Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Kapil Walia And Anr on 21 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF NISHANT GARG
ACJM-2-CUM-ACJ, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CBI vs. KAPIL WALIA & ANR.
Case No. : CC No. CBI/157/2019
FIR/RC No. : RC-DAI/A0014/2011
dated 13.09.2011
U/s : 120B r/w 420, 468 and 471
IPC
Name of Branch : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
CNR No. : DLCT12-000501-2019
The date of commission : During the year 2008
of the offences
Name of the Complainant : The present FIR was
registered on source
information.
Name, parentage & address : (i) Kapil Walia,
S/o Sh. Rajinder
Prasad Walia,
R/o 65/57, New
Rohtak Road, New
Delhi-110005.
(ii) Ritesh Walia,
S/o Sh. Rajinder
Prasad Walia,
R/o 65/57, New
Rohtak Road, New
Delhi-110005.
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 1 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:08:30 +0530
The plea of the accused : Not guilty
Final Judgment : Convicted
Date of institution of case : 28.04.2015
Date of Judgment : 21.08.2025
Counsels for the parties:
Mr. Arjun Anand, Ld. APP for the CBI.
Mr. Mohd. Qamar Ali and Ms. Priyanka, Ld. counsels for
accused Kapil Walia (A-1) and Ritesh Walia (A-2).
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Kapil Walia (A-1) and Ritesh Walia (A-2) have
been sent by CBI to face trial for commission of offences
punishable under Section 120B r/w 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
FACTS
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the present FIR under
Section 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A IPC and Section
13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d), PC Act was registered on source
information that officials of South West Division-III, Delhi Jal
Board (DJB) entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst
themselves and with private contractors M/s Home Decorators
Builders and Engineers and M/s India Tube Well during the
period between 2007-08 with the object of obtaining undue
pecuniary advantage for themselves and for the private
contractors by abusing their official position in the matter of
installation of tubewells for drinking water at different places
falling within South West Division-III of DJB. It was alleged that
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 2 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
by NISHANT
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:08:44 +0530
the private contractors claimed bills for entire work on the basis
of forged purchase bills which were duly certified and passed by
officials of South West Division-III, DJB by making false entries
in the Measurement Books resulting in wrongful loss of Rs.
91,51,503/- to DJB.
3. Source information further disclosed that both the private
contractors i.e. M/s Home Decorators Builders and Engineers
and M/s India Tube Well were operating from the same address
and were owned by the same family. The contractors of these
firms submitted forged bills regarding purchase of material from
M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. A sum of Rs. 29,24,792/- was
paid to these contractors for the work which had not been
executed on the ground at all. The source information further
disclosed that as per the work order, Johnson pipe, which is 5-6
times costlier than the ordinary iron pipe was to be used but the
contractors used sub standard pipes which resulted in muddy
water coming out of the tube wells. Fake bills purportedly
showing purchase of Johnson pipes were submitted and the
payment was released by the officials of DJB to these
contractors.
4. On this information, the present FIR/RC was registered
against Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers, Junior
Engineers of DJB, contractors M/s Home Decorators Builders
and Engineers and M/s India Tube Well and other unknown
persons. During investigation, it was found that the contract vide
Contract Agreement no. 54/2007-08, for reboring of tubewell in
Balmiki Mohalla, Dasghara Village was awarded to M/s Home
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 3 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:08:54 +0530
Decorators, Builders and Engineers through its partner Kapil
Walia (A-1); the contract agreement was executed between
Executive Engineer of DJB and accused Kapil Walia (A-1) on
07.09.2007. As per the contract agreement, Johnson make pipe
was to be used in the tube-well.
5. The work started on 18.09.2008. Measurement Book (MB)
no. 16413 was prepared by Maninder Jeet Singh (JE) regarding
the work done on day-to-day basis; it was also signed by Shiv
Hari (AE) (item no. 2,3, 5 and 6) and P.K. Jain (EE) (item no. 3)
in token of having conducted test check. However, items no. 2, 3,
5 and 6 did not cover lowering and installation of Johnson pipe
Item no. 7 dealt with providing Johnson slotted 150 mm pipe 50
m length but not its installation. After completion of the work,
the first and final bill was submitted by JE on 03.11.2008 and its
payment was made to the contractor vide EFT No. 37 dated
17.11.2008.
6. For the purpose of checking actual use of Johnson pipe in
reboring of tubewell at Dasghara Village, services of Dr. D.V.
Reddy, Sr. Principal Scientist, National Geophysical Research
Institute, Hyderabad were availed; Dr. D.V. Reddy examined the
tube-well on 29.06.2012 by using a bore-hole camera; after
analysis of the video recording, Dr. D.V. Reddy gave his report
dated 27.11.2012 as per which the bore-hole camera could scan
only upto 104.5 meters as against the claimed depth of 145
meters. The report revealed that there was no pipe/blank casing
after 66 meters depth whereas, as per the strata chart provided by
the contractor and duly accepted by JE, AE and EE and also as
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 4 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
by NISHANT
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:09:02 +0530
per the entries in the MB, Johnson pipe of 50 meter length was
used after a depth of 79.77 meters. Thus, it was established that
no Johnson pipe was used in this tube-well as no casing was
found after 66 meters. The bill pertaining to use of 50 meters of
Johnson pipe was cleared by the DJB causing wrongful loss to
the tune of Rs. 1,01,460/- to the government.
7. During investigation, it was found that M/s Home
Decorators, Builders and Engineers had submitted a bill having
book no. 513, invoice no. 12 dated 10.09.2008 purportedly issued
by M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. to show purchase of
Johnson pipe. Tilak Raj Magoon, MD of M/s Ambika
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. denied to have issued any such invoice; he
informed that invoice no. 12 was issued on 28.05.2005 vide book
no. 1 to M/s Pioneer Drilling Company Pvt. Ltd. The format
layout of the invoice submitted by M/s Home Decorators was not
similar to the invoice issued to M/s Pioneer Drilling. Tilak Raj
Magoon further clarified that his company does not deal in
Johnson pipes.
8. Investigation further revealed that the false strata chart
showing use of Johnson pipe beyond 79.77 meters was made by
accused Ritesh Walia (A-2), brother of accused Kapil Walia
(A-1). CFSL report confirmed signatures of Ritesh Walia (A-2)
on the said strata chart. The false strata chart and false invoice
were submitted by accused Kapil Walia (A-1) for release of
payment.
9. Investigation was also carried out to ascertain the role of
officials of DJB. It was found that the Executive Engineer checks
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 5 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. Digitally signed
by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.08.21
16:09:10 +0530
the entries in the MB and prepares a test check report for the
items costing upto 10% of total work; the Assistant Engineer is
responsible for 50% checking of the work; he also prepares a test
check report on the basis of the entries in the MB; the Junior
Engineer submits basic requirement for boring of a tube-well,
prepares and submits estimates of work; he is the Engineer
Incharge at the site and makes entries in the MB as the progress
of the work takes place. He is responsible for 100% checking of
the work.
10. In the instant case, P.K. Jain (EE) had checked 10% of the
total cost of work and Shiv Hare (AE) had checked 50% of the
total cost of work. However, the checking done by these officials
did not include lowering/installation of Johnson pipe. Maninder
Jeet Singh (JE) had done 100% checking of the work which
included checking of Johnson pipes and installation of assembly
of the tube-well. It was found that he fraudulently and
dishonestly made false entries in the MB and showed installation
of Johnson pipe as per the strata chart. However, sanction under
Section 19 of the PC Act was declined by the competent
authority against him due to which charge-sheet qua him was not
filed. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet for
commission of offences punishable under Section 120B r/w 420,
468 and 471 IPC was filed against accused Kapil Walia (A-1)
and Ritesh Walia (A-2).
CHARGE
11. Copy of the charge-sheet and accompanying documents
was supplied to the accused free of cost under Section 207 CrPC.
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 6 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:09:18 +0530
Vide order dated 08.10.2021, charge for commission of offence
under Section 120B r/w Section 420/468/471 IPC, Section 420,
468, 471 IPC were directed to be framed against accused Kapil
Walia (A-1) whereas charge for commission of offence under
Section 120B r/w 420 IPC was directed to be framed against
accused Ritesh Walia (A-2). Formal charge for commission of
the said offences was framed on 29.11.2021 to which the accused
persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE
12. To prove its case, the prosecution examined the following
witnesses:
i. PW-1 Sanjay Kumar Sharma- Witness to the handwriting
and specimen signatures of accused Ritesh Walia (A-2).
ii. PW-2 Pradeep Shekhar- Assistant Engineer, DJB- He had
handed over documents pertaining to the contract awarded
to M/s Home Decorators and M/s India Tube Wells to the
CBI vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A.
iii. PW-3 Mahavir Prasad- Draftsman, DJB. He proved his
notings Ex. PW3/B, justification statement Ex. PW3/A
and completion report Ex. PW3/C bearing his signatures.
iv. PW-4 Manjeet Singh Sudan- The then Junior Accountant,
DJB. He identified his signatures on various
documents viz. tentative/real liability, tender documents,
comparative statement and bills of M/s Home Decorators
forming part of D-3 and D-4.
v. PW-5 Rajeev Kumar Bansal- Director, Pioneer Drilling
Company Pvt. Ltd. He proved invoice dated 28.05.2005
Mark ‘A’ which he had handed over to the CBI vide
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 7 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:09:27 +0530
seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. He also proved certified copy
of ledger account of M/s Pioneer Drilling Company Pvt.
Ltd. Ex. PW5/B.
vi. PW-6 Yogesh Babu Kaushik- Scientist ‘D’, Central
Ground Water Board, Chandigarh. He proved the site
inspection memo dated 29.06.2012 Ex. PW6/A.
vii. PW-7 Ravindran- AAO, DJB. He handed over the contract
agreement vide seizure memo dated 22.08.2013.
viii. PW-8 Tilak Raj Magon- Director, M/s Ambika
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. He proved seizure memo
Ex. PW8/A. He stated that since inception of the
Company, he had never been in business with M/s Home
Decor Builders and Engineers and M/s India Tube Wells.
He denied his signatures on invoice no. 12 dated
10.09.2008; he also denied that the invoice is on the letter
head of his company. He identified the invoice no. 12
dated 28.05.2005 in favour of M/s Pioneer Drilling
Company Pvt. Ltd. Ex. PW8/B.
ix. PW-9 Shiv Kumar Bhardwaj- The then Superintending
Engineer, DJB. He described the procedure of boring of
tubewell and use of Johnson and MS pipes in it. He further
describe the role of JE, AE and EE. He also
described the process of issuance and award of tenders by
DJB.
x. PW-10 Vikas Rathi- Member of the team which had
carried out the inspection of the tubewell through bore-
hole camera. He proved site inspection memo Ex. PW6/A
and rough sketch plan of the site Ex. PW10/A.
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 8 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 NISHANT by NISHANT
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:09:35 +0530
xi. PW-11 Dr. D.V. Reddy- The expert who carried out
inspection of the tubewell through a bore-hole camera. He
proved site inspection memo Ex. PW6/A and his report Ex.
PW11/A (colly). On seeing the video of the tubewell
inspection, he deposed that the casing existed upto 60 plus
meters when the camera reached 70 plus meters no casing
could be seen.
xii. PW-12 Trilochan Joshi- Forensic Document Examiner. He
proved document forming part of D-4 Ex. PW12/A (colly).
He compared the questioned signatures and writing with
the specimen writings and signatures of accused Kapil
Walia (A-1) and Ritesh Walia (A-2) and proved his report
dated 12.03.2013 Ex. PW12/C. He also proved the
forwarding letter Ex. PW12/D vide which documents
Ex. PW12/C were sent to the CBI after comparison and
examination.
xiii. PW-13 Anand Saroop- The Investigating Officer.
13. Both the accused persons admitted the genuineness and
contents of letter dated 24.02.2014 alongwith account opening
form and statement of account of M/s Home Decorators Builders
and Engineers under Section 294 CrPC.
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CrPC
14. After examination of the witnesses, the prosecution
evidence was closed by the Ld. APP on 01.02.2025. Statements
of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC were recorded
wherein they denied the allegations against them and claimed to
have been falsely implicated. Both the accused persons claimed
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 9 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:09:43 +0530
that no documents whatsoever were handed over by PW2
Pradeep Shekhar; the facts disclosed by PW8 Tilak Raj Magon
were incorrect; the invoice in favour of M/s Pioneer Drilling
company Pvt. Ltd. is a forged and fabricated document; the site
inspection memo Ex. PW6/A is also a forged and fabricated
document; the report Ex. PW11/A (colly) of Dr. D.V. Reddy was
prepared at the dictation of CBI and is false; requisite Johnson
pipes were installed in the presence of the JE as per the contract
agreement; the CD containing video of the borewell inspection is
tampered/doctored; they had not given any specimen writing or
signature to the CBI and the report Ex. PW12/C of PW12
Trilochan Joshi is false. Lastly, it was stated that the entire work
was executed as per the contract agreement under the supervision
of JE, ZE and EE and the bills were processed by the accounts
department after being fully satisfied with the documents and
execution of work.
15. In defence, the accused examined Maninder Jeet Singh, the
then JE as DW1.
ARGUMENTS
16. I have heard the Ld. APP for CBI and Ld. counsel for the
accused.
17. Ld. APP for the CBI submitted that there is sufficient
evidence against both the accused persons to establish their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that it has come on
record that the purchase bill furnished by the accused to the DJB
for claiming payment for Johnson pipe is forged and fabricated;
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 10 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.08.21
16:09:51 +0530
the Director of M/s Ambika Engineering has himself stated it to
be a forged bill; the said bill was provided to the CBI by the DJB
officials from its records. Ld. APP further submits that the report
of the expert Dr. D.V. Reddy clearly shows that there was no
casing beyond 66 meters which showed that Johnson pipe was
not installed in the borewell in question, as reflected in the strata
chart which was admittedly submitted by accused Ritesh Walia
(A-2) and bears his signatures. The presence and involvement of
accused Ritesh Walia (A-2) has been confirmed by defence’s
own witness Maninderjeet Singh, who has stated that the strata
chart was signed by accused Ritesh Walia (A-2) in his presence.
Reliance has been placed on ‘Padum Kumar vs. State of U.P.
(2020) 3 SCC 306′.
18. Ld. defence counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the
onus is on the prosecution to prove its case and the prosecution
cannot take benefit of the weaknesses of the defence; the accused
is presumed to be innocent till he is proven guilty. He submitted
that Dr. D.V. Reddy was not an expert who could have
determined as to whether Johnson pipe had been installed in the
borewell in question; Dr. Reddy nowhere mentions that no
Johnson pipe was used in the borewell; his report Ex. PW11/A is
silent about the difference in the Johnson pipe and other pipes;
the report of the expert is not supported by any reasons; the IO
has not recorded any opinion to the effect that make of the pipe
could have been determined with the use of a bore-hole camera;
no official from the Johnson pipe company was examined who
could have, on inspection, ascertained as to whether Johnson pipe
was used in the borewell or not; the pipes were not removed from
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 11 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:10:00 +0530
the borewell which could have easily proved the make of the
pipe; the deposits in the pipe were not removed with the use of
compressor; Dr. D.V. Reddy did not discuss the report with any
other person; no statement of maintenance staff was recorded;
the site inspection memo was prepared before hand; there was
turbidity, rust, corrosion and mud in the pipe which made it
impossible to accurately ascertain the type of pipe used in the
borewell; neither any MS pipe nor Johnson pipe was produced
before the court to ascertain the difference between the two
pipes; the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has
not been prepared as per law; the video recording conducted by
Dr. D.V. Reddy is not clear and no sanctity can be attached to it;
the JE, AE and EE under whose supervision work was made out
were not made witnesses and their statements under Section 161
CrPC were also not filed. The investigation copy of the CD
obtained by the IO was not sent to CFSL.
19. Ld. defence counsel further submits that no independent
witness has identified Ritesh Walia (A-2) as the person who had
given specimen handwriting and signatures; PW1 failed to
identify accused Ritesh Walia (A-2) in the court; since the
prosecution has failed to prove that Johnson pipe was not used in
the borewell, the question as to who prepared and signed the
strata chart becomes irrelevant; no witness was examined to
prove the signatures of accused Ritesh Walia (A-2) on the strata
chart; accused Ritesh Walia (A-2) had denied his signatures on
the strata chart.
Digitally signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG CC No. CBI/157/2019 GARG Date: 2025.08.21 Page No. 12 of 39 RC-DAI/A0014/2011 16:10:09 +0530 CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors.
20. With respect to the forged bill of M/s Ambika Engineering
Pvt. Ltd., Ld. defence counsel submitted that PW8 Tilak Raj
Magon has given a bare statement that he was not having any
dealing with M/s Home Decorators Builders and Engineers; no
statement of account, ledger, journal, list of customers, stock
register, cash book or other documents were seized by the IO to
verify this fact; the godown of M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
was not searched; PW5 Rajeev Kumar Bansal has stated that he
used to purchase Johnson pipe from Ms. Ambika Engineering
Pvt. Ltd.; there were other directors and employees of M/s
Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. whose signatures were not
compared with the signatures appearing on the invoice Mark ‘A’;
the IO did not enquire as to how many invoices were got printed
by M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. from the printer M/s Malik
Press; no record of the employees of M/s Ambika Engineering
was obtained by the IO; PW8 Tilak Raj Magon did not depose
that the signatures on the invoice Mark ‘A’ were not that of his
son; no investigation was carried out if during the relevant time,
M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. was using the same format of
the invoice as invoice Mark ‘A’; the officials of DJB had not
found any deficiency in the documents and had duly and properly
verified the bills submitted in accordance with circular Ex.
PW2/D1. Reliance has been placed on ‘State of H.P. vs. Jai Lal
& Ors. , (1999) 7 SCC 280′, ‘Mahender Singh Dahiya vs. State,
2003 (66) DRJ 616 (DB) (Delhi High Court)’ and ‘Vijay Pal
Sharma vs. State of MCD of Delhi & Anr., 2023 SCC Online Del
4315’.
Digitally signed
CC No. CBI/157/2019 NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG Page No. 13 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 GARG Date: 2025.08.21
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. 16:10:17 +0530
21. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone
through the case file. I have also gone through the written
submissions and judgments filed on record by the Ld. counsels
for the parties.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Gist of the allegations
22. The gist of the prosecution case is that M/s Home
Decorators through accused Kapil Walia (A-1) was awarded a
contract for reboring of one tubewell at Balmiki Mohalla,
Dasghara Village; as per the contract agreement, slotted pipe of
Johnson make was to be installed in the tubewell; accused Kapil
Walia (A-1) and Ritesh Walia (A-2) in conspiracy with each
other and with the officials of DJB, submitted forged bills of
Johnson pipes with the DJB and obtained payment, without
Johnson pipe being actually used. To prove the allegations, the
prosecution relies on the bill of Johnson pipe submitted by the
accused with the DJB which was found to be a forged one.
Further, on inspecting the tubewell with the help of a bore-hole
camera, it was found that the tubewell in question was not having
any Johnson pipe, as claimed in the strata chart, Measurement
Book and other documents.
Forgery of Bill dated 10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’)
23. The prosecution case is that to claim payment for
installation of Johnson pipe, accused had submitted a bill dated
10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’) purportedly issued by Ambika
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s Home Decorators
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 14 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:10:25 +0530
Builders and Engineers; the said bill was found to be a forged
one. Thus, in fact, neither any Johnson pipe was purchased nor
any such pipe was used in reboring of the tubewell.
24. In this respect, crucial testimony is that of PW8 Tilak Raj
Magon. He is the Director of M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,
i.e. the company which purportedly issued the bill dated
10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’) showing sale of Johnson pipe to M/s
Home Decorators, Builders and Engineers. In his testimony
before the court, PW8 Tilak Raj Magon deposed that he was in
the business of steel pipes since 1986; his company M/s Ambika
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. was registered in the year 1986; since
inception, his company has never been in business with M/s
Home Decorators, Builders and Engineers and with M/s India
Tubewells. He further deposed that initially, he used to be the
authorized signatory and now he alongwith his son are the
authorized signatories of the company; he only used to deal in
MSGI pipes but never dealt in other pipes like PVC pipes or
Johnson pipes. On seeing the invoice dated 10.09.2008 Mark ‘A’,
he denied his signatures on it and stated that the invoice is not on
the letter head of his company, though, the TIN number and
godown address are correct. He further stated that the invoice
dated 10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’) did not bear telephone numbers of
his residence or office and there was no mention of the registered
office of the company at the bottom of the bill. The witness
further proved original invoice no. 12 dated 28.05.2005 in favour
of M/s Pioneer Drilling company Pvt. Ltd. (Ex. PW8/B) and
stated that this was the actual invoice no. 12 which was issued in
favour of M/s Pioneer Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and which he had
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 15 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors.
Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:10:32 +0530
handed over to the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A.
25. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he did not
remember how many persons were working in his company in
the year 2008; his company used to accept payments mostly by
way of bank transaction but in cash also. He further deposed that
there was no such bill/invoice which he may not have signed and
there was no occasion for anyone else to sign the bills/invoices
during the relevant years; he did not remember who all were the
Directors in his company in the year 2008. He did not remember
whether he had provided to the CBI list of his customers; he did
not remember whether any document was given to the CBI to
show the articles in which his company was dealing; his godown
was not raided by the CBI; CBI had not obtained any specimen
signatures of any of the employees/directors of the company; he
had not given to the CBI the stock register as it was not asked
for. He denied the suggestion that whenever any transaction used
to be done by his company in cash, he used to issue a different
type of bill. He further denied the suggestion that his company
deals in Johnson pipes and have sold the same to customers like
M/s Swaragi & Sons, R.B. Sales, M/s Krishna Jala and Pioneer
Drilling. He further denied the suggestion that M/s Home
Decorators used to regularly purchase Johnson pipe from his
company and the invoices used to be signed by his employees
and other directors. He further denied the suggestion that invoice
dated 10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’) was issued on behalf of his
company by one of his employees. He denied the suggestion that
the transaction carried out through invoice Mark ‘A’ was in cash
and that is why invoice Mark ‘A’ is different from invoice Ex.
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 16 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors.
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:10:40 +0530
PW8/B. He denied the suggestion that he used to give rebate in
tax, whenever payment was made to him in cash.
26. On minutely scanning the testimony of this important
witness, it is revealed that despite lengthy cross-examination,
nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination, the benefit of
which could go to the accused. The witness categorically stated
that his company has never been in business with M/s Home
Decorators; no one except he himself used to sign the bills at the
relevant time; the invoice Mark ‘A’ was not issued by his
company. From the cross-examination of this witness, it is
revealed that the accused has tried to set up a case that the
invoice Mark ‘A’ was infact issued by M/s Ambika Engineering
Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Home Decorators but its format was different
from the other invoices of M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as
the payment was made in cash to avail rebate in tax. Clearly, the
justification so furnished by the accused with respect to invoice
Mark ‘A’ is not at all plausible. The accused had purportedly
purchased the material/goods from M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt.
Ltd. for the purpose of executing a government contract; the
accused were required to submit the original invoices with the
DJB to claim payments for the work done. In such
circumstances, it is not believable that the accused would make
payment of huge amount of Rs. 2,49,340/- in cash to M/s
Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd to avail rebate in tax. Nothing is
shown from where the accused had arranged this cash amount
and if he had withdrawn this amount from his bank accounts for
making payment to M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 17 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:10:48 +0530
27. Further case of the accused is that M/s Ambika
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used to deal in Johnson pipes and had sold
it to several other customers including to M/s Home Decorators.
In fact, it was suggested that M/s Home Decorators “regularly”
used to purchase Johnson pipes from M/s Ambika Engineering
Pvt. Ltd. Except giving bare suggestions, no evidence has been
brought on record to show if M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
had, at any time, sold Johnson pipes to M/s Swaragi & Sons,
R.B. Sales, M/s Krishna Jala or M/s Pioneer Drilling. No witness
from these entities was examined in defence who could have
proved with relevant documents the factum of sale of Johnson
pipe by M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. to these concerns. Not
only that, the accused did not confront the witness with any other
bill/invoice issued by M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd in
favour of M/s Home Decorators despite allegedly having regular
dealings.
28. It was further suggested to the witness that different types
of bills used to be issued by M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd
when the payment was made in cash. The accused has not shown
as to how they became aware of this fact. It is not the case of the
accused that they have purchased Johnson pipe from M/s Ambika
Engineering Pvt. Ltd at any time by making payment through
bank account. The witness was not confronted with any such
invoice/bill having a different format/layout whereby payment
was made by the accused through bank account. Contradictory
and inconsistent case was set up by the accused by suggesting, on
one hand, that the signatures on the bill were that of one of his
employees, while arguing in the written submissions that the
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 18 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:10:56 +0530
witness did not deny the signatures to be that of his son.
29. From the testimony of PW8 Tilak Raj Magon, it stands
established that the invoice dated 10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’) was not
issued by M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. This fact is further
corroborated by the testimony of PW5 Rajeev Kumar Bansal.
PW5 Rajeev Kumar Bansal is the Director of M/s Pioneer
Drilling Pvt. Ltd. Before the court, he proved seizure memo Ex.
PW5/A through which he had handed over the original invoice
no. 12 dated 28.05.2005 Mark ‘A’ (D-12) issued in favour of M/s
Pioneer Drilling Pvt. Ltd. by M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
He also proved certified copy of ledger account of M/s Pioneer
Drilling Company Pvt. Ltd, Ex. PW5/B. In the cross-
examination, he deposed that he used to purchase Johnson pipes
from M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd; the transactions used to
be in cash and through banking channel; by making payment in
cash, they used to get benefit under VAT. He further deposed
that his company M/s Pioneer Drilling Company Pvt. Ltd used to
issue different bills for different modes of transactions. Lastly, he
deposed that he used to purchase Johnson pipes from M/s
Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. on a regular basis.
30. Perusal of the testimony of this witness reveals that though
he was examined by the prosecution to prove the original invoice
no. 12 dated 28.05.2005 issued in favour of Pioneer Drilling
Company Pvt. Ltd by M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd,
however, in the cross-examination, he deposed about the factum
of purchase of Johnson pipes from M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt.
Ltd on a regular basis. Except a mere statement that he used to
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 19 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.08.21
16:11:04 +0530
purchase Johnson pipe from M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd,
no specific details were divulged by this witness about the said
purchase. No invoices/bills issued by M/s Ambika Engineering
Pvt. Ltd for purchase of Johnson pipes were produced or proved
on record. Nothing is shown if any payment was made by
Pioneer Drilling Company Pvt. Ltd to M/s Ambika Engineering
Pvt. Ltd for purchase of Johnson pipes by any mode. The
witness had not disclosed as to when Johnson pipes were
purchased from M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd and where
these pipes were used. A bare statement that M/s Pioneer Drilling
Company used to purchase Johnson pipes from M/s Ambika
Engineering Pvt. Ltd is not sufficient to discard the positive and
clear testimony of PW8 Tilak Raj Magon, the Director of M/s
Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The accused has not examined any
witness from Johnson pipes to establish that M/s Ambika
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. was its authorized agent or Johnson pipes
used to be sold to this company.
31. The next line of argument of the Ld. defence counsel is
that the bill dated 10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’), though not forged and
was issued by M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd only, however,
this invoice and other documents pertaining to contract awarded
to M/s Home Decorators and M/s India Tubewells were not
handed over by the DJB to the CBI. During arguments, to a
specific query by the court, Ld. counsel for the accused submits
that the purchase voucher/bill/invoice dated 10.09.2008 (Mark
‘A’) was not the one through which the accused had purchased
Johnson pipe for executing the present work contract.
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 20 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors.
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:11:11 +0530
32. In this respect, testimony of PW2 Pradeep Shekhar
assumes importance. He was working as Assistant Engineer
(Vigilance Department) in Delhi Jal Board in the year 2011. In
his court statement, he deposed that telephonic requisition was
received by CBI to provide certain documents; on the directions
of his Deputy Director, he had handed over documents pertaining
to work contract awarded to M/s Home Decorators and M/s India
Tubewells to the CBI vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. In the
cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not
handed over the documents to CBI and that is why the documents
do not bear his initials.
33. Perusal of the testimony of this witness reveals that no
reasonable basis exist to disbelieve his statement. The witness
was an official of DJB and was acting in his official capacity
while handing over the documents to the CBI. Vide seizure
memo Ex. PW2/A, the witness had handed over not only the
invoice dated 10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’) but several files and
measurement books pertaining to different work orders to the
CBI. The CBI could not have procured all these official records
on its own. Merely because the files and measurement books
furnished by PW2 Pradeep Shekhar to the CBI vide seizure
memo Ex. PW2/A did not bear his initials on each page, is not
sufficient to disbelieve the factum of furnishing of all these
documents by him to the CBI. It is pertinent to note that it was
suggested to the witness that the pages did not bear his initials,
without the documents being shown to him. The fact of the
matter is that the pages do bear page numbers and initials of
some persons. The said initials were not put to the witness.
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 21 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:11:19 +0530
34. Another contention of the Ld. defence counsel is that as
per Sr. no. 15 (b) of production cum seizure memo Ex. PW2/A,
“purchase vouchers” were seized by the CBI. However, in the
instant case, there is only a single purchase voucher which
clearly implies that more than one purchase vouchers were seized
by the CBI but only the purchase voucher dated 10.09.2008
(Mark ‘A’) has been filed by the CBI alongwith the charge-sheet.
I am not in agreement with this contention of the Ld. defence
counsel. Sr. No. 15 (b) of seizure memo Ex. PW2/A clearly
mentions that the documents contain pages from 1 to 14. All
these pages have been placed in the file D-4. All 14 pages are
duly placed in the file D-4 and the invoice dated 10.09.2008 is at
page no. 5. Thus, there is no question of removal of any other
purchase vouchers from the documents handed over by the DJB.
No ulterior motive has been imputed to the witness to depose
falsely before the court. No reasonable grounds exit to disbelieve
the testimony of this independent witness. It is thus clear that the
invoice dated 10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’) was obtained by the CBI
from the records of Delhi Jal Board vide seizure memo Ex.
PW2/A.
35. The law is well settled that once the prosecution has
succeeded in establishing the foundational facts from which
reasonable inference regarding guilt of the accused can be drawn,
u/s 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden to prove facts specially
within the knowledge of the accused, shifts on the accused.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the
prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 22 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
by NISHANT
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.08.21
16:11:26 +0530
reasonable doubt, but the section applies to a case where the
prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a
reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of
certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special
knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation
which might drive the court to draw a different inference.
36. In the instant case, once the prosecution has established
that the invoice dated 10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’) was not issued by
M/s Ambika Engineering pvt. Ltd. and was in fact a forged
document, the onus now lies on the accused to show that he had
in fact purchased Johnson pipes from M/s Ambika Engineering
Pvt. Ltd and had submitted the invoice with the DJB for
obtaining payment. However, no step has been taken by the
accused to discharge this burden.
37. The fact of purchase of Johnson pipes from M/s Ambika
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and having submitted the original invoice
with the DJB were specially within the knowledge of the
accused. However, the accused persons have remained
conspicuously silent as to vide which bill/invoice, they had
purchased Johnson pipe from M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt Ltd
and when and to whom they had submitted the said original
invoice for the purpose of claiming payments. As already noted,
the accused persons have taken contradictory and mutually
destructive stands in this respect. On one hand, the accused
persons have claimed that the invoice dated 10.09.2008 (Mark
‘A’) was in fact issued by M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,
however, on the other hand, they claim that this was not the
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 23 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:11:34 +0530
invoice which was handed over to the DJB by them. On their
part, the accused persons have not disclosed anything as to which
was the invoice through which they had purchased Johnson pipe
from M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and had submitted it to
the DJB for obtaining payment.
38. During arguments, Ld. defence counsel submitted before
the court that the original invoice/purchase voucher was handed
over to the JE at his office, but it was not the invoice dated
10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’). In this context, it is relevant to discuss
the testimony of DW1 Maninder Jeet Singh, the then JE under
whose supervision the work contract was executed and a person
to whom the accused have allegedly handed over the original
invoice showing purchase of Johnson pipe by them from M/s
Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. In his examination in chief before
the court, DW1 Maninder Jeet Singh did not state anything
regarding handing over of the purchase voucher to him by any of
the accused persons at any time. However, in the cross-
examination, he, interalia, deposed that the contractor had not
submitted the original purchase voucher to him which is required
for the payment of bill, though the original purchase voucher
along with other documents were required to be submitted by the
contractor at the time of preparation of final bill. He stated that
he had forwarded the final bill along with available documents to
the accounts section and the accounts section would not have
released the payment in the absence of original purchase
voucher. He stated the accused Kapil Walia (A-1) and Ritesh
Walia (A-2) had stated to him that they will submit the original
purchase voucher with the accounts department directly.
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 24 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors.
Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:11:41 +0530
39. In the testimony of this witness, it has come in the cross-
examination that the original purchase voucher showing purchase
of Johnson pipe from M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. was not
handed over to him at the time of forwarding of the first and final
bill, though it was a mandatory requirement. Nothing is shown as
to why the accused persons had not handed over the original
purchase voucher to the JE at the relevant time. No explanation
whatsoever has been furnished in this respect by Dw1 Maninder
Jeet Singh. The facts deposed by the witness in the cross-
examination i.e. that the contractor had not handed over the
original purchase voucher to him despite his having orally
informed him and that the contractors Kapil Walia (A-1) and
Ritesh Walia (A-2) stating that they will deposit the original
purchase voucher with the accounts department directly, have not
been disputed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused in the re-
examination. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the
accused persons to inform as to why they had not submitted the
original purchase voucher with the JE at the relevant time. The
testimony of this witness falsifies the defence taken by the
accused that they had handed over the original purchase voucher
to the JE at his office.
40. To establish that the accused persons had infact installed
Johnson pipe during execution of the work at Balmiki Mohalla,
Dasghara Village, the accused persons had examined DW1
Maninder Jeet Singh in their defence. Maninder Jeet Singh was
the JE at South west Zone, Delhi Jal Board at the relevant time
and had overseen the installation of Johnson pipe during
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 25 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.08.21
16:11:49 +0530
execution of reboring of tube well at Balmiki Mohalla, Dasghara
Village, Delhi. Pertinent to notice that Maninder Jeet Singh was
one of the accused along with accused Kapil Walia (A-1) and
Ritesh Walia (A-2). However, since sanction u/s 19 of the PC
Act was not granted by the competent authority against him, he
could not be made an accused in the chargesheet filed before the
court.
41. In his testimony before the court as DW1, Maninder Jeet
Singh deposed that the work order No. 072 dated 06.09.2007
(Ex. DW1/A) was assigned to him for execution; the work order
was allotted to M/s Home Decorators, Builders and Engineers;
execution of the work included installation of MS Pipes as well
as Johnson pipes. At the site, the JE checks the quality, quantity,
length and make of the pipe. In case of MS Pipe, only the
thickness is checked, whereas, in case of Johnson pipe, only the
brand/company is checked. After satisfying himself, the JE
makes requisite entry in the measurement book (MB).
42. The witness further disclosed that in the present case, at
the time of execution of work, he being the JE, had checked the
quality, quantity, thickness, length and brand of pipes; several
MS Pipes and ten pieces of Johnson Pipes measuring five meters
each had come to the spot; he had made requisite entries in the
measurement book. The contractor had lowered the entire
quantity of Johnson Pipe in execution of the work in his
presence. After being satisfied with work, he, AE and EE had
issued a certificate in the MB itself.
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 26 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:11:56 +0530
43. In the cross-examination, he deposed that the present case
was the only case where Johnson pipe was required to be used in
the bore-well; he was not aware of any rule as per which in case
of a Johnson pipe, only the brand name is to be checked. On
being asked as to how he can say that the ten pipes of five meters
each lying at the spot were of Johnson make, he deposed that on
an earlier occasion at a different location, he had seen Johnson
pipe and was thus aware of the quality and thickness of Johnson
pipe. On being confronted with his examination in chief where he
had stated that he had checked the brand name of Johnson pipe,
the witness stated that he had not checked the thickness of the
pipe but from its quality, he could ascertain it to be the Johnson
pipe. He again stated that, in the instant case, he had checked the
thickness of Johnson pipe with the scale and not with a vernier
caliper. On being specifically asked by the Ld. APP that since he
had dealt with Johnson pipe only once, he cannot be an expert in
identifying the Johnson pipe, the witness stated that a Johnson
pipe can be identified from the marking of brand name on it.
44. Perusal of the testimony of this important witness reveals
that he has not been able to establish the lowering of Johnson
pipe during the execution of work contract. The witness was
himself not sure as to on what basis he came to the conclusion
that the ten pipes of five meters each lying at the spot were of
Johnson make. On one hand, he stated in his examination in chief
that in case of a Johnson pipes, only the company/brand name is
to be checked, in the cross-examination, at one stage he stated
that he had checked the quality and thickness of the pipe and at
other stage, he stated that he had not checked the thickness of the
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 27 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:12:05 +0530
pipe but only from its quality, he ascertained it to be the Johnson
Pipe. At still other stage, he stated that he had checked the
thickness of the Johnson Pipe with a scale. Not only this, to a
specific question, he stated that a Johnson Pipe can be identified
from marking of the brand name on it. Relevant to note is that at
no stage, the witness clearly stated in his deposition that he had
seen the mark/stamp of Johnson on the pipe. Nothing was
disclosed by the witness if the words Johnson were printed on the
pipe or were engraved on it. Nothing was stated if the brand
name Johnson was written on the pipe in any particular
style/manner or in the ordinary manner. From the testimony of
this witness, it cannot be concluded that DW1 Maninder Jeet
Singh had actually witnessed lowering of Johnson Pipe during re-
boring of borewell at Balmiki Mohalla, Dasghara Village.
45. The accused persons did not examine any mason or any
worker who was actually involved in lowering of the Johnson
pipe during execution of the work at Balmiki Mohalla, Dasghara
Village to show that Johnson pipe was indeed installed in the
borewell in question. The accused also did not lead any evidence
to show that Johnson pipes were transported by any mode from
any place to the site.
Physical Inspection of the Borewell by Dr. D.V. Reddy
46. Further prosecution case is that the borewell in question
i.e. at Balmiki Mohalla, Dasghara Village was got physically
inspected for which services of Dr. D.V. Reddy, Sr. Principal
Scientist in Isotope Hydrology Group at NGRI, Hyderabad were
obtained. After physically inspecting the borewell, PW11 D.V.
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 28 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:12:14 +0530
Reddy gave his report Ex. PW11/A as per which no pipe/blank
casing was seen after 66 meter of depth.
47. Dr. D.V. Reddy was examined before the court as PW11.
In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he was instructed by
NGRI regarding detection of pipe of casing pipe used in
borewells drilled under Delhi Jal Board; he has inspected around
120 tubewells of Delhi Jal Board during his three trips; his
domain was to ascertain the type of underground borewell casing
i.e. blank casing, MS slottered casing and Johnson casing; he had
used a bore-hole camera for the purpose of inspecting the
tubewells; the camera was connected with a graduated cable
having markings on it; the camera is also connected to a palmtop
on which video can be monitored and recorded; the palmtop can
also record the voice of the speaker; on the basis of markings on
the wire, depth of the camera can be ascertained. He proved the
site inspection memo Ex. PW6/A. He stated that after conducting
the inspection, he analyzed the video and reached the conclusion
as per his report Ex. PW11/A. On seeing the video recording in
the court, he deposed that in the instant case, casing existed upto
60 plus meters but when the camera reaches 70 meters, no casing
could be seen. To a specific question by the Ld. APP, the witness
deposed that he could not see any Johnson pipe in the borewell.
48. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he had not
mentioned in his report about his expertise in borewell analysis;
he did not remember how many borewell he inspected on
29.06.2012; he had used the same camera and same palmtop for
inspecting other tubewells also; the CBI had not seized the
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 29 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:12:23 +0530
camera or palmtop from him; at Balmiki Mohalla, Dasghara
Village, he was accompanied with the IO; the site inspection
memo Ex. PW6/A was brought by IO Anand Saroop at the spot
of inspection; it was not typed in front of him and was prepared
in advance; only the date and time were mentioned on it at the
spot; after completion of the inspection, his signatures were taken
on it.
49. The witness further deposed that at the time of taking out
the pumping assembly, the borewell water becomes turbid which
affects the visibility; it had taken him around 40 minutes for
conducting the inspection; he had read inspection memo Ex.
PW6/A before signing it; Y.B. Kaushik, another scientist was
also present with him at the time of inspection; he had not sent
his report Ex. PW11/A to Y.B. Kaushik for obtaining his
opinion. The witness further deposed that he had not visited the
office of manufacturer of Johnson pipe before inspection; the
video recording was not sent to the manufacture of Johnson pipe
for obtaining their opinion; the palmtop on which video was
recorded was not available with him at the time of examination;
the laptop to which the video was transferred was also not
available with him. He admitted that the report pertaining to
inspection of the borewell in question forms part of his report Ex.
PW11/A.
50. The witness further stated that he had not undergone any
course in videography; no videographer was employed at the
time of inspection; study of different types of pipes used to be a
part of his course/curriculum; he had not studied about Johnson
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 30 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:12:31 +0530
pipe and has not mentioned its salient features in his report Ex.
PW11/A. He admitted that a Johnson pipe is made up of metal
and after moist formation and chemical reaction, the metal pipe
corrodes with time. He denied that in the instant case, Johnson
pipe was found to be installed on the day of inspection. He
denied that the said certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence
Act given by him is defective and that he has filed a forged report
to suit the purpose of CBI. On seeing the video footage, he
admitted that there was mud and turbidity visible on the side of
the pipes; he had not mentioned as to whether the pipe was
Johnson pipe or any other pipe; he had not stopped the camera to
focus any particular point. He volunteered to add that at the
bottom the casing ended, he had brought the camera up and down
a few times to confirm this fact. He denied the suggestion that the
depth of the borewell was 145 meters and not 104.5 meters as
mentioned in his report Ex. PW11/A. He denied that Johnson
pipe was found installed in the borewell.
51. On examining the entire testimony of this witness, it is
seen that the witness has duly proved his report Ex. PW11/A as
per which no pipe/blank casing was seen after 66 meters of
depth. The witness was acting in his official capacity and was not
going to be benefited in any manner by giving a false report.
Despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing could be extracted to
disbelieve the findings reached by him. The witness not only
proved his report Ex. PW11/A, but on seeing the video of the
borewell inspection of Balmiki Mohalla, Dasghara Village in the
court, he again stated before the court that in the instant case,
casing existed upto 60 plus meters but when the camera reached
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 31 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:12:39 +0530
70 meters, no casing could be seen. To a specific question in the
cross-examination, the witness volunteered to add that at the
bottom when the casing ends, he had brought the camera up and
down a few times to confirm this fact.
52. The findings reached by PW11 Dr. D.V. Reddy are sought
to be assailed by the Ld. defence counsel on the ground that he
was not an expert in the field; he could not have differentiated a
Johnson pipe from any other pipe; it has nowhere been
mentioned that no Johnson pipe was used in the borewell; due to
rust, corrosion, chemical reaction and mud, it was not possible to
ascertain the make of the pipe in the borewell. I am not in
agreement with the contentions of the Ld. defence counsel. The
witness clearly stated in his deposition that study of different
types of pipes was a part of his course/curriculum. Most
importantly, it is pertinent to note that in the present case, no pipe
whatsoever was found to have been installed after 66 meters of
depth. Thus, the question as to whether the pipe after 66 meters
of depth was of Johnson make or was an ordinary iron pipe is not
relevant. The present case is the case where on examination to
the bore-hole camera, no pipe whatsoever was seen to exist after
66 meters. The entire cross-examination conducted by the Ld.
defence counsel is on the aspect of determination of the make of
the pipe and not as to its existence. No suggestion was given to
the witness that Johnson pipe or any other pipe was installed in
the borewell in question after 66 meters of depth.
53. The report of PW11 Dr. D.V. Reddy is further challenged
on the ground that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 32 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors.
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:12:46 +0530
Evidence Act (D-20) filed by the witness was defective as the
original palmtop and the laptop were neither seized nor produced
before the court for verification. It is further contended that the
certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act does not
mention the palmtop in which the video was originally stored. I
have gone through the certificate under Section 65B, Indian
Evidence Act filed by PW11 Dr. D.V. Reddy. It clearly states
that the videos pertaining to borewells of DJB were made using
the bore-hole camera belonging to CSIR-NGRI, Hyderabad
which were initially recorded at the site in the palmtop attached
to the bore-hole camera; the data was transferred to a laptop
which was later written on a CD; the videos transferred to the CD
were the same as recorded. The certificate further states that
access to the laptop and datas stored therein is controlled by
defined authorized roles exercised through unique ID and the
password which was in the exclusive knowledge of Dr. D.V.
Reddy and the laptop was being exclusively operated by him.
Considering all these details mentioned in the certificate under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the said certificate
cannot be said to be defective.
54. Testimony of Dr. D.V. Reddy is duly corroborated with
the testimonies of PW6 Yogesh Babu Kaushik and PW10 Vikas
Rathi, both of whom were part of the team which was constituted
to inspect the tubewell with the bore-hole camera. Nothing
material could be extracted in the cross-examination which could
demolish the prosecution case in its entirety.
55. Thus from the testimonies of the witnesses examined by
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 33 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.08.21
16:12:54 +0530
the prosecution, it can be concluded with reasonable certainty
that the invoice dated 10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’) was a forged
document which was used by the accused persons for obtaining
payment for installation of Johnson pipes during the execution of
the work contract, without any Johnson pipe being purchased or
installed.
Role of accused Ritesh Walia (A-2)
56. Involvement of accused Ritesh Walia (A-2) in the
conspiracy is established from the fact that the strata chart Ex.
PW12/B was having his signatures at point ‘C’, besides the
signatures of JE and ZE. This was established from the opinion
of GEQD PW12 Trilochan Joshi. In his testimony before the
court, he proved his report Ex. PW12/A (colly) as per which,
Q78 i.e. the signatures of accused Ritesh Walia (A-2) appearing
on the strata chart Ex. PW12/B at point ‘C’ were put by accused
Ritesh Walia (A-2) only. In the cross-examination, he deposed
that it had taken him several months to prepare the report; he had
not mentioned the duration of examination of documents in his
report; the questioned documents were not received by him
personally; the questioned documents were received by the Head
of the Department in sealed condition who marks the documents
to the examiner; in case of any alteration etc, it is pointed out by
the ACIO. He denied the suggestion that the questioned
documents were tampered by the time he received them. He
disclosed that examination of the documents was carried out with
the help of a magnifying glass and in some cases, photographs
were also taken. He volunteered to add that he had mentioned in
his report that scientific aid was used in the examination of the
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 34 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:13:04 +0530
documents.
57. Clearly, nothing has come in the cross-examination of this
independent witness to disbelieve the opinion given by him. In
his report Ex. PW12/C (colly), PW12 Trilochan Joshi has given
detailed reasons for reaching the conclusion that Q78 and S52 to
S54 were written by one and the same person. The report of the
expert was not challenged on merits i.e. on the similarities
appearing in the questioned signatures ‘Mark Q78’ and specimen
handwritings/signatures ‘Mark S52 to S54’.
58. The involvement of accused Ritesh Walia (A-2) is further
established from the testimony of DW1 Maninder Jeet Singh,
examined by the accused in their defence. In the cross-
examination, while responding to the questions pertaining to
submission of original invoice/purchase voucher by the
contractors, he stated that he had orally informed the contractor
Kapil Walia (A-1) and Ritesh Walia (A-2) but they had stated
that they will produce the original purchase voucher with the
Accounts Department directly. The witness was shown the strata
chart Ex. PW12/B by the Ld. APP for the CBI. On seeing the
strata chart Ex. PW12/B, the witness deposed that this was the
strata chart which was submitted by the contractor at the time of
submission of original purchase voucher and preparation of first
and final bill. He identified his signatures at point Mark ‘A’ of
the strata chart Ex. PW12/B, besides identifying the signatures of
ZE Shiv Hare at point ‘B’ and accused Ritesh Walia (A-2) at
point ‘C’.
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 35 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 by NISHANT
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors.
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.08.21
16:13:14 +0530
59. Ld. defence counsel sought permission of the court to re-
examine the witness to clarify the aspect as to whether accused
Ritesh Walia (A-2) was a partner in M/s Home Decorators,
Builders and Engineers and on what basis, the witness had
identified the signatures of accused Ritesh Walia (A-2). Re-
examination was objected to by the Ld. APP for the CBI but the
court permitted Ld. defence counsel to re-examine the witness to
clarify both these aspects. In response to the questions put by Ld.
defence counsel, DW1 Maninder Jeet Singh categorically stated
that both Kapil Walia (A-1) and Ritesh Walia (A-2) used to
remain present at the site and the work was executed in the
presence of both of them. The witness further clarified that he
had identified the signatures of accused Ritesh Walia (A-2) on
the strata chart Ex. PW12/B as accused Ritesh Wallia (A-2) had
signed the strata chart in his presence.
60. Pertinent to note is that in his statement under Section 313
CrPC, accused Ritesh Walia (A-2) has nowhere claimed that he
was not involved in execution of the work at all and had no
concern whatsoever with M/s Home Decorators, Builders and
Engineers. Contrary to that, accused Ritesh Walia (A-2), in
response to question no. 36 claimed that requisite Johnson pipes
had been installed in the borewell in question as per the contract
agreement in the presence of the JE. In response to question no.
57 also, he claimed that the entire work was executed as per the
contract agreement and the work order. Thus, accused Ritesh
Walia (A-2) himself admits being actively involved in execution
of the contract awarded to M/s Home Decorators, Builders and
Engineers.
Digitally signed
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 36 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:13:22 +0530
61. From the testimonies of PW12 Trilochan Joshi, DW1
Maninder Jeet Singh and the response given by the accused
Ritesh Walia (A-2) in statement recorded under Section 313
CrPC, it can safely be concluded that accused Ritesh Walia (A-2)
actively involved in and was overseeing the execution of work
and had signed the strata chart Ex. PW12/B in his capacity as
contractor.
Other Defences
62. Ld. defence counsel has taken several other defences viz.
the CD containing the video of the borewell inspection was not
sent to the CFSL; no officer from Johnson pipe company was
examined; the entire pipe was not removed during inspection of
the borewell; compressor was not used to remove deposits from
the pipe to ascertain its make; PW11 Dr. D.V. Reddy did not
discuss his report with any other scientist; no statement of E&M
staff was recorded; no complaint regarding malfunctioning of the
borewell was received; no statement of accounts, journal, stock
register, list of customers etc of M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt.
Ltd. were seized; the godown of M/s Ambika Engineering Pvt.
Ltd. was not searched; the employees and other directors of M/s
Ambika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. were not examined and their
specimen signatures were not obtained; the printer M/s Malik
Press which had printed the invoice of M/s Ambika Engineering
Pvt. Ltd. was not examined etc. With respect to all these
defences, suffice it is to say that all these are minor discrepancies
which do not go to the root of the matter and are not fatal to the
prosecution case. The prosecution has led evidence beyond
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 37 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:13:34 +0530
reasonable doubt; it was not required to lead evidence beyond all
possible doubts.
63. So far as the charge under Section 120B r/w Section 468
IPC and Section 468 IPC against accused Kapil Walia (A-1) is
concerned, it has been established by the prosecution that the
invoice dated 10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’) was a forged document
which was submitted before the DJB and was used to obtain
payment for use of Johnson pipe. In Padum Kumar (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that once it was proved by
the prosecution that it was the appellant/accused who had
delivered the envelope at the place of the complainant, the
appellant/accused therein was bound to explain as to who put the
signatures in the delivery slip. In the absence of any explanation
by the appellant/accused, a presumption has to be raised against
the appellant/accused that he forged the signatures. In the instant
case also, it was for the accused Kapil Walia (A-1) to offer
explanation as to who had prepared the forged invoice dated
10.09.2008 (Mark ‘A’) and in the absence of any such
explanation, a presumption has to be withdrawn against him.
Accused Ritesh Walia (A-2) was not charged with the offence
under Section 120B r/w Section 468 IPC and thus, he cannot be
convicted of the said offence.
CONCLUSION
64. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has led
sufficient evidence to bring home guilt of the accused persons
beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Kapil Walia
(A-1) is held guilty for commission of offence punishable under
CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 38 of 39
RC-DAI/A0014/2011 Digitally signed
CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors. NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.21
16:13:43 +0530
Section 120B r/w Section 420, 468, 471 IPC. Accused Kapil
Walia (A-1) is also held guilty for commission of offences under
Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Accused Ritesh Walia (A-2) is
held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section
120B r/w Section 420 IPC. Both the accused persons are
convicted for the said offences.
Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.21 16:13:55 +0530 Announced in Open Court (NISHANT GARG) on 21st of August, 2025 ACJM-2-cum-ACJ ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI CC No. CBI/157/2019 Page No. 39 of 39 RC-DAI/A0014/2011 CBI vs. Kapil Walia & Ors.