CGHS and their details were
misused. These 5 witnesses are the following: –
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 36/168
S.No. Name of Witness Examined as If cross-examined
29.1. Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi PW-4 No.
29.2. Nanak Chand PW-10 By CBI on having
been declared
hostile
29.3. Ram Kumar Choudhary PW-14 By A-2, A-3 &
A-6.
29.4. Prem Das PW-16 By A-6.
29.5. Patras @ Pappu Lal PW-32 By A-2, A-3 &
A-7.
30. Details of the documents put to the above 05 witnesses are as below:
S.No. Description of Document No. Exhibit No. Relevant
Document & Page No. Deposition
30.1. Confirmation of D-6 Ex.PW4/A Signature in
Resignation. (Page 94) Hindi at Q-62
marked as
Point A
denied by
PW-4.
30.2. Minutes of General D-12 Ex.PW4/B Name appears
Body Meeting (Ex.PW6/PX) at serial no.26
dated 24.04.1991 in (Page 59 marked as
Ex.Pw6/PX. to point X but
Page 60) PW-4 denied
attending the
meeting.
30.3. Application for D-5 Ex.PW10/A Signature at
Membership dated (Page 23) Q-46 marked
01.07.1990. as point A
denied by
PW-10.
30.4. Resignation-cum- D-4 Ex.PW10/B Signature at
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 37/168
Receipt of Rs.100/- (Page 11) Q-25 & Q-26
dated 10.05.2000 & marked as
20.05.2000 point A
respectively. denied by
PW-10.
30.5. Minutes of Meeting D-12 Ex.PW2/A-3 Signature at
dated 06.02.1999 in (Page 102- serial no. 40,
Ex.PW6/PX. 105) marked as
Q-1297 &
point X
denied by
PW-10.
30.6. Specimen D-25 Ex. PW 10/C All specimen
signatures/writing (S-142 to encircled in
S-144) blue denied
by PW-10 but
signature at
point X on all
the three
sheets
identified.
30.7. Statement u/Sec. -- Ex.PW10/PA Portion A to A
161 Cr.P.C. wherein it
was asserted
that PW-10
did not attend
the meeting
dated
06.02.1999
and his
signature had
been forged,
denied by
PW-10 during
cross-
examination
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 38/168
by CBI.
30.8. Letter dated D-6 Ex.PW14/A Signature at
27.10.1998 along (Page 70/C (Colly) Q-62B &
with copy of the & Q-62C (both
Minutes of Meeting Page 71/C) marked as
of the Society point A) on
purportedly written the letter and
by R. K. Chaudhary copy of the
to the Assistant minutes of
Registrar meeting
(Liquidation -- denied by
Cooperative PW-14.
Societies) for
change of address of
the Society.
30.9. Undertaking, D-6 Ex.PW14/C Signatures at
Affidavit, List of (Page 99-106) (Colly) Q-53E, Q-54
Members Resigned to Q-60 and
and List of Q-60A
Members Enrolled, marked as
given in the office point A on
of RCS for approval each page
of final list of denied by
members of the PW-14.
Society purportedly
signed by R. K.
Chaudhary
30.10. Application for D-5 Ex.PW14/F Signature at
Membership dated (Page 22) Q-45 marked
01.07.1990 as point A
denied by
PW-14.
30.11. Proceedings of D-12 Ex.PW6/PX Signature at
various dates (Page 53-131) point A on all
the pages
denied by
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 39/168
PW-14.
30.12. Letter dated D-6 Ex.PW14/G Signature at
03.12.1998 (Page 72/C) Q-62A
purportedly written marked as
by R. K. Chaudhary, point A
Secretary of the denied by
Society to the Asst. PW-14.
Registrar (South)
for requesting
revival of the
Society and
verification of final
list.
30.13. Letter dated D-11 Ex.PW14/H PW-14 denied
14.01.2002 issued (Page 14) his signature
by Dr. Director at Q-504
(GH) addressed to marked as
Hony. Point A.
Secretary/President,
New Anamika
CGHS Ltd. seeking
time to deposit the
land cost.
30.14. List for Verification D-11 Ex.PW14/J The witness
of Membership. (Page 1-8) (Colly) denied his
signature at
point A
marked as
Q-502.
30.15. Audit Report for D-15 Ex.PW14/L Signature at
1997-98. (Colly) point A
denied by
PW-14 &
point B
denied by
PW-32.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 40/168
30.16. Audit Report for D-16 Ex.PW14/N Signature at
1996-97. (Colly) point A
denied by
PW-14 &
point B
denied by
PW-32.
30.17. Audit Report for D-17 Ex.PW14/Q Signature at
1995-96. (Colly) point A
denied by
PW-14 &
point B
denied by
PW-32.
30.18. Audit Report for D-18 Ex.PW14/S Signature at
1994-95. (Colly) point A
denied by
PW-14 &
point B
denied by
PW-32.
30.19. Audit Report for D-19 Ex.PW14/U Signature at
1993-94. (Colly) point A
denied by
PW-14 &
point B
denied by
PW-32.
30.20. Audit Report for D-20 Ex.PW14/W Signature at
1992-93. (Colly) point A
denied by
PW-14 &
point B
denied by
PW-32.
30.21. Audit Report for D-21 Ex.PW14/Y Signature at
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 41/168
1991-92. (Colly) point A
denied by
PW-14 &
point B
denied by
PW-32.
30.22. Audit Report for D-22 Ex.PW14/Z Signature at
1990-91. (Colly) point A
denied by
PW-14 &
point B
denied by
PW-32.
30.23. Audit Report from D-23 Ex.PW14/Z2 Signature at
1998 to 1999. (Colly) point A
denied by
PW-14 &
point B
denied by
PW-32.
30.24. Specimen Signature D-25 Ex.PW 14/Z3 All specimen
sheets of R. K. (S-36 to S-40) (Colly) at Point A
Choudhary. admitted by
PW-14.
30.25. Application for D-5 Ex.PW16/A Signature at
Membership dated (Page 29) Q-51 denied
01.07.1990 by PW-16.
30.26. Resignation Letter D-4 Ex.PW16/B PW-16 denied
dated 25.11.2002. (Page 5) his signature
at Q-32
marked as at
point A.
30.27. Receipt of share D-4 Ex.PW16/C PW-16 denied
money of Rs. 100/- (Page 5) his signature
dated 05.12.2002. at Q-33
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 42/168
marked as
point B.
30.28. Proceedings D-12 Ex.PW4/B; Signature at
Register (Page 59, 98, Ex.PW35/H; Serial no. 37
Ex.PW6/PX. 102 & 108) Ex.PW2/A-3; (Page 59),
& Serial no. 5
Ex.PW2/A-4. (Page 98),
serial no. 5
(page 102)
and serial no.
24 (page 108)
denied by
PW-16.
30.29. Application for D-5 Ex.PW32/A Handwriting
Membership dated (Page 25) on the
01.07.1990 application
form and the
signature at
Q-47 marked
as point A
denied by
PW-32.
30.30. Proceedings dated D-12 Ex.PW6/PX Signature at
25.01.91, 28.02.91, point X on
14.04.91, 24.04.91, each of the
25.05.91, 05.05.91, minutes
06.02.93, 16.02.94, denied by
15.05.98, 05.07.98, PW-32. He
15.08.98, 20.10.98, also asserted
25.11.98, 11.06.99, that his
05.02.2000, signatures had
10.03.2000, been forged.
15.05.2000,
20.06.2000,
10.10.2000,
15.12.2000,
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 43/168
05.04.2001,
15.08.2001 &
25.12.2001
30.31. Proceedings dated D-12 Ex.PW6/PX Signature at
25.02.2002 (Page 127) point X
denied by
PW-32. He
also asserted
that his
signature had
been forged
and that he
never
resigned from
membership
of the Society.
30.32. Proceedings dated D-12 Ex.PW6/PX Signature at
15.08.91, 10.11.91, point X on
20.02.92, 14.05.92, each of the
16.08.92, 05.11.92, minutes
11.05.93, 21.08.93, denied by
13.11.93, 20.05.94, PW-32. He
22.08.94, 09.11.94, also asserted
17.02.94, 13.05.95, that his
07.08.95, 19.11.95, signature had
24.02.96, 08.05.96, been forged
06.08.96. 18.11.96, by Sri Chand.
03.02.97, 14.05.97,
15.08.97, 10.11.97,
08.02.98, 12.03.98,
15.11.98 &
06.02.99
30.33. Specimen D-5 Ex PW 32/B All specimen
signatures/Writings (S-96 to (Colly) admitted.
of Pappu Lal. S-100)
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 44/168
31. Certain documents put to the above 05 witnesses were not admitted in
evidence, being photocopies and are detailed as below:
S.No. Description of Document Exhibit No. Relevant
Document No. Deposition
&
Page No.
31.1. Photocopy of the D-6 Mark Signature at Q-60B
Request Letter (Page 98) PW14/B marked as point A
dated 08.02.1999 denied by PW-14
for approval of
final list of
members,
addressed to the
Asst. Registrar
(South) Co-
operative
Societies,
purportedly signed
by R. K.
Chaudhary.
31.2. Compliance D-6 Mark His purported
Report dated Nil (Page 115) PW14/D signature at Q-53
with respect to the marked as point A
objections raised in denied by PW-14.
the Audit report for
the period from
1990-91 to 1997-
98 purportedly
signed by R. K.
Chaudhary.
31.3. Photocopy of D-8 Mark Signature at point A
Resignation-cum- (Page PW14/E denied by PW-14.
Receipt dated 336/C)
25.11.02 &
05.12.02
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 45/168
respectively
31.4 Receipt dated D-15 Mark The witness denied
18/01/99 issued by (Page 1) PW14/K. his signature.
Committee on Co-
operative
Education Fund.
31.5. Receipt dated D-16 Mark The witness denied
18/01/99 issued by (Page 1) PW 14/M his signature at
Committee on Co- point A.
operative
Education Fund.
31.6. Receipt dated D-17 Mark The witness denied
18/01/99 issued by (Page 1) PW14/P his signature.
Committee on Co-
operative
Education Fund.
31.7. Receipt dated D-18 Mark The witness denied
18/01/99 issued by (Page 1) PW14/R his signature.
Committee on Co-
operative
Education Fund.
31.8. Receipt dated D-19 Mark The witness denied
18/01/99 issued by (Page 1) PW14/T his signature.
Committee on Co-
operative
Education Fund.
31.9. Receipt dated D-20 Mark The witness denied
18/01/1999 issued (Page 1) PW14/V his signature.
by Committee on
Co-operative
Education fund.
31.10. Receipt dated D-21 Mark The witness denied
18/01/99 issued by (Page 1) PW14/X his signature.
Committee on Co-
operative
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 46/168
Education Fund.
31.11. Receipt dated D-22 Mark The witness denied
18.01.1999 issued (Page 1) PW14/Z his signature.
by Committee on
Co-operative
Education Fund.
31.12. Photocopy of D-8 Mark Signature at point A
Resignation-cum- (Page PW32/1 & B denied by
Receipt dated 332/C) PW32.
25.11.2002 &
05.12.2002
respectively.
32. Fourth category of witnesses consist of the officials from the office of
RCS, Delhi and DDA. These witnesses have either deposed about the
procedure that was prevalent in the office of RCS, Delhi regarding
registration and revival of a CGHS or they have identified the documents (&
signature thereon) which were seized from the office of RCS & DDA. Details
of these nine witnesses are as below: –
S.No. Name of Witness Examined If cross-examined
as
32.1. Bhisham Kumar Grover PW-13 No
32.2. Mukesh Prasad PW-19 by A-2, A-6 & A-7
32.3. P.N. Manchanda PW-20 by A-2, A-6 & A-7
32.4. Umesh Singh Nimesh PW-21 No
32.5. Virender Singh Verma PW-25 No
32.6. Virender Kumar Bansal PW-26 by A-3 & A-6
32.7. Yogi Raj PW-27 by A-3 & A-6
32.8. Gopal Dixit PW-29 No
32.9. N.K. Sharma PW-31 NoCBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 47/168
33. Details of the documents identified by the above-named witnesses
during their testimony are as below: –
S.No. Description of Document Exhibit No. Relevant
Documents No. & Page Deposition
No.
33.1. Office Noting dated D-7 Ex.PW13/X Writing and
06.01.1999. (Page 7/N) signature of
accused B.M.
Sethi at point X
identified by
PW-13.
33.2. Office Noting dated D-7 Ex.PW13/X-1 Signature at
07.01.1999. (Page 8/N) point X & X-2
and writing at
point X-1
identified by
PW-13 to be of
accused B.M.
Sethi. PW-19 &
PW-31 also
identified the
signature at
point X to be of
accused B.M.
Sethi.
33.3. Office Notings of D-7 Ex.PW13/PX PW-13
RCS. (Page 9/N to (Colly) identified the
32/N) signature of
accused B.M.
Sethi at point
X-3 & X-4
(Page 9/N), X-8
& X-9 (Page
15/N) and X-11
(Page 18/N); his
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 48/168
writing at X-5
(page 9/N) &
X-6 (Page 10/N)
and his writing
& signature at
X-7 (Page
10/N), X-10
(Page 16/N),
X-12 (Page
19/N), X-13,
X-14 & X-15
(Page 20/N),
X-16 (Page
21/N), X-17
(Page 28/N),
X-18, X-19 &
X-20 (Page
29/N), X-21 &
X-22 (Page
31/N) and X-23
(Page 32/N).
33.4. Office Copy of the D-6 Ex.PW13/A PW-13 &
Order dated (Page 93) PW-19
11.05.1999 issued identified the
by accused B. M. signature of
Sethi, Asst. accused B. M.
Registrar (South), Sethi at two
Co-operative points each
Societies, in respect marked as A.
of the appointment
of Narender Kumar,
Gr. IV as Election
Officer to hold the
elections of New
Anamika CGHS.
33.5. Photocopy of D-6 Ex.PW13/A-1 PW-13 deposed
Minutes of Special (Page 75/C that the
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 49/168
General Body to 77/C) signature at
Meeting dated point X on page
06.02.1999. 75/C may be of
accused
Karamvir
Singh.
33.6. Office Note dated D-7 Ex.PW19/A PW-19
14.01.1999. (Page 9/N) identified his
signature at
point A on page
8/N & point A
Page 9/N. He
also identified
the signature of
Sh. N.K.
Sharma (JR) at
point B and
signature of Sh.
Gopal Dixit
(Registrar) at
point C on Page
8/N.
33.7. Office Note dated D-7 Ex.PW19/B Signature of
20.01.1999 pursuant (Page 10/N) accused B.M.
to Noting dated Sethi at point A
18.01.1999. identified by
PW-19. He also
identified his
signature at
point A,
signature of Sh
N.K. Sharma
(JR) at point B
and signature of
Sh. Gopal Dixit
(RCS) at point
C.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 50/168
PW-29 and
PW-31
identified their
signature at
point B & C
respectively.
33.8. Office Note dated D-7 Ex.PW19/C Signature of
15.02.1999. (page 11/N accused
to 15/N) Karamvir Singh
at point A on
page 15/N
identified by
PW-19. PW-19
also identified
signature of
accused B.M.
Sethi (AR) at
point B, his
signature as DR
at point C and
signature of
accused N.K.
Sharma (JR) at
point D.
PW-31
identified his
Noting at point
A & sign at
point E & F.
33.9. Office Note dated D-7 Ex.PW19/D Signature of
22.02.1999. (Page 16/N) accused
Karamvir Singh
at point A
identified by
PW-19.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 51/168
33.10. Office Note dated D-7 Ex.PW19/E Signature of
25.02.1999 (Page 16/N) accused B.M.
Sethi at point B
identified by
PW-19. He also
identified his
Noting &
signature at
point C and
signature of
N.K. Sharma
(JR) at point D.
PW-31 also
identified his
signature at
point D.
33.11. Office Note dated D-7 Ex.PW19/F Signature of
26.02.1999. (Page 17/N) RCS Gopal
Dixit at point A
identified by
PW-19 &
PW-29.
33.12. Office Note dated D-7 Ex.PW19/G Observation of
09.04.1999. (Page 17/N) Sh. Yoganand
Shastri,
Minister for
Development,
Food and
Supply, GNCT
of Delhi,
identified by
PW-19.
33.13. Office Note dated D-7 Ex.PW19/H PW-19
22.04.1999. (Page 18/N) identified the
signature of
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 52/168
B.M. Sethi at
point A & F, his
own signature at
B & E, signature
of N.K. Sharma
(JR) at C & C-1
and of Gopal
Dixit (RCS) at
point D.
PW-31 too
identified his
signature at
point C.
33.14. Office Noting dated D-7 Ex.PW19/J Signature of
26.04.1999. (Page 19/N) accused
Karamvir Singh
at point A
identified by
PW-19.
33.15. Office Noting dated D-7 Ex.PW19/K Signature of
28.04.1999. (Page 19/N) accused B.M.
Sethi at point B,
himself at point
C, N.K. Sharma
(JR) at point D
& Gopal Dixit
(RCS) at point E
identified by
PW-19.
PW-29
identified his
signature at
point E.
PW-31 too
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 53/168
identified his
signature at
point D.
33.16. Office Noting dated D-7 Ex.PW19/L PW-19
05.05.1999. (Page 20/N) identified the
signature of
accused B.M.
Sethi at point A,
his own at point
B, N.K. Sharma
at point C and
Gopal Dixit at
point D.
PW-31 also
identified his
signature at
point C & E.
33.17. Letter dated D-6 Already Signature of
27.10.1998 (Page 70/C) Ex.PW14/A Gopal Dixit at
purportedly written (Colly) point A, N.K.
by R. K. Chaudhary Sharma at point
to the Assistant B, self at point C
Registrar and of AR
(Liquidation -- (Liquidation) at
Cooperative point D
Society) for change identified by
of address of the PW-19.
Society.
33.18. Letter dated D-6 Already Signature of
03.12.1998 (Page 72/C) Ex.PW14/G Gopal Dixit at
purportedly written Point A, N.K.
by R. K. Chaudhary, Sharma at B,
Secretary of the Mukesh Prasad
Society to the Asst. at C and B.M.
Registrar (South) for Sethi at 'D'
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 54/168
requesting revival of identified by
the Society and PW-19.
verification of final
list.
33.19. Office Copy of the D-6 Ex.PW19/M PW-19
Order dated (Page 74/C) identified his
14.01.1999 signatures at
regarding point A and B.
appointment of
accused Karamvir
Singh as liquidator
of the Society.
33.20. Agenda / Notice D-6 Ex.PW19/N PW-19
dated 27.01.1999 (Page 81/C) identified the
issued by accused signature of
Karamvir Singh, accused
Liquidator, New Karamvir Singh
Anamika CGHS. at point A.
33.21. Report dated D-6 Ex PW19/P PW-19
08.2.1999 regarding (Page 82/C) identified the
submission of signature of
minutes of the accused
special GBM held Karamvir Singh
on 06.02.1999 at and B.M. Sethi
D-9, Greater at point A and B
Kailash, New Delhi respectively.
with copy of UPC
list & copy of
Minutes dated
06.02.1999 as
enclosures.
33.22. Revival Order dated D-6 Ex.PW19/Q PW-19
26.04.1999. (Page 92/C) identified the
signature of Sh.
Gopal Dixit,
RCS at point A.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 55/168
33.23. Office Notings dated D-7 Ex.PW20/A Noting from
21.01.2000 & (Page 32/N portion A to A
24.01.2000. & 33/N) written by S.
Subramanyan
and Noting from
portion C to C
written by
PW-20 on 32/N
and 33/N
respectively,
identified by
PW-20 with his
signature at
point D.
33.24. Office Noting dated D-7 Ex.PW20/DX PW-20
25.01.2000. (Page 33/N identified his
& signature at
34/N) point A and that
of Sh. S.
Subramanyan at
point B.
33.25. Proceedings dated D-12 Ex.PW21/A The signature of
06.06.1999 (already (Page 111) Sh. Narender
Ex.PW2/A4 in Kumar at point
Ex.PW6/PX) A identified by
PW21.
33.26. The letter dated D-6 Ex.PW21/B PW-21
08.06.1999 along (Page 109- (Colly) identified
with copy of the 114) signature of
proceedings dated accused
06.06.1999, Narinder Kumar
addressed to the at point A on the
Assistant Registrar letter.
(South), Co-
operative Societies,
Delhi by accused
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 56/168
Narinder Kumar,
Election Officer,
intimating about
conducting of
elections of the
Society on
06.06.1999.
33.27. File pertaining to the D-10 Ex.PW27/A PW-27
New Anamika (Colly). identified
CGHS related to Notings in the
East Zone of the handwriting of
office of RCS, Delhi Sh. J.S. Sandhu
Delhi. (JR) at point X
Page (7/N) and
signature of DR
at point A (7/N),
B (8/N) &
initials at point
C (8/N).
Signature of
Narayan
Diwakar at
point D (Page
8/N) on Noting
dated
06.05.2003
identified too.
Signature of one
Rana, Dealing
Assistant at
point A & B on
Notings dated
20.05.2004 &
25.06.2004
(9/N) identified
along with his
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 57/168
own signature
by PW-27 at
point C & D.
33.28. Office Notings. D-7 Ex.PW31/A PW-31
(Page 29/N) & identified his
Ex.PW31/B Notings at Y and
Y1 and
signature at
point A and B.
33.29. Office Noting. D-7 Ex.PW31/C PW-31
(31/N) identified his
signature at
point B and
signature of
accused B.M.
Sethi at point A.
34. The fifth category of witnesses consist of independent persons in
whose presence specimen signatures/writings of the accused persons are
stated to have been obtained by the CBI during the course of investigation.
Details of these witnesses are as below: –
S.No. Name of Witness Examined as If cross-examined
34.1. Yogesh Nigam PW-41 No.
34.2. A.K. Taneja PW-42 by A-4 & A-5
34.3. Dharampal PW-43 No.
34.4. Dharambir Singh PW-44 No.
34.5. Bishan Singh PW-45 by A-4 & A-5
35. PW-41 identified the specimen signature/handwriting of accused Baij
Nath (since expired), which are Ex.PW39/I (S-116 to S-120).
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 58/168
36. PW-42 identified the specimen signature/handwriting of accused
Raman Kumar Vij & Nitesh Kumar Vij which are Ex.PW39/M (Colly)
[S-170 to S-174] and Ex.PW39/N (Colly) [S-175 to 176 & S-178 to S-180]
respectively. While under cross-examination by these two accused persons,
PW-42 deposed that he had gone to the office of CBI in concern with the
investigation of Vasundhra CGHS and the specimen signature were taken in
his presence during that visit. He deposed that he did not remember how
many persons were present when specimen signature were taken and if the
signature of accused Nitesh Kumar Vij or of Raman Kumar Vij were obtained
first. He also could not answer if the accused persons were present before or
they came after he had joined the investigation. He denied having ascertained
the identity of persons whose specimen signatures were being taken in his
presence. When his attention was invited to the signature of IO and accused
persons below the specimen signature at points A & DX respectively, he
deposed that he did not recollect if those signature were done in his presence.
37. PW-43 identified the specimen signature/handwriting of accused Vijay
Kishan Chaturvedi (since expired) as Ex.PW39/J (S-131 to S-135).
38. PW-44 identified the specimen signature/handwriting of accused Sri
Chand (since expired) as Ex.PW39/Q (Colly) (S-194 to S-227).
39. PW-45 identified the specimen signatures/handwriting of
Chanderbhan Arya and Kamal Singh (both not accused before the Court) as
Ex.PW30/D (Colly) (S-181 to S-185) and Ex.PW39/O (Colly) (S-186 to
S-187). PW-45 also identified the specimen signatures/handwriting of
accused Sri Chand (since expired) as Ex.PW39/R (S-193) & Ex.PW39/RCBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 59/168
(Colly) (S-228 to S-239) and of accused Raman Kumar Vij as Ex.PW39/N
(Colly) (S-177). When cross-examined on behalf of accused Raman Kumar
Vij, PW-45 deposed that he was called as a witness to the specimen writing
twice by the CBI. He admitted having witnessed S-136 to S-140
(Ex.PW39/K) on 12.01.07 and S-141 to S-144 on 05.04.07. He first asserted
that he was called by CBI only twice but then stated that he did not remember
because it was a matter of 2007. Some of his key statements during his
deposition are; firstly, that he was not in a position to identify any of the
persons whose specimen signature were taken in his presence in the year
2007; secondly, that whenever specimen signature of any person was taken in
his presence, those were taken on 5 to 6 sheets and never on a single sheet;
and thirdly, that specimen used to be written by persons on their own without
any dictation or looking into any document.
40. The sixth category of witnesses consist of the experts and sanctioning
authorities, details of whom are as below: –
S.No. Name of Witness Examined as If cross-examined
40.1. P. Venugopala Rao PW-33 by A-3, A-4, A-5 & A-6
40.2. Dr. P. C. Dikshit PW-38 by A-2 & A-7.
40.3. Sandeep Kumar PW-40 by A-6 & A-7.
41. PW-33 is the handwriting expert who had examined & compared the
questioned documents & specimen documents. He proved his report and
following more documents: –
S.No. Description of Document Document No. Exhibit No.
& Page No.
41.1. Letter dated 24.05.2007 sent by CBI D-25 Ex.PW33/A
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 60/168
to CFSL along with Annexure-I
(List of Questioned Documents),
Annexure-II (List of Specimen
Documents) and Annexure-III
(Questionnaire)
41.2. Forwarding Letter dated 21.11.2007 D-25 Ex.PW33/B
sent by CFSL to the CBI forwarding
the Opinion bearing No.
CH-251/2007 and signed by Sh.
C.H. Gandhi at point A.
41.3. Opinion No. CH-251/2007 bearing D-25 Ex.PW33/C
signature of PW-33 at point A & Sh.
Y. Surya Prasad, Deputy Govt.
Examiner at point B on all the 07
sheets.
41.4. Letter dated 17.07.2008 vide which D-25 Ex.PW33/D
reasons for Opinion No.
CH-251/2007 were sent to the CBI
by CFSL bearing signature of
PW-33 at point A.
41.5. Reasons for Opinion No. D-25 Ex.PW33/E
CH-251/2007 bearing signature of
PW-33 at point 'A' on each page.
41.6. Specimen signatures / Writings sent D-25 Ex.PW33/F
for examination alongwith letter (S-1 to S-239) (Colly)
Ex.PW33/A.
42. PW-33 deposed in his examination that the questioned documents
were examined by him independently, utilizing the lenses of various
magnifications. He had applied the basic principle in examining the
questioned documents which is ‘like-with-like’ comparison.
43. PW-38 and PW-40 are the sanctioning authorities who have proved
the Orders vide which sanction was granted for prosecution of accused
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 61/168
Narender Kumar, Karamvir Singh and Harvinder Singh, which are
Ex.PW38/A, Ex.PW40/A and Ex.PW40/B respectively.
44. A detailed cross-examination of PW-33, 38 & 40 was done on behalf
of accused persons relevant part of which shall be referred in the latter part of
this judgment, while appreciating the testimony of these witnesses. The draft
sanction Order Ex.PW38/DA & Noting Ex.PW40/DX from the files
summoned during cross-examination of PW-38 & PW-40 were also retained
on record.
45. Apart from the aforesaid witnesses, prosecution had examined 04
public witnesses and one CBI official.
46. Details of the four public witnesses examined by the prosecution are as
below: –
S.No. Name of Witness Examined as If cross-examined
46.1 Chandra Bhan Arya PW-30 by A-4 & A-5.
46.2. Mam Chand PW-7 No.
46.3. Sunil Kumar Kohli PW-12 by CBI on having been
declared hostile;
by A-4 & A-5.
46.4. Jitender Kumar PW-35 by A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 & A-7.
47. PW-30 is an Advocate who deposed that he served as Notary,
Government of India w.e.f. 20.04.1992 to 2006 and as a Notary he used to sit
in Old Court Compound, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Affidavits in the
name of Varun Kumar, Aveek Gupta and Jaspal Singh Sachdeva were shown
to PW-30 and he denied having attested those affidavits. He denied the
signatures at point A, B & C as well as the stamp impressions on theCBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 62/168
affidavits, which are Ex.PW30/A to Ex.PW30/C. PW-30 identified his
specimen signatures Ex.PW30/D (Colly) [S-181 to S-185]. He revealed
during his cross-examination that his stamp/seals were not seized by the CBI
during investigation.
48. PW-7 deposed that the House No. 1/2-8, Village Malik Pur, Post
Office Kingsway Camp, PS Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, belonged to him, which
he had never rented out. He was residing in that house since birth and had
never allowed any person or Society to use it. He also deposed that he never
became member of any CGHS.
49. PW-12 deposed that he was familiar with accused Raman Vij because
his wife Anjana Vij was the treasurer of Upkari CGHS. He had given a loan of
Rs.25 lakhs to one Harminder Singh Bajaj and Happy. He had no knowledge
about the handwriting & signature on the certificate Ex.PW12/A (D-13)
which certified that he had advanced a loan of Rs.10 lacs to New Anamika
CGHS on 28.02.2002. PW-12 was declared hostile by the prosecution and
confronted with his statement recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. which is
Ex.PW12/PX-1. PW-12 denied having made the said statement to the IO &
deposed during his cross-examination that he was not in a position to identify
the Handwriting & Signature of accused Raman Kumar Vij & Nitesh Kumar
Vij because he had never seen them writing and signing.
50. PW-35 Jitender Kumar is the star witness of the prosecution who was
examined to prove the factum of conspiracy. His testimony shall be
appreciated in detail in the latter part of this judgment. The documents which
were put to PW-35 are however detailed herein below: –
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 63/168
S.No. Description of Document Exhibit/Mark Relevant
Documents No. & Page No. Deposition
No.
50.1. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW2/A-4 Proceedings
Meeting dated (Page 107 prepared by Sri
06.06.1999 in to Chand & names at
Ex.PW6/PX. 111) Sr. No. 32, 33, 34
& 35 written in
his Handwriting
on the
instructions of Sri
Chand.
50.2. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW35/A Names at Sr. no.
Meeting dated (Page 115 1-14 written in his
10.03.2000 in to handwriting on
Ex.PW6/PX. 116) the instructions of
Sri Chand.
Proceedings
written by Sri
Chand.
50.3. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW35/B Names at Sr. no.
Meeting dated (Page 119 1-20 written in his
20.06.2000 in to handwriting on
Ex.PW6/PX. 120) the instructions of
Sri Chand.
Proceedings
written by Sri
Chand.
50.4. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW36/E Cannot identify
Meeting dated (Page 129 the handwriting in
24.11.2002 in to which
Ex.PW6/PX. 131) proceedings are
written.
50.5. Photocopies of D-9 Mark PW35/X Receipt filled up
Receipts no. 95, (Page 117/C (Colly) by him on the
96, 97, 98, 106, to instructions of
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 64/168
109. 122/C) Raman Kumar Vij
& given to Sri
Chand.
50.6. Application D-5 Ex.PW35/C PW-35 admitted
Form for (Page 31-39, (Colly) having written the
Membership of 79 & 83) particulars on
Nitesh Kumar these application
(dated forms on the
05.03.2000); instructions of
Suresh Kumar accused Raman
(dated Kumar Vij. He
05.03.2000); asserted that after
Pawan Kumar putting his
Aggarwal (dated signature on his
05.03.2000); membership form
Kanchan Vij and obtaining the
(dated signatures of the
05.03.2000); other members on
Monika Vij their respective
(dated forms, he had
05.03.2000); handed those over
Pawan Sharma to accused Sri
(dated Chand as per
05.03.2000); instructions of
Jitender Kumar accused Raman
(dated Kumar Vij.
05.03.2000);
Neetu Bindal
(dated
05.03.2000);
Shaily Aggarwal
(dated
05.03.2000);
Vijay Prakash
Sharma (dated
10.04.2002); &
Varun Kumar
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 65/168
(dated
10.01.2003).
50.7. Affidavits, dated D-9 Ex.PW35/D PW-35 asserted
07.12.2002, of (Page 264/C, (Colly) that the stamp
Seema Sharma, 265/C papers for the
Vijay Prakash and affidavits were
Sharma, Shaily 298/C purchased by him
Aggarwal, to and entries at the
Pawan Sharma, 304/C) back side were
Monika Vij, filled up in his
Kanchan Rani, handwriting. He
Pawan Kumar also prepared
Aggarwal, these affidavits on
Suresh Kumar the instruction of
and Nitish Raman Kumar Vij
Kumar. and had filled the
particulars in the
said affidavits in
his own
handwriting, after
which he got
those affidavits
attested through
Notary Public and
handed over the
same to the
accused Sri
Chand.
50.8. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW36/F Proceedings
Meeting dated (Page 132) written by Sri
24.11.2002. Chand in his
presence. No
meeting actually
took place on
24.11.2002.
Signature on the
minutes were
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 66/168
obtained by him
& handed over to
Sri Chand.
50.9. Minutes of the D-12 Ex.PW35/E PW-35 asserted
Meetings dated (Page 95 to that proceedings
15.07.1998, to Ex.PW35/O of the meetings
15.08.1998, Page 101 were written by
20.10.1998, & Sri Chand in his
20.11.1998, Page 112 presence.
25.11.1998, to
11.06.1999, Page 123)
05.02.2000,
10.03.2000,
15.05.2000,
20.06.2000 &
10.10.2000 in
Ex.PW6/PX.
50.10. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW35/P PW-35 asserted
Meetings dated (Page 136 to that the
28.02.2003, to Ex.PW35/S proceedings were
11.03.2003, 144) written by
15.05.2003 & & accused Raman
19.10.2003 in (Page 155 Kumar Vij in his
Ex.PW6/PX. to presence.
156)
50.11. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW35/T PW-35 deposed
Meetings dated (Page 146 & that proceedings
25.07.2003 and to Ex.PW35/U of the meetings
07.08.2003 in 154) (Also were written by
Ex.PW6/PX. Ex.PW36/L him at the
& instruction of
PW37/F) Raman Kumar
Vij.
50.12. Resignation- D-3 Ex.PW35/V His signature and
cum-Receipt (Page 125) handwriting
dated identified by
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 67/168
20.02.2022 & PW-35.
28.02.2022
respectively.
50.13. Resignation- D-3 Ex.PW35/W1 PW-35 asserted
cum-receipt (Page 126) that contents of
dated the documents
20.02.2022 & were typed by
28.02.2022 him & particulars
respectively, in the receipt are
pertaining to filled in his
Varun Kumar. handwriting on
the instructions of
accused Raman
Kumar Vij. He
obtained
signature of the
concerned
member
thereafter and
handed over the
resignation form
to Sri Chand.
50.14. Resignation- D-3 Ex.PW35/W2 PW-35 asserted
cum-receipt (Page 127) that contents of
dated 20.02.22 the documents
& 28.02.22 were typed by
respectively him & particulars
pertaining to in the receipt are
Anil Kumar. filled in his
handwriting on
the instructions of
accused Raman
Kumar Vij. He
obtained
signature of the
concerned
member
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 68/168
thereafter and
handed over the
resignation form
to Sri Chand.
50.15. Resignation- D-3 Ex.PW35/W3 PW-35 asserted
cum-receipt (Page 128) that contents of
dated 20.02.22 the documents
& 28.02.22 were typed by
respectively, him & particulars
pertaining to in the receipt are
Bimla Devi. filled in his
handwriting on
the instructions of
accused Raman
Kumar Vij. He
obtained
signature of the
concerned
member
thereafter and
handed over the
resignation form
to Sri Chand.
50.16. Resignation- D-3 Ex.PW35/W4 PW-35 asserted
-cum-receipt (Page 129) that contents of
dated 20.02.22 the documents
& 28.02.22 were typed by
respectively him & particulars
pertaining to in the receipt are
Kartik Singhal. filled in his
handwriting on
the instructions of
accused Raman
Kumar Vij. He
obtained
signature of the
concerned
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 69/168
member
thereafter and
handed over the
resignation form
to Sri Chand.
50.17. Resignation- D-3 Ex.PW35/W5 PW-35 asserted
cum-receipt (Page 130) that contents of
dated 20.02.22 the documents
& 28.02.22 were typed by
respectively, him & particulars
pertaining to in the receipt are
Dikshu Singhal. filled in his
handwriting on
the instructions of
accused Raman
Kumar Vij. He
obtained
signature of the
concerned
member
thereafter and
handed over the
resignation form
to Sri Chand.
50.18. Audit Report of D-14 Ex.PW36/D PW-36 deposed
the Society from that Audit report
01.04.1999 to was prepared by
31.03.2002. M/s Anil Radhey
& Company. He
handed over the
cheque of
Rs.13,000/- and
other documents
to the CA. The
report was also
collected by him
from Sri Chand
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 70/168
and given to
Raman Kumar
Vij.
50.19. Photocopy of D-9 Ex. PW35/DX1 PW-35 admitted
Ration Card (Page 205/C) that entry R. L.
Proforma Dua at Sr. no. 6 is
in his
handwriting.
50.20. Photocopy of D-9 Ex.PW35/DX-2 PW-35 deposed
Ration Card (Page 259/C) that entire
Proforma proforma is filled
in his handwriting
but he cannot say
if signature of
accused Raman
Kumar Vij as
'Head of the
Family' were
forged. He
deposed that after
filling he had left
the proforma with
Sri Chand.
50.21. Minutes of D-12 Ex.PW36/K PW-35 deposed
Meeting dated (Page 143) that the minutes
15.05.2003 in and name of his
Ex.PW6/PX. brother at Sr. no.
23 of the minutes
are in his
handwriting.
51. The CBI official examined by the prosecution is PW-39 DSP B.S.
Chauhan. He is the IO of this case. He deposed about the investigation
undertaken by him. The documents put to him in his testimony are as below: –
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 71/168
S.No. Description of Document Exhibit No. Relevant
Documents No. and Deposition
Page No.
51.1. FIR D-1 Ex. PW39/A Identified
signature of ASP
Sh. Javed Siraj, at
point A.
51.2. Charge Sheet — Ex.PW39/B PW-39 identified
his signature at
point A and
signature of Sh. R.
R. Sahay, the then
SP at point B.
51.3. Handing / Taking D-26 Ex.PW39/C Identified his
Over Memo dated signature at point
12.10.2006. A, signature of Sh
R. N. Maharia,
Inspector, CBI at
point ‘B’ & Sh.
Jagrup Singh,
Inspector, CBI at
point C.
51.4. Handing/Taking D-27 Ex.PW34/C Identified his
Over Memo dated signature at point
13.11.2006 C.
51.5. Production Memo D-28 Ex.PW39/D Identified his
dated 14.05.2007. signature at point
A and the
signature of Sh.
Sunil Kumar
Kohli at point B.
51.6. Forwarding D-25 Ex.PW33/A Signature of Sh.
Letter dated R.R. Sahay, the
24.05.2007 sent then SP, identified
by CBI, to the as point A. PW-39
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 72/168
GEQD, identified his
Hyderabad. signature at point
A of Annexure I,
II & III.
51.7. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW33/F Identified his
signatures/writing (S-1 (Colly) signature at point
of Jitender to A & signature of
Kumar. S-35) witness Sanjay
Kaparia at point
B, stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.8. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW14/Z-3 Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-36 (Colly) signature at point
of Ram Kumar to A & signature of
Chaudhary. S-40) witness R. K.
Gupta at point B
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.9. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW1/A-5 Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-41 (Colly) signature at point
of Gulshan to A & signature of
Kumar. S-45) witness Prashant
Makkar at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.10. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/E Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-46 (Colly) signature at point
of Som Nath to A & signature of
Dem. S-50) witness Ashok
Kumar at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 73/168
51.11. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW28/C Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-51 (Colly) signature at point
of Ashok Kumar. to B & signature of
S-55) witness Ashok
Kumar at point C,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.12. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW2/A-5 Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-56 (Colly) signature at point
of Arun Kumar. to B & signature of
S-60) witness Jagdish
Kumar at point C,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.13. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW3/A-2 Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-61 (Colly) signature at point
of Ved Kumar. to A & signature of
S-65) witness Jagdish
Kumar at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.14. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW5/A-4 Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-66 (Colly) signature at point
of Kailash Chand. to A & signature of
S-75) witness Rakesh
Bhalla at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.15. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/F Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-76 (Colly) signature at point
of Ashok Kumar to A & signature of
Chaturvedi. S-80) witness Devender
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 74/168
Kumar at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.16. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW6/A-3 Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-81 (Colly) signature at point
of Bhawar Pal. to A & signature of
S-85) witness Jitender
Jawa at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.17. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/G Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-86 (Colly) signature at point
of Mohar Singh. to A & signature of
S-90) witness Jitender
Jawa at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.18. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/H Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-91 (Colly) signature at point
of Prem Dass. to A & signature of
S-95) witness Jitender
Jawa at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.19. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW32/B Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-96 (Colly) signature at point
of Patras @ to B & signature of
Pappu Lal. S-100) witness Jitender
Jawa at point C,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 75/168
51.20. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW8/E Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-101 (Colly) signature at point
of Sarabjit Singh. to A & signature of
S-105) witness Vijay
Kumar Soni at
point B, stating
that the specimen
were taken by
him.
51.21. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW9/B Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-106 (Colly) signature at point
of Manbir Singh to A & signature of
Bhatia. S-110) witness Vijay
Kumar Soni at
point B, stating
that the specimen
were taken by
him.
51.22. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW17/J Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-111 (Colly) signature at point
of Kedar Nath. to B & signature of
S-115) witness Vijay
Singh Dayal at
point C, stating
that the specimen
were taken by
him.
51.23. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/I Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-116 to (Colly) signature at point
of Baij Nath. S-120) A & signature of
witness Yogesh
Nigam at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.24. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW18/K Identified his own
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 76/168
signatures/writing (S-121 (Colly) signature at point
of Major General to A & signature of
Anil Mohan S-125) witness Banwari
Chaturvedi. Lal at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.25. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW22/N Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-126 (Colly) signature at point
of Kamal Kishan to A & signature of
Nigam. S-130) witness A.K.
Taneja at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.26. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/J Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-131 (Colly) signature at point
of Vijay Kishan to A & signature of
Chaturvedi. S-135) witness Dharam
Pal at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.27. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/K Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-136 (Colly) signature at point
of Pramod Kumar to A & signature of
Nigam. S-140) witness Bishan
Singh at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.28. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW10/C Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-141 (Colly) signature at point
of Nanak Chand. to A & signature of
S-144) witness Bishan
Singh at point B,
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 77/168
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.29. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/L Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-145 (Colly) signature at point
of Praveen to A & signature of
Kumar. S-149) witness Bishan
Singh at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.30. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW24/E Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-150 (Colly) signature at point
of Davinder to A & signature of
Singh. S-154) witness Bishan
Singh at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.31. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW37/G Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-155 (Colly) signature at point
of Ramji Lal Dua to A, signature of
S-159) witness Bishan
Singh at point B &
signature of
witness Birghu
Das at point C,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.32. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW23/D Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-160 (Colly) signature at point
of Manish to A & signature of
Kashyap. S-164) witness Bishan
Singh at point B,
stating that the
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 78/168
specimen were
taken by him.
51.33. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW36/M Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-165 (Colly) signature at point
of Vikas Dixit. to B & signature of
S-169) witness Bishan
Singh at point C,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.34. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/M Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-170 (Colly) signature at point
of Nitesh Vij. to A & signature of
S-174) witness A.K.
Taneja at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.35. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/N Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-175 signature at point
of Raman Vij. to A & signature of
S-180) witness A.K.
Taneja at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.36. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW30/D Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-181 (Colly) signature at point
of Chander Bhan to B & signature of
Arya. S-185) witness Bishan
Singh at point C,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.37. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/O Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-186 (Colly) signature at point
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 79/168
of Kamal Singh to A & signature of
@ Kamal Masih. S-187) witness Bishan
Singh at point B,
stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.38. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/P Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-188 (Colly) signature at point
of Sukhwinder to A & signature of
Singh Bajaj. S-192) witness Vijay
Kumar Soni at
point B, stating
that the specimen
were taken by
him.
51.39. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/Q Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-194 signature at point
of Sri Chand. to A & signature of
S-227) witness
Dharambir Singh
at point B, stating
that the specimen
were taken by
him.
51.40. Specimen D-25 Ex.PW39/R Identified his own
signatures/writing (S-193 (Colly) signature at point
of Sri Chand. & A & signature of
S-228 witness Bishan
to Singh at point B,
S-239) stating that the
specimen were
taken by him.
51.41. Statement of -- Ex.PW1/PX Correctly
Gulshan Kumar recorded portion
u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. A to A.
51.42. Statement of Ved -- Ex.PW3/PX Correctly
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 80/168
Kumar u/Sec. 161 recorded portion
Cr.P.C. A to A.
51.43. Statement of -- Ex.PW5/PX Correctly
Kailash Chand recorded portion
u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. A to A, B to B, C
to C and D to D
51.44. Statement of -- Ex.PW6/PA Correctly
Bhanwar Pal recorded portion
u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. A to A & B to B.
51.45. Statement of -- Ex.PW10/PA Correctly
Nanak Chand recorded portion
u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. A to A.
51.46. Statement of -- Ex.PW12/PX Correctly
Sunil Kumar recorded portion
Kohli u/Sec. 161 A to A.
Cr.P.C.
51.47. Statement u/s 161 -- Ex.PW 39/S Asserted that the
Cr.P.C. of (Colly) statements of
witnesses Mohar these witnesses
Singh, Kasturi Lal were correctly
Pehlwal and recorded and all
Satish Mathur. these witnesses
had expired
during the trial, so
none of them
could be
examined as
witness.
51.48. Two affidavits of D-29 Ex.PW39/T These affidavits
accused Nitesh (Page 91/C were collected by
Kumar Vij to PW-39 & sent to
98/C) GEQD for
expert's opinion.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 81/168
52. PW-39 was cross-examined on behalf of accused no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7.
Contents of his cross-examination shall be referred in the latter part of this
judgment.
Statement of Accused
53. Entire incriminating material was put to all the five accused persons,
after completion of evidence of prosecution.
54. The incriminating material was denied by all the accused persons in
totality and they had put up their respective defence which is being
summarized as below:-
54.1 Accused Narender Kumar admitted that he was appointed as Election
Officer for conducting elections of the Managing Committee of New
Anamika CGHS on 06.06.1999, however, denied submitting the false report.
He stated that the elections were conducted genuinely. It is also his case that
the sanction to prosecute him was given by the sanctioning authority
mechanically and without application of mind. He stated that all the
witnesses have deposed falsely against him and the report furnished by
GEQD is also false and incorrect.
54.2 Accused Karamvir Singh stated that he was falsely implicated in this
case. He did not give any false report and the investigation carried out by the
IO was faulty and biased. He also stated that opinion of handwriting expert
was not based upon any scientific analysis. It is also his case that the sanction
granted against him by PW-40 is faulty because it was given in a mechanical
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 82/168
manner, without application of mind and PW-40 was not competent to grant
sanction.
54.3 Accused Harvinder Singh also alleged false implication and stated
that there was no incriminating material against him. He claimed that the
sanction to prosecution him was granted by the sanctioning authority without
application of mind. None of the Office Notings or documents proved on
record were connected to him. The alleged verification report pertaining to
resignations, given by him as per prosecution, was not proved and there was
no evidence of he having obtained any pecuniary benefit. The GEQD opinion
was not against him. No scientific basis for opinion of the handwriting expert
was disclosed in his report and the reasons furnished by him were incorrect.
54.4 Accused Nitesh Kumar Vij admitted that he was the Secretary of
New Anamika CGHS but denied that his father, accused Raman Kumar Vij,
was controlling the affairs of the Society. He denied having given specimen
signature to the CBI and stated that the report of handwriting expert was
without any scientific basis. He also stated that reasons for opinion given by
the scientific expert were incorrect. He asserted that he and his father were
falsely implicated in this case and IO had manipulated the evidence against
them. Nitesh Kumar Vij averred that the only witness who had deposed
against him was PW-39, the IO of this case, who had done so to save the real
culprits.
54.5. Accused Raman Kumar Vij claimed that he too was falsely
implicated by the IO who conducted unfair investigation, manipulated the
record and deposed falsely against him in order to shield the real culprits. He
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 83/168
admitted that he and PW-12 were known and explained that it was because
PW-12 was constructing the flats for Upkari CGHS which he used to visit
with his wife to check upon the progress of construction. Raman Kumar Vij
asserted that PW-37 had deposed falsely against him in order to protect
Balwinder Singh Bajaj with whom he was working. He alleged that PW-35
had also deposed falsely against him because he and the father of PW-35 were
working in the same branch of SBI and they had strained relations. Accused
Raman Kumar Vij further claimed that the affairs of New Anamika CGHS
were being handled by the father and brother of PW-35 and not by him. He
denied that he had given any specimen signature to the CBI and stated that the
expert who had examined his alleged specimen signature, did not place on
record any document to establish his expertise. On the point of his
identification by PW-35, accused Raman Kumar Vij claimed that he used to
visit the office of Upkari CGHS regularly with his wife to check upon the
progress of construction of flats and PW-35 must have seen him there.
Defence Evidence
55. No evidence was led in their defence by any of the five accused
persons.
Final Arguments
56. On completion of trial, final arguments were heard on behalf of all the
parties. Written arguments were filed too on behalf of all the accused persons.
The arguments are being summarized in the forthcoming paragraphs.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 84/168
57. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI while delineating the facts of this case,
contended that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the 45
witnesses examined by the prosecution. He contended that the accused Late
Sri Chand was the main conspirator and his connection with co-conspirators
Raman Kumar Vij & Nitesh Kumar Vij was proved through the testimony of
PW-32, PW-35 & PW-37.
57.1. Ld. Sr. PP referred to the testimony of PW-2, PW-3, PW-10, PW-14,
PW-16, PW-17, PW-18, PW-22 and PW-32 and argued that their testimonies,
when read with the report of GEQD which was corroborative, were sufficient
to prove that the reports dated 06.02.1999 & 06.06.1999 were forged &
fabricated. Ld. Sr. PP contended that this proof was sufficient to suggest
involvement of accused Karamvir Singh and Narender Kumar in the
conspiracy because the false reports furnished by them were meant to benefit
the Society.
57.2. The list Ex.PW14/L (Colly) was relied upon by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI to
show the role of accused Harvinder Singh in conspiracy. Ld. Sr. PP contended
that the endorsement on the list reflected that it was verified by the accused
Harvinder Singh, however, on Court’s question, Ld. Sr. PP conceded that
neither the endorsement nor signature of Harvinder Singh on the aforesaid list
were proved by any of the witnesses of the prosecution. Ld. Sr. PP also
conceded that neither any witness of the prosecution had deposed anything
about the involvement of accused Harvinder Singh nor his involvement was
proved from any of the Office Notings on record.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 85/168
57.3. The opinion of GEQD was heavily relied upon by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI
to contend that the allegations against accused Raman Kumar Vij and Nitesh
Kumar Vij were sufficiently substantiated. Ld. Sr. PP argued that the overt
acts done by the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij and Raman Kumar Vij included
applying for allotment of land on behalf of the Society, making payment
towards the land cost, and writing for changing the plot, all of which
suggested their active involvement and control over affairs of the Society.
This confirmed their role in achieving the object of conspiracy and proved the
case of prosecution against them beyond reasonable doubts.
58. Arguments advanced by Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI were countered on
behalf of all the accused persons one by one.
59. Ld. Counsel for the accused Narender Kumar contended that he had no
role in revival of the Society. The election dated 06.06.1999 was conducted
after the revival and it was conducted bonafidely. The accused was acting as
Election Officer and his role was to only supervise the election. He was not
obligated to personally verify the identity of each of the members who had
participated in the election. This responsibility was given to the office bearers
of the Society and he had relied upon them to ascertain the genuineness of
persons who voted in the election. No complaint was received by him
regarding any fake member or irregularity. Ld. Counsel relied upon the
testimony of IO (PW-39) and the officials of RCS, i.e. PW-19, PW-20,
PW-21, PW-26, PW-27, PW-29 and PW-31 to contend that none of these
witnesses deposed that accused Narender Kumar was under an obligation to
check the identity of each of the persons who were present to vote in the
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 86/168
elections, and that is why PW-39 admittedly did not recommend any
departmental action against him.
59.1. Ld. Counsel for accused Narender Kumar also argued that PW-2,
PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-14, PW-17 and PW-28 did not support the case of
prosecution and their testimony was rather in favour of accused which
established that the elections were held fairly. Ld. Counsel referred to the
testimony of PW-8, PW-16, PW-18 and PW-22 and contended that though
they denied their signature on the election proceedings dated 06.06.1999, it
was possible that they were impersonated by some other people during the
election meeting, blame for which cannot be put upon the accused Narender
Kumar because he was not obligated to verify their identity. He contended
that the irregularity or administrative lapse committed by a public servant
while performing his duty may be termed as an error of judgment, but it
cannot give rise to a criminal liability for want of mens rea. Ld. Counsel
placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Bose
v. State of Bihar 2 in support of the said contention.
59.2 Further contention on behalf of accused Narender Kumar was that the
elections conducted by him had no connection to the forwarding of freeze list
of members of the Society to the DDA or to the allotment of land by the DDA
to the Society. There was no evidence against him reflecting his involvement
in the alleged criminal conspiracy. There was moreover no evidence that he
had obtained any pecuniary advantage in lieu of his report dated 06.06.1999.
Prosecution did not prove any wrongful loss or wrongful gain to anyone
either, because possession of the land allotted by DDA was never taken by the
2
(1974) 4 SCC 616.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 87/168
Society in this case. Ld. Counsel relied upon the following more judgments in
support of his aforesaid arguments:-
ii) Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of M.P.4
59.3. The sanction for prosecution of accused Narender Kumar, granted
u/Sec. 19 of the PC Act, 1998, was also questioned by Ld. Counsel, who
contended that the authority granting sanction against Narender Kumar was
neither competent nor had applied its mind while granting the sanction. The
sanction was granted without following the due process of law and therefore,
was bad in the eyes of law. The following judgments were relied upon by Ld.
Counsel in support of the said contention: –
vi) State of Maharashtra through Deputy Superintendent of Police
ACB Nagpur v. Devidas s/o Narayanrao Bobde1059.4 The last contention raised on behalf of accused Narender Kumar was
that he could not have been prosecuted for the offences punishable under IPC
in absence of sanction u/Sec. 197(1) Cr.P.C. The following case laws were
relied upon in support of this contention: –
3
(2005) 12 SCC 631.
4
Criminal Appeal No. 1066/2010 decided by the Supreme Court on 25.08.2022.
5
(1997) 7 SCC 622.
6
AIR 1984 SC 684.
7
Criminal Appeal No. 1838 of 2013, decided on 22.11.2013 by the Supreme Court.
8
(1998) 9 SCC 268.
9
Crl. Appeal No. 1107 of 2004, decided on 23.02.2021 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
10
Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 2002, decided on 08.09.2014 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 88/168
i) G.C. Manjunath & Others v. Seetaram11
ii) Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Another12
iii) A. Srinivasulu v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police 13
iv) Amod Kumar Kanth v. Association of Victim of Uphaar
Tragedy and Anr.14
v) Indira Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.15
60. Issue of competency regarding the sanction for prosecution granted
u/Sec. 19 PC Act, 1998 and lack of sanction U/sec. 197 Cr.P.C. were also the
prime contentions of accused Harvinder Singh. Same judgments, as for
accused Narender Kumar, were referred for this accused too. His only
contention apart from the issue of sanction was that there was no material on
record to connect him to any of the alleged offences, as no overt act was
proved by the prosecution that showed his involvement in conspiracy. It was
contended that the prosecution did not prove signature of accused Harvinder
on any documents or Office Notings. His involvement in the revival process
in any manner was not proved either.
61. Lack of competency to grant sanction u/Sec. 19 PC Act, 1988 and lack
of sanction u/Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. were highlighted on behalf of accused
Karamvir Singh too. Ld. Counsel for this accused referred to the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay 16 to butteress his
contention regarding lack of competency. Ld. Counsel also contended that
the prosecution did not establish the identity of accused Karamvir Singh and
11
Criminal Appeal No. 1579 of 2025 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6053 of 2021],
decided by Supreme Court on 03.04.2025.
12
Criminal Appeal of 2025 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6898 of 2023], decided by the
Supreme Court on 25.02.2025.
13
Criminal Appeal No. 2417 of 2010, decided by the Supreme Court on 15.06.2023.
14
Criminal Appeal No. 1359 of 2017, decided by the Supreme Court on 20.04.2023
15
Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2021 [Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1605 of 2018], decided by the Supreme
Court on 23.07.2021.
16
(1984) 2 SCC 183.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 89/168
did not connect him to any Office Noting or false/fabricated report by proving
his signature. Ld. Counsel contended that not all the incriminating
circumstances were put to this accused u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. No question was
put to the accused regarding his signature or handwriting, hence, the same
cannot be read against him now. Ld. Counsel argued that it was the
responsibility of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and
accused had a right to stay silent. If the prosecution had failed to prove
allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, no presumption
could be raised against the accused for remaining silent. The following
judgments were relied upon by Ld. Counsel in support of his contentions: –
vi) N.K. Ganguly v. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi 23
viii) Krishna Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation25
ix) Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr.26
x) Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and Others27
62. Ld. Counsel for the accused Raman Kumar Vij & Nitesh Kumar Vij
contended that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against these two
17
(2012) 2 SCC 34.
18
(2008) 16 SCC 328.
19
(2013) 12 SCC 406.
20
MANU/UP/1304/2019.
21
MANU/DE/3258/2009.
22
(2024) 3 SCC 481.
23
(2016) 2 SCC 143.
24
2023 SCC OnLine Del 7440.
25
Crl. MC 3481/18 decided by the High Court of Delhi on 21.08.2024.
26
Criminal Appeal No. 984 of 2007, decided by the Supreme Court on 15.03.2012
27
(2001) 6 SCC 145
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 90/168
accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He referred to the chargesheet and
para no. 22 & 23 of the Order on the point of charge. Ld. Counsel pointed out
that no land was allotted to the Society by the DDA and no flats were
constructed. The accused Nitesh Kumar Vij was inducted in the Society as a
member admittedly in the year 2000, after revival of the Society. Hence, it
was own case of the prosecution that accused Nitesh Kumar Vij and his father
Raman Kumar Vij had no role in revival of the Society. Ld. Counsel
contended that primarily there were three allegations against the
aforementioned two accused persons and none of those were proved by the
prosecution.
62.1 The first allegation, it was argued, was with respect to the loan of
Rs.25 lacs given to the Society by PW-12 (Sunil Kumar Kohli). However,
PW-12 did not support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile. The
certificate (D-13), signature on which were imputed to the accused Nitesh
Kumar Vij, could not be proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and
reliable evidence. Ld. Counsel also referred to the bye-laws of the Society,
specifically to Rule 10(b), and argued that the term ‘Capital’ used in the said
rule consisted of loans and deposits, suggesting that the Society was
empowered to take contributions in the form of loan or deposits from the
members as well as non-members. Ld. Counsel referred to the audit reports
(D-14 & D-24) as well as balance sheet for the year 2001-2002 which
reflected the loan of Rs.29 lacs taken by the Society. Ld. Counsel contended
that even if it was admitted that loan was taken by the Society through Nitesh
Kumar Vij, the said transaction was within legal parameters for which no
criminal liability could have been imputed. Ld. Counsel further referred to
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 91/168
the statement of PW-39 (IO B.S. Chauhan), who had admitted in his cross-
examination that the bank account statement of the Society regarding loan of
Rs.10 lakhs was not verified by him & contended that this lapse on the part of
investigating agency was deliberate, giving rise to presumption that the bank
account statement would have been unfavourable to the prosecution if it was
produced in the Court.
62.2 Regarding the second allegation that the accused Raman Kumar Vij
& Nitesh Kumar Vij were having control over the affairs of the Society, Ld.
Counsel contended that the testimony of PW-23, PW-24, PW-36 & PW37
was not at all in favour of prosecution because none of these witnesses
deposed anything against accused Raman Kumar Vij or Nitesh Kumar Vij.
Testimony of PW-35 was not reliable because this witness had made many
self-exculpatory statements and had contradicted himself many a times. Ld.
Counsel contended that PW-35 had deposed against accused Raman Kumar
Vij and Nitesh Kumar Vij because of prior enmity and a suggestion in this
regard was also put to him during his cross-examination. Ld. Counsel further
took the Court through the testimony of PW-39 (IO) and contended that the
IO admitted that there were traces of wrongdoing having been done in the
affairs of the Society by PW-35 as per the report of GEQD.
62.3 Ld. Counsel moreover argued that the third allegation of forgery was
also not proved by the prosecution, firstly, because the specimen signature of
accused Raman Kumar Vij & Nitesh Kumar Vij that the prosecution
attempted to prove through independent witnesses, namely, PW-42 and
PW-45 were not proved as per law and secondly, because the GEQD report
was not reliable. It was contended that the testimony of the two independent
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 92/168
witnesses was not credible, since they could not identify the accused persons
in the Court. The expert’s opinion received from GEQD was not reliable as
the same was not based upon universally accepted scientific principles and
had not taken many important characteristics in consideration while
examining the questioned and specimen signature. Ld. Counsel urged that
opinion of handwriting expert should not be relied upon by the Court because
the same was not based upon the acceptable parameters for comparison.
62.4 Ld. Counsel relied upon a lot of judgments in support of his
contentions. The judgments relied upon by him with respect to the
evidentiary value of an expert’s opinion are as below:-
i) Titli v. Alfred Robert Jones28 ii) Pandit Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohd. Isa29 iii) Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee30 iv) Devi Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh31 vi) Bhagwan Kaur v. Maharaj Krishan Sharma32 vii) Ram Narain v. State of U.P. 33 viii) Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab 34 ix) Murari Lal v. State of M.P. 35 x) State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh 36 xi) Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi) 37 xii) Amarjit Singh v. State of U.P.38 xiii) State of A.P. v. M. Durga Prasad 39 28 1933 SCC OnLine All 310. 29 1962 SCC OnLine SC 88. 30 1963 SCC OnLine SC 114. 31 1966 SCC OnLine SC 55. 32 (1973) 4 SCC 46. 33 (1973) 2 SCC 86. 34 (1977) 2 SCC 210. 35 (1980) 1 SCC 704. 36 (1992) 3 SCC 700. 37 (2003) 1 SCC 21. 38 (1998) 8 SCC 613 39 (2011) 15 SCC 365. CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 93/168 xiv) Ravjaippa v. Nilakanta Rao40
xv) Chakrapani Shukla v. Chandoo41
xvi) State of Rajasthan v. Dr. J.P. Sharma42
xvii) Bhargav Kundalik Salunkhe v. State of Maharashtra43
xviii) Sandeep Dixit v. State44
xix) S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P.45
xx) Padum Kumar v. State of U.P. 46
xxi) Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee 47
xxii) Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. and
Ors. 48
xxiii) State of H.P. v. Jai Lal and Ors.49
xiv) M. Durga Prasad, Spl. Assistant, Syndicate Bank and
Etc. v. The State of A.P. and etc.50
62.5 The judgments with respect to the law related to conspiracy relied
upon by Ld. Counsel for accused Raman Kumar Vij & Nitesh Kumar Vij are
as below:-
ii) Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody v. The State of Bombay52
iii) V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.)53
40
1960 SCC OnLine Kar 55.
41
1958 SCC OnLine MP 148.
42
1982 SCC OnLine Raj 80.
43
1995 SCC OnLine Bom 483.
44
2012 SCC OnLine Del 2430.
45
(1996) 4 SCC 596.
46
(2020) 3 SCC 35.
47
AIR 2010 SC 806.
48
AIR 2010 SC 806.
49
1999 7 SCC 280
50
2003 SCC OnLine AP 1261
51
1957 SCC OnLine SC 15
52
1961 SCC OnLine SC 1
53
(1980) 2 SCC 665
54
(1988) 2 SCC 609
55
(1993) 3 SCC 609.
56
1997 SCC OnLine Del 382.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 94/168
vii) State v. Nalini 57
viii) State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan58
ix) Esher Singh v. State of A.P. 59 and
x) State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu60
62.6 In addition to the aforesaid judgments, a few more judgments, as below,
in order to butteress his arguments, were relied upon by the Ld. Counsel on
the point of appreciation of evidence and adjudging the credibility of a
witness: –
63. Ld. Sr. PP contended during rebuttal arguments that the report of
expert was reliable and prosecution was able to prove its case through the
testimony of various witnesses. Ld. Prosecutor contended that oral testimony
of witnesses of the prosecution were corroborated by the report of GEQD
and therefore it could not be said that the same did not inspire confidence.
Ld. Prosecutor also defended the Sanction Order and relied upon the
following judgments in support of his contentions: –
iii) C. Kamalakkannan v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of
Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai 65
iv) Murari Lal s/o Ram Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 66
57
(1999) 5 SCC 253.
58
(2000) 8 SCC 203.
59
(2004) 11 SCC 585
60
(2005) 11 SCC 600.
61
(1981) 1 SCC 80.
62
1995 SCC OnLine Del 251.
63
AIR 1967 SC 1331.
64
Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 2024 decided by the Supreme Court on 17.01.2024
65
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 287.
66
1980 SCR (2) 249.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 95/168
v) State of Uttarakhand v. Yogendra Nath Arora67
vi) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Chander Diwan68
vii) Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi69
viii) Mahavir Singh v. State of Haryana 70
ix) Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma v. State of Tripura71 and
x) G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka72
63.1 Ld. Sr. PP contended that the opinion furnished by the expert from
GEQD was reliable. The said expert was a Government Examiner having 16
years of experience. He had discussed all the special characteristics of the
alphabets and was not cross-examined by the defence on that aspect.
63.2 Ld. Sr. PP further contended that the issue that the identity of the
accused Raman Kumar Vij & Nitesh Kumar Vij could not be proved by
PW-42 and PW-45 is of no consequence because their identity was proved by
the IO who was a public servant.
64. Ld. Counsel for the accused Raman Kumar Vij & Nitesh Kumar Vij
responded to the rebuttal arguments advanced by the Ld. Sr. PP and
contended that the Court was required to look for corroboration to the oral
testimony of a witness only when the witness was credible. In a case where
credibility of a witness was shaken, there was no need to look for
corroboration, because in that case the testimony will have to be discarded
altogether.
67
AIR 2013 SC 1489.
68
Criminal Appeal No. 1527 of 2025, decided by the Supreme Court on 22.04.2025.
69
Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 2011, decided by the Supreme Court on 21.09.2023.
70
Criminal Appeal No. 2231 of 2010, decided by the Supreme Court on 23.05.2014.
71
2014 (4) SCC 747.
72
AIR 2010 SC 2914.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 96/168
65. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record
carefully.
Analysis & Reasons for Decision: –
66. The accused persons have been charged for conspiracy,
impersonation, forgery, using forged documents and for criminal
misconduct.
67. The charge of conspiracy framed against the accused persons read as
below:-
“I,…………………… do hereby charge you A-1 Brij Mohan
Sethi (since expired), A-2 Narender Kumar, A-3 Sri Chand, A-4
Raman Kumar Vij, A-5 Nitesh Kumar Vij, A-6 Karamvir Singh,
A-7 Harvinder Singh, A-8 Baij Nath and A-9 Vijay Kishan
Chaturvedi as under:
Firstly: That you A-1 Brij Mohan Sethi (since expired), A-2
Narender Kumar, A-3 Sri Chand, A-4 Raman Kumar Vij, A-5
Nitesh Kumar Vij, A-6 Karamvir Singh, A-7 Harvinder Singh,
A-8 Baij Nath and A-9 Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi during the year
1998-2003 at Delhi and other places were party to a criminal
conspiracy by having agreed to do an illegal act i.e. to cheat the
office of Registrar Co-operative society and Delhi Development
Authority Delhi, by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing it to
revive and approve the Freeze list of 75 fictitious members of
New Anamika CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents
for getting land from DDA at a cheaper rate. You hereby
committed an offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC and within my
cognizance.”
68. The substantive charges framed against each of the accused persons
are as below:-
68.1. Accused Harvinder Singh has been charged for the offence
punishable u/Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. It is alleged againstCBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 97/168
him that in pursuance to the conspiracy, he abused his official position as
public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage without any public interest,
by putting up favourable Notings and giving false verification reports for
getting revived the New Anamika CGHS and for getting approved the freeze
list of 75 members of the Society on the basis of forged documents.
68.2. Accused Karamvir Singh has been similarly charged for the offence
punishable u/Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 with allegations
that he had prepared a false and bogus report dated 08.02.1999 with respect to
holding of GBM of the Society on 06.02.1999, thereby abusing his official
position as public servant for obtaining pecuniary advantage without any
public interest. It is alleged that he also did so in pursuance to the conspiracy.
68.3. Accused Narender Kumar too is a public servant and has been
charged for criminal misconduct punishable u/Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
PC Act, 1988 with allegations that he had furnished a false report dated
08.06.1999 regarding holding of elections for the Managing Committee of
the Society on 06.06.1999 in the premises where office of RCS is located,
thereby abusing his official position as public servant for obtaining pecuniary
advantage without any public interest.
68.4. The accused Sri Chand is a private person. He is no more. He has
been charged for impersonating as R. K. Chaudhary, forging the letter dated
03.12.1998 for seeking revival of the Society and for forging resignations of
members of the Society in order to cheat the office of RCS and DDA and
induce them to revive the Society and approve freeze list of 75 members on
the basis of forged and fabricated documents. It is alleged that the forgedCBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 98/168
documents were used by the accused Sri Chand in the office of RCS and DDA
on the basis of which he was successful in getting the Society revived and the
freeze list approved.
68.5. The accused Raman Kumar Vij has been charged for preparing false
and bogus minutes of meeting dated 11.03.2003 and 15.07.2003
(inadvertently mentioned as 15.03.2003 in the charge). He was further
charged for arranging loan of Rs.25,00,000/- for construction of flats on the
land allotted to the Society, from one Sunil Kumar Kohli, in connivance with
his son and co-accused Nitesh Kumar Vij. Further allegation against him is
that he had forged various resignations of members of the Society.
68.6. Accused Nitesh Kumar Vij, who is the son of accused Raman Kumar
Vij, has also been similarly charged. It is additionally alleged against him that
the false and forged documents were submitted by him in the office of RCS.
68.7. The accused Baij Nath and Vijay Kishan Chaturvedi are no more.
They were alive at the time of framing of charge. Allegations against them are
that they had signed the bogus minutes of meetings dated 10.11.1990,
25.01.1991 and 14.04.1991 in connivance with the co-accused Sri Chand for
getting the New Anamika CGHS revived and the freeze list approved.
69. The question that arises for determination is if the prosecution has
been able to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the offences
charged, by leading cogent and reliable evidence.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 99/168
70. The first allegation against all the accused persons is of conspiracy,
which is defined u/Sec. 120A IPC and is punishable u/Sec. 120B IPC. Section
120A IPC reads as below:-
“120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.– When two or more
persons agree to do, or cause to be done, —
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such
an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an
offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act
besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such
agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation: It is immaterial whether the illegal
act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely
incidental to that object.”
71. The law of conspiracy is well settled. Hon’ble Higher Courts in a
platora of cases have reiterated that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and
direct evidence of such an offence is rarely available, thus conspiracy can
be proved through circumstantial evidence.
72. In Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India73 the Hon’ble Apex Court had
observed as below:-
“8. ….. Conspiracy is conceived as having three elements: (1)
agreement (2) between two or more persons by whom the
agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which
may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may
constitute the means, or one of the means by which that
aim is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether this is
found in the ultimate objects…….”
(Emphasis supplied).
73
(1993) 3 SCC 609.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 100/168
73. In State v. Nalini74 some broad principles governing the law of
conspiracy were laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The relevant
paragraphs read as below:-
“583. Some of the broad principles governing the law of
conspiracy may be summarized though, as the name
implies, a summary cannot be exhaustive of the principles.
1. Under Section 120-A IPC offence of
criminal conspiracy is committed when two or
more persons agree to do or cause to be done
an illegal act or legal act by illegal means.
When it is a legal act by illegal means overt act
is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is
an exception to the general law where intent
alone does not constitute crime. It is intention
to commit crime and joining hands with
persons having the same intentions. Not only
the intention but there has to be agreement to
carry out the object of the intention, which is
an offence. The question for consideration in a
case is did all the accused have the intention
and did they agree that the crime be
committed. It would not be enough for the
offence of conspiracy when some of the
accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever
horrendous it may be that offence be
committed.
2. Acts subsequent to the achieving of
the object of conspiracy may tend to prove that
the particular accused was party to the
conspiracy. Once the object of conspiracy has
been achieved, any subsequent act, which may
be unlawful, would not make the accused a
part of the conspiracy like giving shelter to an
absconder.
74
(1999) 5 SCC 253.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 101/168
3. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in
secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a
conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both
the existence of the conspiracy and its object
have to be inferred from the circumstances and
the conduct of the accused.
4. Conspirators may for example, be
enrolled in a chain – A enrolling B, B enrolling
C, and so on; and all will be members of a
single conspiracy if they so intend and agree,
even though each member knows only the
person who enrolled him and the person whom
he enrols. There may be a kind of umbrella-
spoke enrolment, where a single person at the
centre does the enrolling and all the other
members are unknown to each other, though
they know that there are to be other members.
These are theories and in practice it may be
difficult to tell which conspiracy in a particular
case falls into which category. It may however,
even overlap. ut then there has to be present
mutual interest. Persons may be members of
single conspiracy even though each is ignorant
of the identity of many others who may have
diverse roles to play. It is not a part of the crime
of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to
agree to play the same or an active role.
5. When two or more persons agree to
commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless
of making or considering any plans for its
commission, and despite the fact that no step is
taken by any such persons to carry out their
common purpose, a crime is committed by
each and every one who joins in the agreement.
There has thus to be two conspirators and there
may be more than that. To prove the charge of
conspiracy it is not necessary that intended
crime was committed or not. If committed it
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 102/168
may further help prosecution to prove the
charge of conspiracy.
6. It is not necessary that all
conspirators should agree to the common
purpose at the same time. They may join with
other conspirators at any time before the
consummation of the intended objective, and
all are equally responsible. What part each
conspirator is to play may not be known to
everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator
joined the conspiracy and when he left.
7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice
the accused because it forces them into a joint
trial and the court may consider the entire mass
of evidence against every accused. Prosecution
has to produce evidence not only to show that
each of the accused has knowledge of the
object of conspiracy but also of the agreement.
In the charge of conspiracy the court has to
guard itself against the danger of unfairness to
the accused. Introduction of evidence against
some may result in the conviction of all, which
is to be avoided. By means of evidence of
conspiracy, which is otherwise inadmissible in
the trial of any other substantive offence
prosecution tries to implicate the accused not
only in the conspiracy itself but also in the
substantive crime of the alleged conspirators.
There is always difficulty in tracing the precise
contribution of each member of the conspiracy
but then there has to be cogent and convincing
evidence against each one of the accused
charged with the offence of conspiracy. As
observed by Judge Learned Hand “this
distinction is important today when many
prosecutors seek to sweep within the dragnet
of conspiracy all those who have been
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 103/168
associated in any degree whatever with the
main offenders”.
8. As stated above it is the unlawful
agreement and not its accomplishment, which
is the gist or essence of the crime of
conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is
complete even though there is no agreement as
to the means by which the purpose is to be
accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement
which is the gravamen of the crime of
conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which
amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or
express, but may be inherent in and inferred
from the circumstances, especially
declarations, acts and conduct of the
conspirators. The agreement need not be
entered into by all the parties to it at the same
time, but may be reached by successive actions
evidencing their joining of the conspiracy.
9. It has been said that a criminal
conspiracy is a partnership in crime, and that
there is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual
agency for the prosecution of a common plan.
Thus, if two or more persons enter into a
conspiracy, any act done by any of them
pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation
of law, the act of each of them and they are
jointly responsible therefor. This means that
everything said, written or done by any of the
conspirators in execution or furtherance of a
common purpose is deemed to have been said,
done or written by each of them. And this joint
responsibility extends not only to what is done
by any of the conspirators pursuant to the
original agreement but also to collateral acts
incidental to and growing out of the original
purpose. A conspirator is not responsible,
however, for acts done by a co-conspirator
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 104/168
after termination of the conspiracy. The joinder
of a conspiracy by a new member does not
create a new conspiracy nor does it change the
status of the other conspirators, and the mere
fact that conspirators individually or in groups
perform different tasks to a common and does
not split up a conspiracy into several different
conspiracies.
10. A man may join a conspiracy by word
or by deed. However, criminal responsibility
for a conspiracy requires more than a merely
passive attitude towards an existing
conspiracy. One who commits an overt act
with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty.
And one who tacitly consents to the object of a
conspiracy and goes along with other
conspirators, actually standing by while the
others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty
though he intends to take no active part in the
crime……..
662. From a survey of cases, referred to above, the following
position emerges:
In reaching the stage of meeting of minds, two or
more persons share information about doing an
illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. This is the
first stage where each is said to have knowledge of a
plan for committing an illegal act or a legal act by
illegal means. Among those sharing the information
some or all may form an intention to do an illegal act
or a legal act by illegal means. Those who do form the
requisite intention would be parties to the agreement
and would be conspirators but those who drop out
cannot be roped in as collaborators on the basis of
mere knowledge unless they commit acts or
omissions from which a guilty common intention can
be inferred. It is not necessary that all the conspirators
should participate from the inception to the end of the
conspiracy; some may join the conspiracy after theCBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 105/168
time when such intention was first entertained by any
one of them and some others may quit from the
conspiracy. All of them cannot but be treated as
conspirators. Where in pursuance of the agreement
the conspirators commit offences individually or
adopt illegal means to do a legal act which has a
nexus to the object of conspiracy, all of them will be
liable for such offences even if some of them have not
actively participated in the commission of those
offences.”
(Emphasis supplied).
74. In State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan75, Hon’ble Apex Court held that
conspiracy is a continuing offence and it comes to an end only when it is
executed, rescinded or stands frustrated. The relevant portion reads as
below:-
“13. ……. A conspiracy is a continuing offence which
continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated
by choice of necessity. During is subsistence whenever any one
of the conspirators does an act or series of acts, he would be
held guilty under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.”
75. It is thus clear that the essence of conspiracy is an agreement to either
do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Hence, the illegal act may
itself be the ultimate aim of conspiracy or the ultimate aim of conspiracy
may be legal however co-conspirators may have agreed to achieve the said
aim by illegal means. Therefore, it is important to understand what is the
criminal object of an agreement because this would help decide which of
the persons would be called co-conspirators. The ultimate aim of
conspiracy may not be the same as its criminal object, in which case the
conspiracy shall come to an end as soon as the criminal object is achieved.
75
(2000) 8 SCC 203
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 106/168
76. In this case, the charge of conspiracy was framed by my Ld.
Predecessor on 24.01.2012 as per allegations wherein the criminal object
of conspiracy has been set out as the agreement to cheat the office of RCS
and DDA by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing it to revive the New
Anamika CGHS and approve the freeze list of 75 fictitious members on
the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The ultimate aim of
conspiracy as set out in the charge was to get the land from DDA at
concessional rates. These concessional rates were applicable to all the
CGHS and nothing extra was required to be done to avail benefit of these
except for getting registered as CGHS in the office of RCS & get the list of
members approved. The list of members were necessary because size of
plot to be allotted by DDA was dependent on the total number of members
included in the approved freeze list.
77. The criminal object & ultimate aim of conspiracy having been set
out, the questions that now arise are, firstly, what was the beginning point
of conspiracy and secondly, when was the object of conspiracy achieved.
It is important to answer these two questions because it would help decide
which of the accused persons can be considered as co-conspirators.
78. Before proceeding to answer these questions, I would want to remind
myself of the background in which this FIR was registered and New
Anamika CGHS was investigated. It was because the Hon’ble High Court
was of the view that a nexus had developed between the builders and
officials of RCS & DDA to earn profits by exploiting the co-operative
movement. If seen in that background, it would appear that the ultimate
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 107/168
aim of conspiracy was to earn profits & it did not restrict to obtaining land
on concessional rates, but prosecution did not approach the Court with
such allegations and charge was also not framed in that fashion ultimately
restricting the scope of this trial till the stage of allotment of land by DDA
which was sought to be achieved by doing illegal acts of forgery, cheating
& impersonation in the office of RCS. It is pertinent to note here that there
are no allegations of any illegal act having been committed in the office of
DDA.
79. The law in regard to co-conspirators has already been discussed
hereinabove. In State v. Nalini (Supra), Hon’ble Apex Court categorically
held that not every accused becomes a co-conspirator merely because he
was involved in some illegal activity. The acts done subsequent to
achieving the object of conspiracy may tend to prove if a particular
accused was a part of conspiracy or not, however, not every such
subsequent act will make a person co-conspirator, especially, when his
role came into play only after the criminal object of conspiracy had been
achieved.
80. In this case all the accused persons have been charged with
conspiracy. Criminal object of conspiracy, as discussed hereinabove, has
been set out as revival of the Society and approval of the freeze list on the
basis of false documents. Therefore, the date on which the agreement was
entered may be considered as the date of initiation of conspiracy and the
day on which the criminal object stood achieved may be considered as the
date on which the conspiracy came to an end.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 108/168
81. In order to determine the aforesaid, it is necessary to examine the
records of RCS & DDA. This would help understand what exactly had
transpired in those offices. While dwelling into the same, the substantive
offences which were allegedly committed by the accused persons, shall
also be discussed in light of the material proved on record.
Registration & Liquidation
82. The New Anamika CGHS came to be registered as a Society in the
year 1983. The file D-2 seized from the office of RCS pertains to
registration of the Society in the year 1983 with its registered address as
1786, Sohan Ganj, Subji Mandi, Delhi-110007. The documents
Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/A-1, Ex.PW1/A-2, Ex.PW1/A-3, Ex.PW8/A,
Ex.PW17/B, Ex.PW18/B & Ex.PW22/B as well as the entries Ex.PW8/A,
Ex.PW22/A & Ex.PW17/A in the application form; entries Ex.PW17/C,
Ex.PW18/C & Ex.PW22/C in the list of promoter members; and entries
Ex.PW17/D, Ex.PW18/D & Ex.PW22/D in the Intensive Enquiry
Proforma reflect the entire process how the Society was registered. An
application dated 05.10.1983 was received in the office of RCS, Delhi for
registration of the Society along with all the requisite documents having
Exhibit Nos. detailed hereinabove. These consisted of the affidavits of the
promoter members, bye-laws of the Society, the list of promoter members
and the intensive enquiry proforma. This application was allowed and the
Society was registered with serial no. 926 (GH) on 19.11.1983. The
certificate in this regard was issued on 05.12.1983.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 109/168
83. After registration of the Society, a list of 75 members, which is
Ex.PW11/B (D-6), was sent to the RCS by the Secretary of the Society
vide a letter dated 13.09.1984. It was requested that the said list be
forwarded to the DDA for allotment of land to the Society. This list
(Ex.PW11/B) reflects that the Society had added 29 more members till the
year 1984 apart from the 60 promoter members introduced in the year
1983. So, the total number of membership of the Society had reached to
89. Out of these 89 members, 14 members had resigned already and only
75 had remained.
84. The Noting file seized from the office of RCS is D-7. This file, when
read with D-6, reflects that some defects were found in the list of 75
members sent by the Society. Hence, the office of RCS had sent a letter
dated 06.06.1985 asking the Society to remove the defects and produce
the necessary records for verification. This letter was not complied with
by the Society. Hence, the reminders dated 22.06.1988 and 05.06.1989
were sent. It also appears from the file that on receipt of the reminder
dated 05.06.1989, the Society had sent a communication dated 18.09.1989
to the office of RCS which was acknowledged by the RCS vide letter
dated 05.12.1989 and the Society was again asked to produce the record
for verification. The reminders dated 21.06.1990 and 16.08.1990 had
followed the aforesaid letter. None of these documents have been
exhibited in evidence by the prosecution, however, these are important to
understand the sequence of events that led to commission of the alleged
offences. Since no response was received from the Society to the letters
and reminders, the office of RCS had sent a show cause notice dated
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 110/168
01.11.1990. The Society responded to this notice vide a letter dated
09.11.1990 stating that it was not receiving communications from the
office of RCS however no reply to the show cause notice was filed. Hence,
the Society was wound up vide Order dated 25.01.1991. File was sent to
the DR (Liquidation) on 22.02.1991 for further necessary action.
85. The Noting file D-7 reflects that there was no activity in the file from
26.02.1991 when it was received by DR (Liquidation) till 02.11.1998. The
file was taken up on 02.11.1998 because the letter dated 27.10.1998,
which is Ex.PW14/A (Colly), purportedly signed by R. K. Chaudhary, the
Secretary of the Society, was received in the office of RCS with request to
change the address of the Society in the records of RCS from 1786, Sohan
Ganj, Subji Mandi, Delhi-110006 to D-9, Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New
Delhi-110048. A copy of the minutes of meeting dated 10.11.1990 was
annexed along with that letter. Another letter dated 03.12.1998, which is
Ex.PW14/G, again purportedly signed by R. K. Chaudhary, Secretary of
the Society, was received in the office of RCS for seeking its revival.
Revival Proceedings
86. It is the case of prosecution that the aforesaid two letters Ex.PW14/A
(Colly) and Ex.PW14/G were actually signed by the accused Sri Chand
who was impersonating himself as R. K. Chaudhary. The aforesaid
allegations were levelled on basis of the statement of one R. K. Chaudhary
who was examined in the Court also, as PW-14. This person claimed that
Sri Chand was the brother-in-law of his brother-in-law. He denied his
purported signatures on both Ex.PW14/A (Colly) & Ex.PW14/G at Q
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 111/168
62B and Q 62A respectively. These questioned signatures were sent to the
CFSL, Hyderabad wherein GEQD (Govt. Examiner of Questioned
Documents) opined vide his report Ex.PW33/C that the signatures were
not of PW-14. The testimony of PW-14 and the GEQD’s report
Ex.PW33/C is sufficient to suggest that the signature of R. K. Chaudhary
on the letters Ex.PW14/A(Colly) & Ex.PW14/G had been forged,
however, prosecution did not lead any evidence to connect any particular
accused to the said forgery.
87. It is case of the prosecution that the forgery was committed by Sri
Chand but there is no such opinion in the report Ex.PW33/C. None of the
witnesses deposed having seen the accused Sri Chand signing on the
letters Ex.PW14/A(Colly) and Ex.PW14/G at Q62B & Q62A
respectively. The prosecution therefore was though able to prove that the
letters Ex.PW14/A (Colly) and Ex.PW14/G, received in the office of RCS
for change of address and revival of the Society respectively, had been
forged by someone, it could not connect any particular accused to that
forgery.
88. On receipt of the letters Ex.PW14/A (Colly) & Ex.PW14/G, the
office of RCS swung into action. Since perusal of file revealed that the
Society had been wound up but DR (liquidation), to whom the file was
marked thereafter, took no further action, it was proposed vide Office
Noting dated 05.01.1999 that a liquidator be appointed before processing
the request of revival. This Noting was put up before the accused B. M.
Sethi whose endorsement at point X on page 7/N is a part of Ex.PW13/X.
This endorsement reads as below:-
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 112/168
“what was the reason for not appointing the liquidator for such a
long time? Please check up and put up with reasons. Please also
discuss”.
89. Accused B. M. Sethi then marked the file to accused Karamvir. On
07.01.1999 vide Noting Ex.PW13/X-1 proposal for appointment of
liquidator was reiterated stating that the file was earlier being processed in
another branch. It was recommended vide this Noting that the accused
Karamvir Singh be appointed as the Liquidator. This Noting reads as
below: –
“Discussed the matter with the dealing Asst. regarding
appointing the liquidator although the orders of liquidation were
passed on 25.01.1991, which is placed at page 69/c. It was
observed from file at page 6/n that it was being previously dealt
in the New Group Housing Society Section. The file has now
been received from the liquidation branch on the applications
received from the society which are placed at 70/c to 72/c. The
applications for revival of the society may be considered only
after appointment of the liquidator and taking a detailed report
from him. Sh. Karam Vir Singh, Inspector may be appointed as
liquidator at the first instance.
A.R. (South)”
90. The aforesaid proposal was accepted by the RCS by signing at point
‘C’ on 08.01.1999 and the letter in this regard was signed & issued vide
Noting dated 14.01.1999 at page 9/N. The said Noting is part of
Ex.PW13/PX & is separately exhibited as Ex.PW19/A. The letter was
signed by PW-19. It is Ex.PW19/A-1.
91. On 18.01.1999 accused Karamvir Singh moved an Office Noting
(Page 9/N, D-7) seeking approval for calling a special GBM of the Society
for discussing the matter pertaining to its revival. This proposal is part of
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 113/168
Ex.PW13/PX bearing endorsement of accused B. M. Sethi at X-5. It was
approved by the RCS on 21.01.1999 vide Office Noting Ex.PW19/B
(page 10/N, D-7).
92. Accused Karamvir Singh thereafter issued agenda / notice dated
27.01.1999 (Ex.PW19/N) for calling a special GBM of the Society on
06.02.1999 at 3:00 PM at D-9, Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New
Delhi-110049. The notice of this GBM was sent to the members of the
Society through UPC as per report Ex.PW19/P which was submitted by
the accused Karamvir Singh in the office of RCS on 08.02.1999 along
with a copy of the UPC list. The proceedings of GBM are recorded in
D-12 and a photocopy of the same is annexed with the report Ex.PW19/P.
The said photocopy is Ex.PW13/A-1. On this photocopy signature of
accused Karamvir Singh at point ‘X’ were identified by PW-13 in the
following words, “The signatures appearing at point X on page 75/C may
be of Sh. Karamvir Singh”. The original minutes of the GBM recorded in
the proceedings register (D-12, Ex.PW6/PX) have also been separately
exhibited as Ex.PW2/A-3 but signature in the name of Karamvir Singh on
these original minutes were not identified by any witness.
93. It is the case of prosecution that the meeting dated 06.02.1999 was
never held and the proceedings were forged. The signatures of members
on the said proceedings were also forged and in doing so, accused
Karamvir Singh had connived with the office bearers of New Anamika
CGHS. Purpose was to help them fraudulently obtain a revival Order
from the office of RCS. The prosecution asserted that the accused
Karamvir Singh had conspired with office bearers, namely, V. K.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 114/168
Chaturvedi & Baijnath as well as with accused Sri Chand with an aim to
enable them to obtain land from DDA in the name of the Society at
concessional rates and he thereby obtained pecuniary advantage for them.
94. The Prosecution had examined several witnesses to prove that the
meeting dated 06.02.1999 was not held and the proceedings had been
forged. These witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW-2 (Arun
Kumar), PW-3 (Ved Kumar), PW-6 (Bhawar Pal), PW-8 (Sarabjeet Singh
Sandhu), PW-10 (Nanak Chand), PW-14 (Ram Kumar Choudhary),
PW-16 (Prem Das), PW-17 (Kedar Nath), PW-18 (Anil Mohan
Chaturvedi), PW-22 (Kamal Krishan Nigam), PW-28 (Ashok Kumar) and
PW-32 (Pappu Lal @ Patras). The proceedings Ex.PW2/A-3 were shown
to these witnesses all of whom, except PW-28, denied their signature. The
report of GEQD also confirms that the signature of PW-2, PW-3, PW-8,
PW-10, PW-14, PW-16, PW-18, PW-22 & PW-32 had been forged.
GEQD did not opine regarding PW-6 & PW-17 but these witnesses denied
their signature categorically. Only PW-28 admitted his signature but he
denied attending the meeting on 06.02.1999 & stated that he was not
aware how his signature came to be on the minutes. All these witnesses,
except PW-3, PW-8, PW-10 & PW-32 were cross-examined by the
accused Karamvir Singh but their credibility could not be shaken. It thus
stands proved from the testimony of these witnesses that the meeting
dated 06.02.1999 was not held actually. It is also proved by the
prosecution from the testimony of aforenamed witnesses that their
signatures on the proceedings had been forged by someone. The testimony
of these witnesses is sufficient to put the proceedings Ex.PW2/A-3 under
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 115/168
the cloud of doubt and to say that the meeting dated 06.02.1999 was
actually not held.
95. While the prosecution was successful in proving forgery in the report
Ex.PW2/A-3, there is nothing on record to suggest who had prepared the
forged proceedings Ex.PW2/A-3. Handwriting on the proceedings was
not sent for the opinion of GEQD. Signature of accused Karamvir on the
original of Ex.PW2/A-3 were not proved by any witness. PW-13 had
expressed only a probability that the signature on the photocopy of
Ex.PW2/A-3 (which is Ex.PW13/A-1) were of accused Karamvir Singh.
Prosecution further did not lead any evidence to show who had forged the
signatures of aforesaid witnesses on the report. The prosecution did not
lead any evidence to connect any of the accused persons with the forged
signatures. There is no material on record to suggest who had committed
forgery and GEQD also did not opine anything on the aforesaid aspect.
96. It is the case of prosecution that the signatures may have been forged
by the accused Sri Chand. It is already observed that GEQD has not
opined anything about the same. Prosecution had examined PW-32 to
prove that forgery was committed by Sri Chand. PW-32 deposed in his
examination-in-chief that his signature had been forged by Sri Chand, but,
in his cross-examination he admitted that in another trial related to other
CGHS, he had deposed before the Court that he had never seen accused
Sri Chand writing and signing and therefore was not in a position to
identify his signature or handwriting. The contradictory stand taken by
PW-32 in two different proceedings makes his testimony highly doubtful
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 116/168
and it will not be safe to rely upon him in the absence of any corroborative
material. No corroboration is however available on record.
97. The other two accused, who prosecution says were part of
conspiracy, are V.K. Chaturvedi & Baij Nath. Their names appear at Sr.
no. 4 & 8 of the proceedings Ex.PW2/A-3 and the signature against these
numbers were marked as Q-1185 & Q-1187 respectively. GEQD has not
opined if Q-1187 was put by accused Baij Nath. It has further
categorically opined that Q-1185 was not the signature of V.K.
Chaturvedi. Hence, there is no material on record which connects any of
the private persons, namely, accused Sri Chand, V.K. Chaturvedi & Baij
Nath, who allegedly were part of conspiracy as on 06.02.1999, to the
proceedings Ex.PW2/A-3.
98. Accused Karamvir Singh contended that even his identity was not
established by the prosecution by leading a cogent and reliable evidence
which would suggest that the report Ex.PW2/A-3 (photocopy
Ex.PW13/A-1) was furnished by him in the office of RCS or that he is the
same person who was appointed as liquidator vide Ex.PW19/M. Ld.
Counsel for the accused Karamvir Singh contended that identity is a very
crucial aspect. The prosecution had called various official witnesses to
prove that the signature on various Office Notings pertaining to
appointment of Liquidator and holding of special GBM had been mad by
Karamvir Singh but those witnesses failed to prove that the said Karamvir
Singh was the same person who was accused before this Court. Ld.
Counsel had relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Higher Courts in
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 117/168
support of his contentions, which have already been reiterated in the
paragraphs above pertaining to final arguments.
99. The judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused Karamvir
pertain to the cases where identity of the accused was either not known to
the victim before his arrest or it was disputed by the accused. In this case
however, the accused Karamvir Singh admittedly is a public servant who
was working in the office of RCS on the date of commission of offence.
The accused Karamvir Singh before this Court has not disputed that he
never worked in the office of RCS. He was apprehended in this case by the
CBI only after establishing his identity from his department and it is
nowhere his case that some other Karamvir Singh was also working in the
office of RCS, who had signed the various Office Notings and had acted as
Liquidator. The accused having been brought before this Court in his
official capacity, there was hardly any doubt or question regarding his
identity since the very beginning. As his identity was not in question
during the trial, the prosecution was not required to lead evidence against
him beyond reasonable doubt on this aspect. The office colleagues who
had identified his signature before the Court were not questioned about his
identity by him during the cross-examination which clarifies that the
identity of accused Karamvir Singh was not in question during the trial.
Even during the recording of his statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused
Karamvir Singh did not plead about mis-identity at all. He did not deny
that he was appointed as Liquidator or that the report dated 08.02.1999
(Ex.PW19/P) was submitted by him. His only defence was that he did not
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 118/168
submit a false report. His response to question no. 4 of his statement
u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is relevant in this regard and is reiterated herein below:-
“Q.4. Further, it has come in evidence against you that you
were appointed as Liquidator and submitted report dated
08.02.1999 (Ex.PW19/P) (D-6 page No. 591) incorporating false
minutes of proceeding shown to be held at D-9, Greater Kailash
New Delhi (purported registered address of the Anamika CGHS)
whereas witness PW2 Sh. Arun Kumar, PW3 Ved Kumar and
PW28 Sh. Ashok Kumar have deposed that they never attended
any Special General Body Meeting dated 06.02.1999. On the
basis of the afore-said report and your note dated 15.02.1999
(Ex.PW19/C) (D-7 page No. 714) (vide which you had
recommended for cancellation of winding up order against the
Society). On your report, the Anamika CGHS was revived by
Registrar of Society and freeze list of Members of the society
were forwarded to DDA for consideration of allotment of land.
What do you have to say?
Ans. I have not given any false report. Registrar is the sole
competent authority to decide the application for revival of the
Society. PW28 had admitted his signatures on the afore-said
Minutes of Meeting. The other above-mentioned witnesses have
deposed falsely.”
100. No doubt accused has a right to remain silent, however, once he has
chosen to respond he cannot fall back on that right. Accused Karamvir
Singh was given an opportunity to explain the incriminating
circumstances against him. He availed that opportunity & had explained
in the words quoted hereinabove. So, now he cannot claim that those
statements of his are of no value in the eyes of law.
101. On the basis of report Ex.PW19/P, an Office Noting was prepared by
accused Karamvir Singh himself on 15.02.1999 wherein he proposed that
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 119/168
the Order of winding up be cancelled. This proposal was moved vide
Office Noting Ex.PW19/C (Page 11/N to 15/N, D-7). The Assistant
Registrar and Deputy Registrar forwarded the said Noting along with the
Noting Ex.PW19/D reiterating the proposal, to the RCS, vide their
observations at point X-8 of Ex.PW19/D and X-10 and C of Ex.PW19/E.
RCS referred the file to the Hon’ble Development Minister vide Noting
Ex.PW19/F dated 26.02.1999. The Hon’ble Minister sought
recommendations of the Secretary vide Noting Ex.PW19/G (Page 17/N)
dated 09.04.1999. On receipt of recommendations of the Secretary, the
proposal for revival of the Society was accepted on 20.04.1999 by the
Hon’ble Minister. The draft revival order was then put up for approval
vide Office Noting Ex.PW19/H (Page 18/N) that was approved by RCS on
23.04.1999. The revival order under the signature of RCS was finally
issued on 26.04.1999. The said revival order is Ex.PW19/Q.
Elections of the Managing Committee:
102. Pursuant to the revival order, an Office Noting was moved by accused
Karamvir Singh on 26.04.1999 for appointment of Election Officer. This
Office Noting is Ex.PW19/J (Page 19/N, D-7). The proposal was endorsed
by accused B. M. Sethi on 28.04.1999 vide Noting Ex.PW19/K (Page
19/N, D-7) and forwarded to his senior officers. The proposal was finally
approved by the RCS on 29.04.1999 and the Order appointing accused
Narender Kumar as Election Officer was issued on 11.05.1999. The said
Order is Ex.PW13/A. It is apparent from the aforesaid Notings at page
19/N and 20/N that the Dealing Assistant had changed after 26.04.1999
and file was no longer being marked to accused Karamvir Singh.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 120/168
Prosecution has not proved who succeeded accused Karamvir Singh as
Dealing Assistant.
103. The elections for choosing the Managing Committee of the Society
were held on 06.06.1999 as per record. Accused Narender Kumar was the
Election Officer. He submitted his report regarding holding of the
elections, which is Ex.PW21/B(Colly). This report is dated 08.06.1999.
The election proceedings were drawn and a photocopy of the same was
furnished to the office of RCS along with the report Ex.PW21/B (Colly).
The original election proceedings are Ex.PW2/A-4 (D-12) signed by
accused Narender Kumar at point A, which is also separately exhibited as
Ex.PW21/A. The election proceedings had been signed by accused
Narender Kumar at point ‘A’ (Page 111) on 08.06.1999. Ex.PW21/A also
reflects signature in the name of Narender Kumar at two more pages i.e.
Page 109 & 110 with the date of 08.06.1999. Signature with this name are
also reflected at page 107 & 108 of Ex.PW21/A with the date of
06.06.1999. None of these four signatures were however proved by the
prosecution. Only the signature at the end of the report at point ‘A’ were
identified.
104. It is again the case of the prosecution that the elections on 06.06.1999
were not actually held and the proceedings Ex.PW2/A-4 were drawn at
the instance of accused Sri Chand and other private persons who were co-
conspirators. The prosecution had examined PW-2 (Arun Kumar), PW-3
(Ved Kumar), PW-5 (Kailash Chand), PW-6 (Bhanwar Pal), PW-8
(Sarabjeet Singh Sandhu), PW-14 (Ram Kumar Choudhary), PW-16
(Prem Das), PW-17 (Kedar Nath), PW-18 (Anil Mohan Chaturvedi),
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 121/168
PW-22 (Kamal Kishan Nigam) and PW-28 (Ashok Kumar) to prove its
case. 03 out of these 11 witnesses i.e. PW-5, PW-6 & PW-28 had turned
hostile. Wrong signatures were put to PW-18 by the prosecution during
the recording of evidence. Signature of PW-18 were at serial no. 22 but he
was shown the signature of one “Anil Chaturvedi’ at sr. no. 8 (marked as
point ‘B’) which he obviously denied. His purported signature at Q-1210
against Sr. no. 22 are however shown to have been forged, in the report of
GEQD, which is Ex.PW33/C. The remaining 07 witnesses denied their
signature out of which 05 (i.e. except PW-17 & PW-22) are supported by
the report of GEQD also. No opinion was expressed by GEQD on the
questioned signature of PW-17 and signature of PW-22 were not sent to
the GEQD.
105. As in the case of accused Karamvir Singh, the prosecution could not
prove in this case also that the accused Narender Kumar or any of the co-
accused persons had any connection with the forgery done in the
proceedings Ex.PW2/A-4. GEQD did not return any opinion regarding
the handwriting of accused Sri Chand. The proceedings Ex.PW2/A-4 have
purportedly been signed at Sr. no. 25 & 26 by the accused Baij Nath &
V.K. Chaturvedi. Those signatures are marked as Q-1212 & Q-1213
respectively. While the GEQD report positively opined that Q-1213 was
not the signature of accused V. K. Chaturvedi, no opinion was returned on
Q-1212. Hence, there is no material on record to connect any of the
alleged private persons with the forgery. None of the witnesses of
prosecution deposed that Ex.PW2/A-4 was written in the handwriting of
accused Narender Kumar either.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 122/168
106. So, the only aspect that the prosecution has been able to prove is that
the meeting dated 06.02.1999 & 06.06.1999 were not attended by at least
12/11 persons who are shown to have attended it. Hence, either the
meetings were not held at all or identity of the persons who attended the
meetings were not checked. The accused Karamvir & Narender thus failed
to perform their duties in both the abovesaid situations. While the first
amounts to dereliction of duty, these two accused persons had failed to act
diligently if it was the latter situation. Both these acts fall in the ambit of
misconduct, inviting disciplinary action. If the meetings were not
conducted at all & false proceedings were furnished in the office of RCS,
the acts of accused Karamvir Singh & Narender Singh would also
constitute ‘abuse of office’. While there is sufficient material to suggest
‘misconduct’, due to lack of diligence, the material to suggest that meeting
was not held at all, is not sufficient because there are many signatures on
the proceedings which were not proved to be forged. The owner of
premises at Greater Kailash or officials of RCS were not examined either,
to prove that no meeting at all was held there on 06.02.1999 or
06.06.1999.
107. IO (PW-39) relied upon the statement of K. L. Pehwal, owner of the
premises at Kalkaji, recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. [Ex.PW39/S (Colly)],
during his testimony, stating that the said person was no more. It is
however the settled law that the statement of a dead person can be proved
only as per Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act for limited
purposes/under certain circumstances, like for proving the cause &
circumstances of death or for proving statements made in the ordinary
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 123/168
course of business or regarding a relationship etc. which is not the case
here. While the proceedings may have been proved to be false to the extent
that these do not bear genuine signature of some of the members, but it has
not been proved that the entire proceeding is fake. This saves accused
Karamvir & Narender from the allegation that they had used forged
documents by filing false report in the office of RCS, despite knowledge
that the reports were false.
108. It is the case of accused Narender Kumar that his act of not checking
identity of the persons who had attended the meeting does not amount to
misconduct, dereliction of duty or negligence because for checking
identity he had relied upon the statements of office bearers of the Society.
The argument is unimpressive in my considered opinion. While it is
correct that there is no specific rule or legal provision in the DCS Act,
1972 or DCS Rules, 1973 which provides for the duties of an Election
Officer or the procedure that is required to be followed for holding of
elections, it cannot be negated that free & fair election is an essential
constituent of democracy. It is required for democratic functioning of an
institution. Hence, an election officer is bound to ensure that the elections
held under his supervision are free and fair. These two aspects are the
hallmark of democracy and must be ensured in any election proceedings.
Being incharge, it was the duty of accused Narender Kumar to uphold the
said two parameters. To ensure free and fair elections, it was incumbent
upon him to ensure that the persons voting in the election were genuine
members of the Society which he had failed to do and thus failed to
perform his duty diligently.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 124/168
109. While dereliction of duty/misconduct is sufficiently proved, the
evidence on record however falls short of proving that such dereliction
was with criminal intent. No evidence was brought forth on record by the
prosecution to suggest that accused Karamvir Singh or Narender Kumar
had stood financially benefited in any manner by not holding/properly
holding the meetings dated 06.02.1999 & 06.06.1999. Now, let us assume
that they did so in order to obtain pecuniary advantage for the office
bearers of the Society. If that was so, it was for the prosecution to establish
the identity of those private persons / office bearers of the Society for
whom the benefit was sought. Prosecution did not lead any evidence to
show that the proceedings dated 06.02.1999/06.06.1999 were prepared at
the instance of accused Sri Chand, Baijnath or V.K. Chaturvedi. These
accused persons were not connected to the meetings dated 06.02.1999 or
06.06.1999 in any other manner also, like by proving their handwriting or
signature on the minutes. The case of the prosecution is that Sri Chand
used to impersonate Ram Kumar Chaudhary (PW-14), whose purported
signatures are there on both Ex.PW2/A-3 & Ex.PW2/A-4 at Q-1196 &
Q-1203 respectively. These signatures have not been connected to the
accused Sri Chand by the prosecution either through expert’s report or
through independent witness. GEQD did not return any opinion qua
accused Sri Chand & testimony of PW-32 is not reliable for reasons
already indicated herein above. The other independent witnesses who
deposed against accused Sri Chand are not reliable either, for reasons to be
discussed in the forthcoming paragraphs of this judgment.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 125/168
110. For misconduct to become ‘Criminal Misconduct,’ the act should fall
in the ambit of Section 13 of the PC Act, 1988 which reads as below: –
“13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. – (1) A public
servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, —
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to
accept or attempts to obtain from any person for
himself or for any other person any gratification
other than legal remuneration as a motive or
reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees
to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for
any other person, any valuable thing without
consideration or for a consideration which he
knows to be inadequate from any person whom
he knows to have been, or to be likely to be
concerned in any proceeding or business
transacted or about to be transacted by him, or
having any connection with the official functions
of himself or of any public servant to whom he is
subordinate, or from any person whom he knows
to be interested in or related to the person so
concerned; or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently
misappropriates or otherwise converts for his
own use any property entrusted to him or under
his control as a public servant or allows any other
person so to do; or
(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 valuableCBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 126/168
thing or pecuniary advantage without any
public interest; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in
possession or has, at any time during the period
of his office, been in possession for which the
public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of
pecuniary resources or property disproportionate
to his known source of income.”
111. In Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat 76 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had held as below, while interpreting Section 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act:
“7. ……Therefore, for convicting the person under Section
13(1)(d), there must be evidence on record that accused
‘obtained’ for himself or for any other person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage by either corrupt or illegal means
or by abusing his position as a public servant or he obtained for
any person any valuable thing of pecuniary advantage without
any public interest.
8. This Court interpreted similar provisions under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in Ram Krishan & Anr. v.
The State of Delhi [(1956) SCR 183]. In the said case, the Court
dealt with similar Clause (d) of Sub-section 1 of Section 5 and
held that there must be proof that the public servant adopted
corrupt or illegal means and thereby obtained for himself or for
any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
The Court observed —
……… The word “obtains”, on which much
stress was laid does not eliminate the idea of
acceptance of what is given or offered to be
given though it connotes also an element of
effort on the part of the receiver.
76
AIR 2003 SC 2169.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 127/168
10. ….. Lastly in C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Govt. of India :
MANU/SC/0145/1997 : 1997 CriLJ 739, this court considered
the word “obtain” used in Section 5(1)(d) and held as under: –
12. …… “Obtain” means to secure or gain
(something) as the result of request or effort
(Shorter Oxford Dictionary). In case of
obtainment the initiative vests in the person
who receives and in that context a demand or
request from him will be a primary requisite
for an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the
Act…..”
(Emphasis Supplied)
112. In Rajiv Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.77 Hon’ble Apex
Court, while examining Sec. 13 of the PC Act, had held as below:-
“10. …….. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that
if the elements of any of the three sub-clauses are met, the same
would be sufficient to constitute an offence of ‘criminal
misconduct’ Under Section 13(1)(d). Undoubtedly, all the three
wings of Clause (d) of Section 13(1) are independent,
alternative and disjunctive.”
113. Yet again in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)78 Hon’ble
Constitution Bench reiterated the law related to Section 13 of the PC Act
in the following terms:-
“74. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarised as under:
(a) ………
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely,
the demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by the public servant, the
following aspects have to be borne in mind:
77
AIR 2017 SC 3772
78
2022 SCC Online SC 1724CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 128/168
(i) …….
(ii) On the other hand, if the
public servant makes a demand
and the bribe giver accepts the
demand and tenders the
demanded gratification which in
turn is received by the public
servant, it is a case of
obtainment. In the case of
obtainment, the prior demand for
illegal gratification emanates
from the public servant. This is
an offence under Section 13(1)
(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) ……Similarly, a prior
demand by the public servant
when accepted by the bribe giver
and in turn there is a payment
made which is received by the
public servant, would be an
offence of obtainment under
Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the
Act.”
(Emphasis supplied)
114. A reading of the case laws above clarifies that for convicting a person
u/Sec. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, ‘obtainment’ of any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage without any public interest must be proved. In case
of ‘obtainment’, prior demand of illegal gratification must emanate from
the public servant. In case there is no demand, ‘obtainment’ cannot be
proved.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 129/168
115. In this case, there is no evidence of ‘obtainment’ against accused
Karamvir Singh and Narender Kumar because the prosecution has not
proved any such material which suggests that they had ever demanded any
kind of pecuniary advantage for themselves. ‘Obtainment’ can be for a
third person, like, in this case one can say that obtaining land from the
DDA at concessional rates by reviving the Society and approving the
freeze list was for a third person. However, who is that third person? In
order to complete the chain, showing obtainment for a private person,
identity of this third person was required to be proved. Prosecution has not
been able to connect accused Sri Chand, V. K. Chaturvedi & Baij Nath to
the alleged crime, hence, it is not proved that obtainment was for all or any
one of them. In such a scenario, the chain does not get completed and link
between obtainment and person for whom obtainment was made, has not
been established.
116. It is the settled law that the bounden duty to prove a criminal case
beyond reasonable doubt lies upon the prosecution. On examining of
evidence till the stage of revival, it is clear that proof of obtainment, at
least for accused Sri Chand, V. K. Chaturvedi & Baij Nath, is not available
beyond reasonable doubt. The complete chain reflecting conspiracy,
commission of forgery pursuant thereto and preparing of fake proceedings
has not been established by the prosecution. The evidence on the point of
criminal intent is lacking which goes against the case of the prosecution.
Stretching the things a little further at this stage, in order to do a
wholesome appreciation, let’s say that ‘obtainment’ may be assumed even
for persons who joined the Society later and were to get benefited at the
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 130/168
end of completion of construction of flats. It is the case of prosecution that
those persons are a father-son duo, i.e. Raman Kumar Vij & Nitesh Kumar
Vij. Assuming it to be so, this aspect shall be taken up and decided in the
latter part of this judgment when the roles of two above named persons are
discussed.
Approval of Freeze List
117. Once the elections had been conducted, a communication Ex.PW14/C
(Colly), attested on 15.06.1999, was received in the office of RCS
requesting for approval of freeze list of the members of the Society. The
undertaking and the affidavit giving details of enrolled and resigned
members by way of two separate lists, have been signed purportedly by R.
K. Chaudhary, who denied those signature when he was examined as
PW-14. The report of GEQD (Ex.PW33/C) also supports his claim,
however, prosecution again did not lead any evidence to suggest who had
forged the signature of R. K. Chaudhary. The purported signatures at
Q-53E, Q-54 to Q-60 & Q-60A have not been attributed to any of the
accused persons facing trial before this Court. R. K. Chaudhary admitted
in his testimony, during his cross-examination, that the address and other
particulars reflected against his name were not his address or particulars
and it was possible that the R. K. Chaudhary referred in the documents of
the Society was a different person altogether. This made the things more
complex & doubtful.
118. The Court had questioned the prosecution during final arguments if
any investigation was done by the CBI on that address which was
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 131/168
reflected against the details of R. K. Chaudhary in the documents of the
Society. Ld. Sr.PP stated on instructions that no such investigation was
done. The record also does not reflect if any investigation was done on that
address of R. K. Chaudhary which was reflected on the record of the
Society. There is further nothing on record to suggest that the said address
was false & non-existent. The prosecution thus did not explore the
possibility that the R. K. Chaudhary referred in the record of the Society
could have been some person, other than PW-14, who was also known by
the same name, thereby leaving the scope for doubt. No plausible reason
for such a lapse is explained by the prosecution. The sub-par investigation
done by CBI has left a lacuna in the case of prosecution which creates a
hole in its story and goes in favour of the accused persons.
119. Harking back, a request was made by the Society for verification of
the list of 75 members vide communication Ex.PW14/C (Colly). This
communication was taken up in the office of RCS on 16.06.1999. The
Office Note pertaining to this communication was prepared on 15.06.1999
by a Dealing Assistant whose signature / identity has not been proved by
the prosecution. This Office Note was put up before accused B. M. Sethi
on 16.06.1999 who directed the Dealing Assistant to check up the legal
provisions and put up a report vide Noting X-16 at Page 21/N. Purported
signature of R. K. Chaudhary can be seen in the margin of the Noting
dated 15.06.1999, endorsed by accused B. M. Sethi on 16.06.1999 at
X-16. These signatures are marked as Q-463. The signatures do not
pertain to PW-14 as per the report Ex.PW33/C given by GEQD.
Prosecution did not prove who had forged the signature of R. K.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 132/168
Chaudhary either through any independent person or through expert
witness. It is the case of prosecution that impersonation as R. K.
Chaudhary was done by accused Sri Chand but no evidence in this regard
was led. No witness from the office of RCS was examined who could have
proved that accused Sri Chand used to impersonate himself as R. K.
Chaudhary.
120. Verification of all the documents was done and a detailed Noting from
page 21/N to 28/N was put up before the accused B. M. Sethi by a Dealing
Assistant on 21.06.1999. Identity of the said Dealing Assistant who had
verified all the documents, has not been proved as the prosecution failed to
prove the name & signature of this person. Accused B. M. Sethi forwarded
the file to the Deputy Registrar (South) vide his endorsement dated
22.06.1999 at X-17 & X-18 (Page 28/N & 29/N, D-7). The Office Noting
Ex.PW31/A reflects that the DR (South) had marked the file to JR (South),
who, on 22.06.1999, had put up a query at point Y regarding the audit
compliance and another query on 05.07.1999 at point Y-1 regarding
genuineness of resignations.
121. The Dealing Assistant answered the queries of JR (South) stating that
the resignations had been test verified by picking up four resignations
which were found to be correct and audit compliance was done. These
Notings were put up on 06.07.1999 and 28.06.1999 respectively.
However, prosecution did not prove who had put up these Notings.
Identity of the Dealing Assistant who had signed these Notings was not
proved at all.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 133/168
122. Accused B. M. Sethi had forwarded the aforesaid proposal of Dealing
Assistant to the senior officers vide Noting Ex.PW31/C (Page 31/N, D-7)
on 08.07.1999 and finally the freeze list was approved by the RCS on
17.07.1999. The fair letter in this regard was signed on 28.07.1999 and the
freeze list was sent to the policy department of RCS office for further
action.
123. The file of DDA, which is D-11, reflects that the freeze list was
forwarded to the DDA by the AR (Policy) from the office of RCS vide
letter dated 21.12.1999. This letter is Mark PW25/X. No dispute during
the trial was raised regarding the date of forwarding letter. The freeze list
sent to the DDA is Ex.PW14/J (Colly). It consisted of 75 members. An
endorsement on the list reflects that it was verified by an official of RCS
on 27.07.1999. Below the signature of this official, name of accused
Harvinder Singh is written.
124. It is the claim of prosecution that accused Harvinder Singh is the
Dealing Assistant who had test verified the resignations and had also put
up the freeze list for approval and forwarding to DDA. However,
prosecution neither proved the signature nor established the identity of
Harvinder Singh in any of the Office Notings related to verification of
resignation letters and approval of the list. There is not a single witness
who had identified the signature of accused Harvinder Singh on any of the
office Notings. Hence, the prosecution could not connect any of the Office
Notings with accused Harvinder Singh and thus failed to establish that this
accused had any role in verification of resignations and approval of freeze
list of the Society.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 134/168
125. It is also the case of prosecution that out of the four resignations which
were test verified allegedly by accused Harvinder Singh, two were found
to be false. These two false resignations in file D-6 are Ex. PW1/A-4 and
Ex. PW4/A. No verification report is annexed with these resignations and
there is no evidence on record that these were verified by accused
Harvinder Singh. The prosecution therefore has completely failed to
establish its case against the accused Harvinder Singh by not proving his
signature and establishing his identity.
126. The freeze list that was sent to the office of RCS for approval
contained the names of 105 members out of which 30 were shown to have
resigned and names of the remaining were sent to the office of RCS for
approval. Out of the total 105 members, 89 consisted of the 60 promoter
members enrolled in the year 1983 and 29 members enrolled in the year
1984. 75 members out of these 89 were part of the list Ex.PW11/B which
was sent for approval to the office of RCS in the year 1984. Of those 75
members, the communication Ex.PW14/C (Colly) claimed that the
following had resigned after the year 1984: –
S.No. Membership No. Name
126.1. 32 Gulshan Kumar
126.2. 39 Ram Chander
126.3. 45 H.L. Chaturvedi
126.4. 63 Jagdish Kumar
126.5. 66 Satish Kumar Chaturvedi
126.6. 70 Girja Shankar Chaturvedi
126.7. 76 Rama Chaturvedi
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 135/168
126.8. 78 Yogender Chaturvedi
126.9. 83 Devender Mohan Sharma
126.10. 85 Rakesh Kumar
126.11. 88 Ravi Kumar
126.12. 89 Manoj Chaturvedi
127. The communication also claimed that 16 members were enrolled
between the year 1987 to 1990. The details of these persons are as below:-
S.No. Membership No. Name
127.1. 90 Satya Prakash Chaturvedi
127.2. 91 P. L. Chaturvedi
127.3. 92 V. Chaturvedi
127.4. 93 Brij Bhushan Chaturvedi
127.5. 94 Manbir Singh
127.6. 95 Om Prabha
127.7. 96 Ashok Chaturvedi
127.8. 97 Ram Kumar Chaudhary
127.9. 98 Nanak Chand
127.10. 99 S. C. Godhar
127.11. 100 Kailash Chand
127.12. 101 Pappu Lal
127.13. 102 Kamal Singh
127.14. 103 Bhawar Pal
127.15. 104 Prem Dass
127.16. 105 Mohar Singh
128. It was further claimed that the following out of aforesaid 16 members
had later resigned: –
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 136/168
S.No. Membership No. Name
128.1. 91 P. L. Chaturvedi
128.2. 92 V. Chaturvedi
128.3. 93 Brij Bhushan Chaturvedi
128.4. 94 Manbir Singh
128.5. 95 Om Prabha
128.6. 96 Ashok Chaturvedi
129. It is the claim of prosecution that some of these enrolled members
were fictitious, while some were genuine. Names of fictitious members
were added to complete the number of 75 in the freeze list and some of the
genuine members were shown as resigned to accommodate more and
more number of fictitious members in the list. The alleged genuine
members from the list who were examined by the prosecution are, PW-1
(Gulshan Kumar) and PW-9 (Sh. Manbir Singh Bhatia). The purported
resignation letter of PW-1 was put to him which he denied. This
resignation letter is Ex.PW1/A-4. No resignation letter was shown to
PW-9 however he categorically denied having resigned & expressed
unawareness how his name was included in the list of resigned members.
These witnesses stood the test of cross-examination also and their
credibility could not be impeached. Their testimony established
sufficiently that they were falsely shown as resigned.
130. The fictitious members as per case of the prosecution were PW-4
(Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi), PW-5 (Kailash Chand), PW-6 (Bhanwar Pal),
PW-10 (Nanak Chand), PW-14 (Ram Kumar Chaudhary), PW-16 (Prem
Das) & PW-32 (Patras @ Pappu Lal). Three of these persons examined by
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 137/168
the prosecution i.e. PW-5, PW-6 and PW-10 had turned hostile but
remaining four i.e. PW-4, PW-14, PW-16 and PW-32 supported the case of
prosecution. They categorically deposed that they had never applied for
becoming the members of New Anamika CGHS. Their credibility, so far
their enrollment in the Society is concerned, could not be impeached by
the accused persons.
131. The testimony of aforesaid 06 witnesses who had supported the case
of prosecution, clearly establishes that some genuine members were
falsely shown as resigned in the freeze list while some of the members in
the list were fictitious because their details were misused and their
signatures were forged to show them as genuine members. However,
forgery is not the only aspect that was to be proved by the prosecution. It
was also to be shown who had committed the forgery and who had put up
the Noting related to approval of this false freeze list. None of this was
however proved by the prosecution either through independent witness or
expert.
132. Prosecution claimed that the forgery was committed by Sri Chand. It
is already observed that the GEQD did not return any opinion regarding
Sri Chand. The only witness who had deposed against Sri Chand is PW-32
(Patras @ Pappu Lal). His testimony has already been found unreliable.
To reiterate however, PW-32 deposed that he was made a fictitious
member by Sri Chand because he was working in his office. He also
deposed that his signatures were forged by Sri Chand which he could
identify because he had seen Sri Chand writing and signing while working
under him. When PW-32 was cross-examined on this aspect, he admitted
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 138/168
that in another criminal case related to CGHS he had deposed that he had
never seen Sri Chand writing and signing and hence was not in a position
to identify his handwriting & signature. The contrary stand admittedly
taken by the witness in different proceeding shakes his credibility and
therefore it is unsafe to rely upon his uncorroborated testimony to say that
forgery of his signature was committed by the accused Sri Chand. The
testimony of PW-32, regarding identification of handwriting and
signature of Sri Chand, being contrary in the two cases related to CGHS,
cannot be accepted. PW-32 deposed that he had refused to identify the
signature of Sri Chand in another case at the instance of Sri Chand
himself, thereby suggesting that he was tutored at least in one of the cases.
Such a conduct makes PW-32 unworthy of credit. PW-32 further admitted
that he himself is an accused in some of the cases registered by the CBI
pertaining to CGHS. Such an admission also prompts the Court to be more
cautious regarding this witness and his sole testimony in favour of the
prosecution cannot be accepted without any independent corroboration.
133. PW-35 (Jitender Singh) is the prime witness through whom
prosecution has attempted to prove a connection between accused Sri
Chand & Raman Kumar Vij. This witness though primarily refers to
Raman Kumar Vij, whose role is yet to be discussed, it shall be apt to
discuss about his testimony at this stage also because of the references
made by him in his testimony towards the role of Sri Chand.
134. PW-35 deposed in his examination-in-chief that the names mentioned
at serial no. 32, 33, 34 & 35 of the minutes of meeting dated 06.06.1999
(Ex.PW2/A-4) are written in his handwriting and he had written the same
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 139/168
on the instructions of Sri Chand. He also deposed that the proceedings
dated 15.07.1998, 15.08.1998, 20.10.1998, 20.11.1998, 25.11.1998 &
11.06.1999, which are Ex.PW35/E to Ex.PW35/J respectively, were also
written by Sri Chand. All these proceedings are available in the register
D-12, which is also separately exhibited as Ex.PW6/PX. PW-35 deposed a
lot more but at this stage I am taking up his testimony only with respect to
the proceedings which are dated prior to the revival of Society and
approval of freeze list.
135. The cross-examination of PW-35 belies his testimony on the aforesaid
points. He deposed during his cross-examination by the accused Sri
Chand that he was not personally acquainted with Sri Chand prior to
joining accused Raman Kumar Vij. He came in contact with accused Sri
Chand somewhere in the year 2000/2001. He also deposed that the names
against Sr. no. 32 to 35 of the proceedings dated 06.06.1999
(Ex.PW2/A-4) were left blank and were written subsequently by him on
the instructions of Sri Chand.
136. Since PW-35 himself has deposed that he came in contact with Sri
Chand somewhere in the year 2000/2001, his knowledge regarding
writing of the minutes dated 15.07.1998, 15.08.1998, 20.10.1998,
20.11.1998, 25.11.1998 & 11.06.1999 by Sri Chand and his handwriting
on Sr. no. 32-35 of the minutes dated 06.06.1999 is possible only if these
were written in the year 2000/2001 once he had met Sri Chand, or
thereafter. It is own case of prosecution that the proceedings till
06.06.1999 were forged with an aim to seek revival of the society and
approval of freeze list. If that is the case, obviously the aforementioned
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 140/168
minutes were written before July, 1999 when the freeze list was approved.
PW-35 admittedly had not met the accused Sri Chand by then. The
photocopy of minutes dated 06.02.1999 & 06.06.1999 were even
furnished in the office of RCS on 08.02.1999 & 08.06.1999 respectively
vide reports Ex.PW19/P & Ex.PW21/B (Colly). It is not the case of
prosecution that these reports were not filed on the dates written in the
reports, but later. The minutes dated 06.02.1999 & 06.06.1999 are written
on page numbers which are after the minutes for the year 1998. The four
names at serial no. 32 to 35 of the minutes Ex.PW2/A-4 (dated
06.06.1999) are reflected in the photocopy also, which is annexed with the
report Ex.PW21/B (colly) dated 08.06.1999. These circumstances belie
the testimony of PW-35 regarding the role of Sri Chand in forging the
proceedings till June, 1999.
137. There is one more circumstance which forces this Court to discard the
testimony of PW-35 qua forging of proceedings dated 06.06.1999 by the
accused Sri Chand. PW-35 has said that the names at Sr. no. 32 to 35 were
written in his handwriting. This portion was not referred for opinion of
GEQD by the CBI. PW-35 also admitted that the names at Sr. no. 1 to 14
of the minutes dated 10.03.2000 (Ex.PW35/A, D-12) too were written in
his handwriting. This portion of Ex.PW35/A was marked as Q-1229 &
was referred to GEQD. The report Ex.PW33/C, furnished by GEQD,
reflects that the handwriting of PW-35 had matched with Q-1229. This
report of GEQD, coupled with the admission of PW-35, establishes that
the portion Q-1229 of Ex.PW35/A was written by PW-35. Now, if I
compare the portion Q-1229 of Ex.PW35/A with Sr. no. 32 to 35 of
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 141/168
Ex.PW2/A-4 (the minutes dated 06.06.1999), it becomes amply clear that
the two handwriting are entirely different. The differences can be
observed through naked eye and this observation is in consonance with the
conclusion drawn in the foregoing paragraph. It appears from such a
testimony of PW-35, that he was on a spree to speak anything that came to
his mind and that too while being under oath. Testimony of such a witness
is unworthy of credit and cannot be relied upon at all. Court cannot
comment if he deposed under pressure from CBI or out of grudge or just
casually, due to lack sufficient material in this regard, however his
testimony certainly digs a hole in the story of prosecution.
138. There is nothing on record to suggest that the forged resignations,
fictitious enrollment forms and false proceedings were drawn by the
accused Sri Chand. There is further nothing to say that these were used in
the office of RCS for revival of the Society & approval of freeze list by the
accused Sri Chand or anyone else like V. K. Chaturvedi or Baij Nath.
Accused Raman Kumar Vij & Nitesh Kumar Vij were admittedly not in
picture till this date. The documents were furnished to the office of RCS
by R. K. Chaudhary as per record but purported signature of R. K.
Chaudhary could not be connected to either of the accused persons or to
PW-14.
139. Prosecution therefore could not establish on record beyond reasonable
doubt that while applying for revival of the Society and approval of freeze
list, accused Sri Chand, in connivance with other co-accused persons had
impersonated PW-14 Ram Kumar Chaudhary (R. K. Chaudhary) or any
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 142/168
other such person, had forged the documents and had used those forged
documents in the office of RCS.
140. While accused Baij Nath and V. K. Chaturvedi could not be connected
to any of the key proceedings related to revival of the Society or approval
of freeze list, GEQD report (Ex.PW33/C) highlighted their role in the
proceedings dated 10.11.1990, 25.01.1991 and 14.04.1991. GEQD report
also underscored their role in the proceedings dated 11.07.1990,
15.09.1990, 28.02.1991 and 24.04.1991, however these will not be
discussed since no charge was framed qua these proceedings in D-12. It is
the case of the prosecution that accused Baij Nath and V. K. Chaudhary
had put their signatures on the bogus minutes.
141. The first of the above three proceedings, which is dated 10.11.1990, is
Ex.PW22/M. It pertains to change of address of the Society. It bears
signatures of the two above named accused persons at Q-1064B &
Q-1066, as was confirmed by GEQD vide its report Ex.PW33/C. The
signatures of the abovesaid two accused persons were also confirmed by
GEQD at Q-1068 & Q-1069 (proceedings dated 25.01.1991) and Q-1076,
Q-1077 & Q-1078 (Proceedings dated 14.04.1991).
142. The prosecution had examined PW-5, PW-14 & PW-32 in order to
prove that none of the aforesaid meetings had taken place because the
signature against the name of PW-5, PW-14 & PW32 had been forged.
The case of the prosecution is that these minutes were written on later
dates in order to create a fake record and to show that the Society was
continuously existing and functioning despite having been wound up.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 143/168
While the prosecution was able to prove the signature of accused Baijnath
and V. K. Chaturvedi on the aforesaid three meetings and was also able to
prove that PW-5, PW-14 & PW-32 did not participate in these meetings at
all but the prosecution has failed to prove if Baijnath or V. K. Chaturvedi
had any connection with any of the public servants or with accused Nitesh
Kumar Vij or Raman Kumar Vij who allegedly were introduced in the year
2000. It is also to be kept in mind while appreciating this piece of evidence
that accused Baij Nath & V. K. Chaturvedi had already expired by the time
PW-14 & PW-32 were examined in the Court. So, their defence never
came forth. PW-5 during his examination had said that his signature may
have been appended by his wife because she used to attend meetings on
his behalf. Hence, in his testimony alone there was nothing incriminating
against accused Baij Nath & V.K. Chaturvedi. The effect in totality is that
the evidence qua accused Baij Nath & V. K. Chaturvedi is not sufficient to
suggest conspiracy with the accused persons who are facing trial & it
cannot be used to hold with respect to substantive offences against the two
abovesaid accused persons as proceedings had stood abated qua them
already before this evidence was led. It is also reflected from Ex.PW6/PX
(D-12) that accused V. K. Chaturvedi resigned from the Society on
05.02.2000, as is clear from Ex.PW35/K, the proceedings dated
05.02.2000, which are part of Ex.PW6/PX. Accused Baij Nath retired
from the Society on 15.05.2000 as per Ex.PW35/L. There is no evidence
on record that they had resigned in lieu of some consideration or had stood
monetarily benefited in any manner. This fact strengthens the doubt on the
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 144/168
story of prosecution regarding conspiracy between these two accused and
Sri Chand.
Post Revival
143. Before discussing the sequence of events post revival of the Society,
it shall be worthwhile to remind ourselves that the criminal object of
conspiracy, as claimed by the prosecution & set out in the charge, was
achieved once the freeze list was approved and sent to the office of DDA
vide letter dated 21.12.1999. It thus can be said to be the date on which the
criminal object of conspiracy was finally achieved and hence, conspiracy
terminated.
144. As per charge framed, the period of conspiracy has been shown to be
between 1998 to 2003. However, the criminal object of conspiracy as per
charge was only pertaining to revival of the Society and approval of the
freeze list. Ultimate aim of the conspiracy was to get the land allotted from
DDA at cheaper rates but that was not the criminal object of conspiracy.
The criminal object of conspiracy having come to an end on 21.12.1999,
any acts done thereafter, even though unlawful, cannot be considered as
having been done in pursuance to conspiracy. Similarly, any person who
joined the group in achieving its ultimate aim, after the criminal object to
conspiracy was over, would not be called a co-conspirator as per the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State v. Nalini (Supra). This
aspect is important and is to be kept in mind while discussing the role of
accused Nitesh Kumar Vij and Raman Kumar Vij, particularly because, it
is the case of prosecution that these two accused persons were introduced
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 145/168
in the year 2000 after revival of the Society and approval of freeze list. It is
pertinent to note that the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij became a member of
the Society on 10.03.2000 and a member of the Managing Committee on
24.11.2002 as per the case of prosecution. His father Raman Kumar Vij
however had no independent connection with the Society.
145. There is no reference of accused Nitesh Kumar Vij or Raman Kumar
Vij in the Noting file D-7 seized from the office of RCS. The
correspondence file D-6 also does not contain any document which would
reflect involvement of accused Nitesh Kumar Vij as a member of the
Society at any point of time till revival of the Society and approval of the
freeze list.
146. It is own case of prosecution that the Society came under the control
of Raman Kumar Vij & his son Nitesh Kumar Vij after revival & approval
of freeze list and they appointed Sri Chand as consultant. The prosecution
has examined PW-35 to show connection between accused Sri Chand &
Raman Kumar Vij. This witness did not depose who had put Raman
Kumar Vij and Nitesh Kumar Vij in control of the Society. Prosecution has
also not clarified it in any other manner and levelled only a vague
allegation that the two above-named accused persons controlled the
Society after its revival.
147. PW-35 deposed that he was the employee of Raman Kumar Vij and
used to prepare documents, like membership forms, resignation forms,
ration cards etc. on the instructions of Raman Kumar Vij. He also deposed
that he used to visit the office of Sri Chand for handing over the
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 146/168
documents related to the Society to him on the instructions of Raman
Kumar Vij. It was moreover deposed by PW-35 that on the instructions of
accused Sri Chand he used to write the proceedings in D-12 or names of
the members below the minutes. He identified his handwriting on the
names of members in the minutes dated 10.03.2000 (Ex.PW35/A),
20.06.2000 (Ex.PW35/B), 25.07.2003 (Ex.PW35/T) and 07.08.2003
(Ex.PW35/U).
148. PW-35 also deposed that the proceedings dated 24.11.2002
(Ex.PW36/F), 20.06.2000 (Ex.PW35/B), 10.03.2000 (Ex.PW35/A),
05.02.2000 (Ex.PW35/K), 15.05.2000 (Ex.PW35/M) & 10.10.2000
(Ex.PW35/O) were written by Sri Chand in his presence. The handwriting
on the minutes of the proceedings dated 28.02.2003 (Ex.PW35/P),
11.03.2003 (Ex.PW35/Q), 15.05.2003 (Ex.PW35/R) and 19.10.2003
(Ex.PW35/S) was attributed by this witness to the accused Raman Kumar
Vij.
149. The sum & substance of the testimony of this witness is that the fake
proceedings & documents post 1999 were prepared either by Sri Chand or
Raman Kumar Vij or by him on the instructions of Sri Chand or Ram
Kumar Vij. PW-35 claimed that he was an employee of Raman Kumar Vij
who used to receive a meagre salary of Rs.3000/- per month. What PW-35
has tried to prove is that he was a powerless employee who was dependent
on his employer and thus was not in a capacity to refuse his instructions.
Hence, whatever was being told to him, he used to do without questioning
his employer. PW-35 also deposed that he was working as caretaker of
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 147/168
Upkari CGHS too, and wife of accused Raman Kumar Vij used to pay him
salary of Rs.3,000/-.
150. A different story however unfolded during the cross-examination of
this witness. He admitted in his cross-examination that his father and
accused Raman Kumar Vij were colleagues as they were working together
in the State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk Branch, New Delhi. Upkari
CGHS was formed by the father of PW-35. His father was also in the
management committee of Upkari CGHS. The office of Upkari CGHS
was being operated from his residential address, which was also the
registered address of that Society. Once land was allotted to this Society in
Dwarka in the year 1999/2000, the Society office was shifted there. Wife
of accused Raman Kumar Vij was a member of Upkari CGHS and no
salary was ever paid to PW-35 from the personal accounts of Raman
Kumar Vij or his wife Anjana Vij. He also deposed that funds for the New
Anamika CGHS were arranged by Balvinder Singh Bajaj & Sukhvinder
Singh Bajaj.
151. From the facts revealed by PW-35 it clearly appears that he was not
an employee of the Society, as he claimed. He belied his own statements
regarding Upkari CGHS during his cross-examination. He made self-
exculpatory statements putting the entire blame on accused Raman Kumar
Vij and Sri Chand and saving himself by stating that he was only an
employee and therefore was bound to follow the instructions of his
masters. Statement of such a witness cannot be accepted on face value and
has to be approached with caution.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 148/168
152. It appears unbelievable that PW-35 was in a position where he was
bound to follow instructions. Upkari CGHS was his father’s baby and the
extent of his involvement in that Society cannot be as of an employee.
Father of PW-35 and Raman Kumar Vij were colleagues and had no
fiduciary relation with each other. They were on equal positions, not
bound by each other’s command. In such a scenario it seems improbable
that PW-35 had shared a fiduciary relation with accused Raman Kumar
Vij. The over-enthusiasm shown by PW-35 in deposing before the Court
by levelling unsubstantiated allegations & transferring the blame on a
select few puts the Court at guard and prompts it to look for corroboration.
153. One more fact that has come in the testimony of PW-35 and affects
the case of prosecution, is that during cross-examination he admitted that
one S. S. Bajaj & Balwinder Singh Bajaj, known as ‘Bajaj’ & ‘Happy’
respectively, had arranged funds for the Society. This part of the testimony
of PW-35 is similar to the testimony of PW-12, who was declared hostile
by the prosecution. The prosecution had called this witness to show that
Raman Kumar Vij was exercising control over the Society because he had
arranged the funds for the Society by raising a loan of Rs.10 lacs from
PW-12. However, PW-12 did not support the case of prosecution and
rather stated that loan was of Rs. 25 lacs which was given by him to one
‘Happy’ and Harminder Singh Bajaj. These two statements of PW-35 &
PW-12 suggest that there were some different persons who were
exercising control over the Society but they have not been made accused
in this case. Such a lapse underscores the sub-par nature of investigation
done in this case which creates doubt on the story of prosecution.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 149/168
154. Now, statement of PW-35 being seemingly biased & statement of
PW-12 being contrary to the case of prosecution, Court has no option but
to look for other material to see if prosecution has been able to prove the
allegations. It is reiterated here that apart from PW-35 and PW-12 there is
no other witness, except PW-37, who has referred to Raman Kumar Vij.
The witnesses PW-23, PW-24, PW-34, PW-36 & PW-37 became members
of the Society after its revival as per their deposition. All of these
witnesses deposed that they were made members in the Society by S. S.
Bajaj and Balvinder Bajaj. These two persons are not accused before the
Court. Their testimony however corroborates what PW-35 & PW-12 had
said i.e. one S. S. Bajaj and Balvinder Singh Bajaj were exercising control
over the Society. These two persons are not accused before this Court.
Prosecution has not revealed any reason why they were not made to join
investigation. It is only PW-37 who has taken the name of Raman Kumar
Vij alongwith Balwinder Singh Bajaj & none else.
155. I have already observed in the foregoing paragraphs that the accused
Raman Kumar Vij and Nitesh Kumar Vij cannot be brought in the dragnet
of conspiracy. Hence, the acts done by them are to be examined only to see
if those were illegal and amounted to criminal offence or not. The
allegations against them are that they had forged the documents like
membership forms, resignations & proceedings register and those were
used in the office of RCS. The accused Sri Chand had helped them in
forgery.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 150/168
156. So far accused Sri Chand is concerned, it is reiterated that there is no
evidence of forgery against him. PW-32 & PW-35, who had deposed
regarding forgery qua him, have already been held to be unreliable
witnesses. The best corroboration that could have been available to inspire
confidence in their testimony, was the report of GEQD. However, GEQD
has not returned any opinion on the handwriting of accused Sri Chand. So,
his involvement is not proved at all.
157. So far accused Raman Kumar Vij & Nitesh Kumar Vij are concerned,
the evidence discussed in forthcoming paragraphs has come against them
through the report of GEQD. The oral testimonies, being full of
contradictions, cannot be made the sole basis to determine about the
involvement of these two accused persons. Report of GEQD assumes
higher significance in such a scenario and requires thorough
consideration.
158. The first reference of accused Nitesh Kumar Vij is found in the Noting
file D-10. This file was also seized from the office of RCS and consist of
Notings from 02.04.2003 till 17.09.2004. The Noting dated 25.04.2003 in
this file reflects that a letter dated 02.04.2003 was received from Nitesh
Kumar, in the capacity of Secretary of the Society. He had furnished the
resignation forms, enrollment forms, affidavits of Secretary along with
bye-laws & list of members and the audit reports, each in one separate
folder marked as Volume-I to Volume-IV respectively, by way of the
aforesaid letter. This Noting contains purported signature of Nitesh
Kumar in the margin at Q-113. The documents (Vol. I to Vol. IV) furnished
along with the aforesaid letter are part of D-8, D-9, D-14 and D-29. The
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 151/168
documents in these files bear purported signature of accused Nitesh
Kumar Vij. These purported signatures in D-8 have been marked as Q-114
to Q-267. The documents exhibited in this file are Ex.PW36/C (list of
resigned members after verification of final list), Ex.PW18/F
(Resignation of Anil Mohan Chaturvedi), Ex.PW18/H (receipt),
Ex.PW17/F (Resignation of Kedar Nath) & Ex.PW18/H (Receipt). The
marked documents are Mark PW14/E (Resignation-cum-Receipt of
PW-14) & Mark PW32/I (Resignation-cum-Receipt of PW-32). In D-9 the
purported signature are marked as Q-272 to Q-417. The exhibited
documents in this file consist of a list of total enrolled members
(Ex.PW37/D), a list of existing members (Ex.PW37/C) and affidavits,
application forms and documents of various members. File D-14 has
purported signatures marked as Q-552, Q-556, Q-560, Q-563, Q-567,
Q-571, Q-575, Q-579, Q-585, Q-588, Q-590, Q-592, Q-594, Q-597,
Q-601, Q-605, Q-610, Q-614, Q-618, Q-622, Q-628, Q-631, Q-633,
Q-636, Q-640, Q-644, Q-648, Q-652, Q-656, Q-660, Q-666, Q-669,
Q-671, Q-673 and Q-677. It is Ex.PW36/D, the audit report from
01.04.1999 to 31.03.2002. The signature in D-29 have been marked as
Q-83 to Q-91. The relevant document in this file is an affidavit
Ex.PW39/T (Colly).
159. It is the case of CBI that the resignation forms, enrollement forms,
affidavits, audit reports were all forged documents which were used by
accused Nitesh Kumar Vij in the office of RCS. This allegation however is
unsubstantiated because none of the purported signatures matched with
the specimen signature of accused Nitesh Kumar Vij as per the report of
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 152/168
GEQD which is Ex.PW33/C. None of the witnesses of the CBI deposed
that the signature at Q-113 in the margin of Office Note dated 25.04.2003
were of accused Nitesh Kumar Vij and he had visited the office of RCS for
furnishing the aforesaid documents. The letter dated 02.04.2003 sent
along with the aforesaid documents is a part of Ex.PW27/A (Colly) but
signature of accused Nitish Kumar Vij on the said letter have not been
proved as per law. None of the witnesses of the prosecution has
specifically deposed about that letter or the signatures over it. The
signatures on this letter were neither sent to the GEQD for comparison. It
thus remained unproved that the forged resignation forms, enrollment
forms and other documents were placed on record of the office of RCS by
the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij and thereby he had used the forged
documents.
160. Another letter that appears to have been received in the office of RCS
as per the file No. D-10 is dated 18.02.2003. This letter also bears the
purported signature of accused Nitesh Kumar Vij but that letter or
signatures over it have not been proved either. Vide the letter dated
18.02.2003, the RCS office was informed about the elections held on
24.11.2002 and minutes of the said meeting were sent to the office of
RCS. The letter not having been connected to the accused Nitesh Kumar
Vij by proving his signature through an expert or any other independent
witness, has not been proved by the prosecution as per law.
161. No other document that could be connected to the accused Nitesh
Kumar Vij or Raman Kumar Vij, is available on the record of RCS apart
from those indicated hereinabove. An audit report (D-24) for the period
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 153/168
2002-2003 seized by the CBI is signed by accused Nitesh Kumar Vij at
Q-681, Q-684, Q-688, Q-691, Q-694, Q-697, Q-700, Q-703, Q-706,
Q-710, Q-712 & Q-714. The GEQD report Ex.PW33/C connects the
above questioned signature to the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij, however,
this report is neither proved on record nor are there any allegations qua it.
Thus it is not proved by the prosecution if any illegal act amounting to
criminal offence was committed by the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij or
Raman Kumar Vij with respect to the record pertaining to the office of
RCS, Delhi.
Allotment of Land
162. As per DDA file (D-11) the freeze list Ex.PW14/J (Colly) was received
from the office of RCS vide letter dated 21.12.1999 (Mark PW25/X). The
file reflects that on 02.11.2001 a letter Ex.PW25/B (Colly) was sent by the
DDA to the Society for inviting application for allotment of land. The
society communicated with the DDA and sought several extensions.
These letters were purportedly written by Kamal Singh and R. K.
Chaudhary and prosecution has not established identity of persons who
actually wrote those. The first communication which was received by the
DDA from accused Nitesh Kumar Vij is an application form dated
28.02.2002 for allotment of land to the New Anamika CGHS. This
application form was received along with two challans reflecting
depositing of payment towards the land cost and photocopies pertaining to
the documents of the Society consisting of its registration certificate,
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 154/168
details of managing committee members, copy of the freeze list and bye-
laws of the Society. These documents were sent to the office of DDA vide
a letter dated 28.02.2002 and these all are Ex.PW25/C (Colly). The letter
dated 28.02.2002 has not been signed by the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij.
The documents annexed with this letter however bear his signature which
are marked as Q-505 to Q-533. Q-533 is the signature on application form
and Q-505 to Q-530 are the signatures on the photocopies of the
documents pertaining to the Society. Vide Q-505 to Q-530, the
photocopies were attested. These signatures have been connected to the
accused Nitesh Kumar Vij as per the report (Ex.PW33/C) of GEQD.
Q-531 and Q-532 are the signatures on the payment challans. These
signature did not match with the specimen signature of accused Nitesh
Kumar Vij but have matched with those of accused Raman Kumar Vij, as
per the report Ex.PW33/C.
163. It is pertinent to note here that the abovesaid signatures are on
documents which were submitted in the office of DDA pursuant to their
letter Ex.PW25/B (Colly) and there is no illegality in those documents per
se. However, the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij was not the Secretary of the
Society as per the proceedings register (D-12) on 28.02.2002. He became
Secretary of the Society on 24.11.2002. One more aspect which invites
attention is that the signature on the payment challan matched with
accused Raman Kumar Vij and not with the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij.
Accused Raman Kumar Vij was not a member of the Society, hence, there
is no explanation why his signature are there on the payment challans at
Q-531 & Q-532.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 155/168
164. The next question that comes to mind now is if the acts of Raman
Kumar Vij signing as Nitesh Kumar Vij and Nitesh Kumar Vij signing as
Secretary, amount to forgery. To determine this question, it becomes
necessary to go through the definition of ‘Forgery’ as laid down in Section
463 & 464 IPC. The aforesaid two Sections read as below:-
“463. Forgery. – Whoever makes any false documents or
false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record,
with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any
person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to
part with property, or to enter into any express or implied
contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be
committed, commits forgery.”
“464. Making a false document.– A person is said to
make a false document or false electronic record —-
First – Who dishonestly or fradulently–
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part
of a document ;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of
any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic
record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a
document or the authenticity of the electronic
signature,
with the intention of causing it to be believed that such
document or part of document, electronic record or
electronic signature was made, signed, sealed,
executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority
of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows
that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or
affixed; or
Secondly – Who, without lawful authority,
dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 156/168
otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in
any material part thereof, after it has been made,
executed or affixed with electronic signature either by
himself or by any other person, whether such person be
living or dead at the time of such alteration; or
Thirdly – Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes
any person to sign, seal execute or alter a document or
an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature
on any electronic record knowing that such person by
reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot,
or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he
does not know the contents of the document or
electronic record or the nature of the alteration.”
165. A reading of the aforesaid two sections makes it clear that merely by
putting signature of some other person on a document, forgery is not
committed. It is committed only when a false document is prepared with
intention to cause injury to someone or to claim a legal right or title that
did not exist. There is no evidence that the accused Raman Kumar Vij, by
putting the signature of Nitesh Kumar Vij on the payment challans, stood
benefited in any manner. The payment challans were filled for depositing
money in the office of DDA on behalf of the Society and by doing so, no
special leverage was to go to the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij or Raman
Kumar Vij. The challan was prepared merely to deposit payment and there
is no dispute on the point that payment was deposited. Hence, even if
accused Raman Kumar Vij had signed on the payment challans, it is not
proved that the same was done with criminal intent. For the same reasons,
the act of Nitesh Kumar Vij in signing as Secretary of the Society cannot
be called as the one with criminal intent because there are no allegations
that any injury was caused to the Society by the said act.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 157/168
166. Similarly, there are other letters in D-11 on which signature of accused
Nitesh Kumar Vij have been proved as per report Ex.PW33/C. These
documents are as below: –
166.1.The first & second letters are dated 17.06.2002 & 03.06.2002. These
pertain to allotment of land to the Society at Dhirpur. These are signed by
the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij as Secretary of the Society at Q-534 &
Q-535 respectively. These letters were not exhibited by the prosecution
separately, though these are part of the file collectively exhibited as
Ex.PW25/A.166.2.The third letter is dated 14.11.2002 regarding change of address of
the Society to the premises of accused Nitesh Kumar Vij. It is signed by
him as Secretary of the Society at Q-537 and was not exhibited by the
prosecution though it also is a part of the file Ex.PW25/A (Colly).
166.3.The fourth letter is dated 20.02.2003 for seeking permission for
mortgage of land, signed by the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij at Q-538 as
Secretary. It is Ex.PW25/F.166.4.The fifth & Sixth letters are dated 11.08.2003 for seeking extension
of time for making the payment, signed by the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij
as Secretary at Q-541 & Q-542. These are exhibited as Ex.PW25/K &
Ex.PW25/L respectively.
167. None of the aforementioned six letters are of such nature that could
have caused any injury to the Society. Nitesh Kumar Vij was writing to
DDA on behalf of the Society and did not gain anything out of it becauseCBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 158/168
there is no material on record that suggests so. Prosecution has not brought
any such witness on record who had deposed if any injury was caused to
the Society by the aforesaid acts of accused Nitesh Kumar Vij. There is no
complaint on record from the Society or its genuine members, in this
regard. Hence, the requisite criminal intent to prove forgery is not made
out qua these letters also.
168. The remaining material reflecting involvement of accused Nitesh
Kumar Vij and Raman Kumar Vij is in the Proceedings Register (D-12). It
pertains to the minutes dated 24.11.2002, 11.03.2003 and 15.07.2003. The
minutes of 15.07.2003 have not been exhibited in evidence by the
prosecution. These minutes were not shown to the witnesses whose
signature appear there, namely, PW-36 (Vikas Dixit) and PW-37 (Ramji
Lal Dua). The signature of PW-37 at Q-1288 on the minutes dated
15.07.2003 are however confirmed by GEQD in its report Ex.PW33/C.
169. The minutes dated 24.11.2002 is Ex.PW36/F. It is the case of
prosecution that meeting dated 24.11.2002 did not take place at all.
However, prosecution failed to prove this fact by leading any cogent and
reliable evidence. PW-36, one of the witness of the prosecution, identified
his signature on Ex.PW36/F at point ‘A’ thereby suggesting that the
meeting was attended by him. Another witness, namely, PW-37 denied his
signature on the meeting however his signature at Q-1272 matched with
the specimen signature furnished by him to the CBI, as per the report
Ex.PW33/C given by GEQD. This confirms that PW-37 R. L. Dua was
also there in the meeting dated 24.11.2002. The report of GEQD also
raises a doubt on the credibility of PW-37. The testimony of prosecution’s
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 159/168
witnesses and the report of GEQD belies the case of prosecution that the
proceedings dated 24.11.2002 are fake.
170. Coming to the minutes dated 11.03.2003, same is exhibited as
Ex.PW35/Q. It is the case of prosecution that these minutes was written
by accused Raman Kumar Vij and were signed by his son Nitesh Kumar
Vij. It is so mentioned in the expert’s report Ex.PW33/C also. However,
what catches the attention is that except the signature of Nitesh Kumar Vij,
no other person had signed those minutes. There is nothing on record to
suggest that these minutes were fraudulently used anywhere to obtain any
kind of advantage or were meant to cause injury to anyone and thus no
consequences follow from the same.
171. The last allegation against accused Raman Kumar Vij and Nitesh
Kumar Vij is that they had arranged loan of Rs.10 lacs for the Society from
PW-12 Sunil Kohli. The case of prosecution on this aspect was however
not supported by PW-12 Sunil Kumar Kohli who was the sole witness of
the prosecution on this fact. He denied having given any loan to the
Society at the instance of accused Nitish Kumar Vij and Raman Kumar Vij
and rather stated that the loan was given to one Harminder Singh Bajaj and
Happy. He did not also identify the handwriting & signature on the
certificate Ex.PW12/A.
172. GEQD has confirmed the handwriting of accused Raman Kumar Vij at
Q-1290 on the certificate Ex.PW12/A (D-13) and signature of Nitesh
Kumar Vij at Q-1291. However, when was the certificate issued, why it
was issued, to whom it was issued etc. has not been proved by the
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 160/168
prosecution at all. There is further no evidence on record how the
certificate had injured the Society in any manner or how it was meant to
benefit the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij & Raman Kumar Vij. In such a
scenario, noting incriminating reflecting forgery, flows from Ex.PW12/A.
173. The discussion hereinabove brings us to the point where it can be said
that the allegations of cheating, forgery or use of forged documents are not
proved against accused Nitesh Kumar Vij & Raman Kumar Vij beyond
reasonable doubts. It is already observed that these two accused persons
cannot be brought in the dragnet of conspiracy.
174. At this point Court is again reminded of the observations of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in Yogi Raj Krishna CGHS v. DDA & Ors. (Supra)
pursuant to which the present case was registered. The observations of
Hon’ble High Court are clear and reflect that the prime aim of unholy
alliance between the builders and officials of RCS and DDA was to defeat
the objective of co-operative movement in Delhi and earn profit by selling
the houses at market rate. It is in this background that the prosecution
supposedly impleaded accused Raman Kumar Vij & Nitesh Kumar Vij
thinking that they were exercising full control over the Society with an
aim to earn profits by selling the flats at higher value in the open market.
However, unfortunately this has neither been alleged in the charge-sheet
nor was put forth at the stage of charge, though the evidence was led by the
prosecution on the point that Nitesh Kumar Vij and Raman Kumar Vij
were exercising full control over the Society.
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 161/168
175. The entire material that has been discussed hereinabove qua these two
accused persons shows their involvement in the affairs of the Society,
however, it is not inexplicable involvement. Nitesh Kumar Vij was a
member or the Society and remained its Secretary also. Hence, his
involvement in the affairs of the Society was natural. Raman Kumar Vij,
being his father, may possibly have helped him in handling the affairs. The
documents to which these two accused persons were linked, were not used
for doing anything illegal. These two accused persons were not linked to
any forged documents and signature of accused Nitesh were not proved on
so many documents some of which were even allegedly forged. It appears
thus that someone else my have misused his signature but identity of the
said such person was not established. In the absence of such evidence,
connection between accused Nitesh and the person who forged his
signature also does not got established which makes it difficult to assume
that being Secretary, he must have been aware that his signature were
being forged & misused and infact may have consented to the same. The
entire chain of circumstances to prove criminal intent does not get
established, which goes against the cases of prosecution. There is no
evidence on record that the accused Nitesh Kumar Vij & Raman Kumar
Vij had benefited in any manner by exercising control over the affairs of
the Society. The record of DDA rather reflects that managing Committee
of the society had changed in November, 2004 and accused Nitesh Kumar
Vij did not become a member of that Managing Committee at that point.
Land to the Society had not been allotted till 13.01.2006. The DDA
demanded balance amount from the Society vide letter dated 13.01.2006
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 162/168
which is Ex.PW25/Q. Record does not reflect any communication from
DDA after that, suggesting that revival of society and approval of final list
was not followed by allotment of land. Hence, the ultimate aim of the
conspiracy as per charge framed was not achieved because the
penultimate act by making the entire payment was not performed at all.
176. The entire evidence available on record having been appreciated and
found short of proving criminal intent though proves actus reus in some of
the situations, the judgment can be concluded at this stage itself. However,
since certain legal issues were raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel during
their arguments, I feel compelled to decide the same, being the Trial
Court.
Expert’s Report: Reliability
177. Ld. Counsel for accused Raman Kumar Vij and Nitesh Kumar
challenged the report of GEQD (Ex.PW33/C) during his arguments
mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the specimen signatures S-175 to
S-180 and S-170 to S-174 pertaining to these accused persons were not
proved beyond reasonable doubts and secondly, that the report
Ex.PW33/C was not based upon universally accepted & well established
scientific principles.
178. The specimen signature of accused Nitesh Kumar Vij are Ex.PW39/M
(Colly) and those of accused Raman Kumar Vij are Ex.PW39/N (Colly).
These specimen were identified by independent witnesses, namely,
PW-42 (A.K. Taneja) & PW-45 (Bishan Singh). The testimony of these
witnesses is already discussed in para 36 & 39 of this judgment. It is clear
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 163/168
on reading of their testimony that they could not answer even the basic
questions regarding the surrounding circumstances at the time of
obtaining of specimen signature. PW-45 fumbled during his cross-
examination and admitted that he went to the office of CBI only twice i.e.
on 12.01.2007 & 05.04.2007. He could not explain his presence in the
office of CBI on 09.05.2007 when specimen of Raman Kumar Vij were
taken. He also denied ever signing on a single sheet of specimen however
in his chief examination he had proved only the specimen S-177
pertaining to Raman Kumar Vij. All this suggests that the signatures of
this witness were obtained in bulk on many papers and not in the manner
as claimed by CBI. This having been shown, a doubt arises on the
testimony of PW-42 & PW-45 making their presence at the time of
obtaining of specimen doubtful & thus their testimony does not inspire
confidence.
179. The report of GEQD (Ex.PW33/C) has been challenged by the Ld.
Counsel for accused Raman Kumar Vij & Nitesh Kumar Vij on various
grounds, primarily being, that the witness did not prove his qualification
on record; he did not answer certain questions in his cross-examination
satisfactorily; he did not disclose about the scientific aids and instruments
which were used by him for examination; he admitted that in photocopies
of the documents the movement of formation of characteristics & pen lift
were not easily decipherable; he did not remember if the questioned
writings were compared inter-se; he showed ignorance related to the
mono-grammatic signatures; and he admitted that Q-531 & Q-532 could
have been compared only with S-177 & not with other specimen, there
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 164/168
was appearance of tremor in Q-532 and some of the features like
curvature, angularity, shape, loop formation and small upper stroke
appearing in S-177 were not similar to Q-531 & Q-532.
180. The ground like qualification of expert, non-disclosure of scientific
aid, lack of knowledge on some of the aspects of the field etc. are not
sufficient to discard the report Ex.PW33/C. The witness is a Government
Examiner, having no personal interest in the matter and his report cannot
be discarded without having strong reasons. The report Ex.PW33/C is
unbiased and at certain points even belies the case of prosecution. The
reasons shown by Ld. Defence Counsel are not sufficient to discard the
report completely. However, on the point of comparison of Q-531 &
Q-532, there are sufficient reasons to discard the report. Firstly, the report
does not consider trembling and different characteristics of S-177 and
Q-531 & Q-532. Secondly, in the reasons Ex.PW33/E there is no specific
mention of how Q-531 & Q-532 were compared with S-177 which was
important because these signature do not appear to have been put in
normal circumstances due to evidence of tremor being present.
Lack of Valid Sanction
181. The legal point raised on behalf of public servants relates to lack of
sanction u/Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. and lack of competency to grant sanction
u/Sec. 19 PC Act. The judgments relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsels in
support of their contentions are mentioned in para no. 59.3 & 59.4, while
judgments relied upon by Ld. Sr. PP are mentioned in para 63. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically reiterated in Shadakshari v. State of
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 165/168
Karnataka (Supra) that agreeing to commit an offence is not a part of
official duty & protection of Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. is not available against such
acts. In this case allegations are clear, that the accused persons had
conspired. Conspiracy not being part of their duty, the accused persons
cannot claim benefit of Sec. 197 Cr.P.C.
182. Regarding competency of the sanctioning authority, it was contended
that the sanction u/Sec. 19 PC Act could have been obtained only from the
office where the accused was working on the date of cognizance. This
having been not done, the sanction u/Sec. 19 PC Act was bad in the eyes of
law. In this regard it shall be relevant to quote the observations of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (Supra) which read as
below:-
“…….We have expressed our conclusion that where offence
as set out in Section 6 are alleged to have been committed by
a public servant, sanction of only that authority would be
necessary who would be entitled to remove him from that
office which is alleged to have been misused or abused for
corrupt motives. If the accused has ceased to hold that office
by the date, the Court is called upon to take cognizance of the
offences alleged to have been committed by such public
servant, no sanction under Section 6 would be necessary
despite the fact that he may be holding any other office on the
relevant date which may make him a public servant as
understood in Section 21, if there is no allegation that that
office has been abused or misused for corrupt motives…..”
(Emphasis supplied)
183. Again, in Manusukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujrat (Supra)
the Hon’ble Apex Court had held as below: –
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 166/168
“13. Sub-section (2) of the Section 6 is clarificatory in nature in
as much as it provides that if any doubt arises whether the
sanction is to be given by the Central Government or the State
Government or any other authority, it shall be given by the
appropriate Government or the authority, which was competent
to remove that person from the office on the date on which the
offence was committed. This rule is a departure from the
normal rule under which the relevant date is the date of taking
cognizance, as laid down by this court in R.S. Nayak vs. A.R.
Antulay, AIR 1984 SC 684 = 1984……”
(Emphasis supplied)
184. It is thus clear that the relevant date to decide from which authority
sanction is to be taken, is the date of taking cognizance, and the date of
offence shall be relevant only when there is a confusion as to who the
appropriate Govt. was. In this case, there was no confusion that the
accused persons were employee of State Government. So for them the
relevant date to decide competent authority is the date on which
cognizance was to be taken. There is no dispute that sanction in this case
was given by the authority with whom the accused persons were working
at the time of seeking of sanction. Hence, the parameter set out in the
aforesaid decisions stood fulfilled in this case & cognizance u/Sec. 19 PC
Act was thus granted by the competent authority.
185. The last objection on the sanction Orders Ex.PW38/A, Ex.PW40/A &
Ex.PW40/B is that those were granted mechanically. The objection is
baseless in my considered opinion because the witnesses PW-38 & PW-40
have categorically deposed that they had gone through the entire material
which was placed before them. PW-38 deposed that he must have gone
through the documents before signing the sanction Order. The testimony
CBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 167/168
of two abovesaid witnesses does not reflect non-application of mind & is
reliable.
Conclusion
186. In my considered opinion, for reasons stated hereinabove the CBI has
failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances and thus could not
prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of which must go
to the accused persons. All the accused persons are consequently acquitted
of the offences charged.
187. It is clarified that the judgment of acquittal shall not preclude the CBI
from writing to the disciplinary authorities of public servants for initiating
action under the service rules for dereliction of duty & misconduct, if not
done already. Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JYOTI KLER
Announced in the Open Court Date:
KLER 2025.08.06
10:35:22on 29.07.2025. +0530
(Jyoti Kler)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-18,
Rouse Avenue District Courts,
New DelhiCertified that this judgment runs into 168 pages and all the pages
have been signed by me.
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JYOTI
Date:
KLER
KLER 2025.08.06
10:35:38
+0530(Jyoti Kler)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-18,
Rouse Avenue District Courts,
New DelhiCBI v. Brij Mohan Sethi (New Anamika CGHS) Page 168/168