Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Naresh Kumar Gupta And Others on 21 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR, SPECIAL
JUDGE-05, (PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT), CBI,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Case No. : 249/2019
RC No. : DAI-2013-A-0004 dated 16.01.2013
U/s : 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
u/s 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
r/w Section 420/471 IPC.
Branch : CBI/ACB/ND
CNR No. DLCT11-001346-2019
CBI
Versus
1. Naresh Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Sh. B. N. Gupta
R/o H. No. 150 A, GG.-1,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
2. Mata Deen Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Ram Narayan
R/o H. No. 3323, Hari Mandir,
Paharganj, New Delhi-110055.
3. Rajesh Kumar Bhambi (R. K. Bhambi)
S/o Sh. C. L. Sharma
R/o H. No. 292, M. S. Enclave,
Village Dhakoli Zirakhpur,
District Mohali, Punjab.
4. Amit Dabas
S/o Sh. Bhupinder Singh Dabas
R/o H. No. 417, Village Mubarakpur Dabas,
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 1 of 66.
Delhi-110081, near Nangloi.
5. Vilas Rao Ghodeswar
S/o Late Sh. Raibhan Rao Godeswar
R/o (i) H. No. 1043, Type-III, Block-22,
Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.
(ii) H. No. C-1/182, Sector-82,
Noida, U.P. ........ Expired
6. Vibhuti Thakur
S/o Late Sh. Upendra Thakur
R/o B-34, Third Floor,
Munirka Village, Near Prateek Market,
New Delhi-110067 (proprietor of M/s Sunsilk Carpets
and Furnishers).
7. M/s Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers
Address B-34, Third Floor,
Munirka Village, Near Prateek Market,
New Delhi-110067 (through A-6)
Date of institution : 25.08.2015
Date on which reserved for judgment : 18.12.2024
Date on which judgment announced : 21.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall decide the RC No. 4 (A)/2013
under Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
u/s 12 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, r/w Section
420/471 IPC filed by CBI, ACB, New Delhi Branch. Brief facts
of the case are that the case was registered on the basis of written
complaint of Sh. Raman Kumar Shukla, SI, CBI wherein, it was
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 2 of 66.
alleged that he conducted preliminary inquiry and detected some
irregularities in award of tender pertaining to renovation work at
Pay & Accounts (PAO), IRLA (Individual Running Ledger
Accounts), AGCR Building, Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting, New Delhi. It is also alleged that accused no. 1 N.
K. Gupta, Sr. AO, accused no. 2 Mata Deen Gupta, AAO,
accused no. 3, AAO R. K. Bhambi and accused no. 4 Amit
Dabas, Accountant, all of them working in PAO during the year
2008 entered into criminal conspiracy with the representative of
M/s Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers through accused no. 6
Vibhuti Thakur, proprietor and dishonestly and fraudulently
facilitated payment of bills to the tune of Rs. 42.7 lacs. It is
further alleged that during investigation, it was disclosed vide
note dated 18.06.2008 that accused no. 5 Vilas Rao Ghodeshwar,
Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of I&B approved
proposal moved by accused no. 1 N. K. Gupta and constituted a
tender committee without a single technical person and the
committee was to suggest suitable remedies to improve the
condition of the office premises of PAO.
It is further alleged that the tender committee submitted an
estimated area for renovation work and accused no. 5 Vilas Rao
Ghodeshwar approved the estimated area of work of 4725 sq. ft.
for Rs. 85,07,060/- which was beyond his financial delegation of
power. It is also alleged that financial approval was to be
obtained from the Addl. Secretary & Financial Advisor
(AS&FA) but no such approval was obtained and without the
approval of (AS&FA) by accused no. 5, tender for renovation of
work was invited on the website of Ministry of I &B on
09.07.2008 with due date of submission on 24.07.2008.
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 3 of 66.
2. In response, five firms submitted their applications, that is,
(i) M/s Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers, Munirka, New Delhi, (ii)
M/s Vidhi Carpets, C-26, Kamalpur, Burari, Delhi-110092, (iii)
Sudan Carpets, 4641/21, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-
110002, (iv) Vimala Enterprises, 1295, Sector-5, R. K. Puram,
New Delhi-110022 and (v) M/s Kamal Enterprises, 328/12, R. K.
Pura, New Delhi. It is further alleged that the NIT mentioned an
estimated area of 4725 sq. ft. to be renovated but no estimation of
cost involved on the basis of specifications of the work to be
carried out was mentioned in the NIT and required detailed
specifications and the quantities of items to be used and estimates
on the basis of schedule of rates maintained by CPWD were also
not prepared. It is further alleged that the eligibility condition
was stipulated in order to gave undue favour to M/s Sunsilk
Carpets and Furnishers, a proprietorship firm of accused Vibhuti
Thakur.
It is further alleged that instead of stipulating experience in
any Government Office, the same was restricted to seven similar
works in Office of Chief Controller Accounts and Office of
Controller of Accounts of various Ministries of Government of
India. It is further alleged that the bank drafts of all the firms
were prepared from the current account of M/s Sunsilk Carpets
and Furnishers or the saving bank account of Vibhuti Thakur at
different bank’s branches and the quotations were received by the
pay and accounts office by hand and not through post.
It is further alleged that the quotation of M/s Vidhi Carpets
were rejected on the ground of having sufficient experience and
the work was awarded to M/s Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers,
second lowest bidder for Rs. 85.07 lacs. It is also alleged that the
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 4 of 66.
work order issued by the accused public servants and carried out
by M/s Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers of accused Vibhuti
Thakur was at exorbitant price and in violation of the applicable
CPWD manual and GFR. It is further alleged that a comparison
of the rates quoted by the firm and government approved rates
shows that there was a loss of Rs. 42.7 lacs to the government.
3. Therefore, it was requested that a regular case against the
four public servants and private person/firm be registered under
Section 120-B, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of P. C. Act,
1988 and Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC. On the basis of
preliminary inquiry, RC-DAI-201-A-004 was registered on
16.01.2013.
4. It is also alleged that on completion of investigation,
charge sheet was filed alleging commission of offence punishable
under Section 120-B IPC, 13 (2) r/w Section 1 (1) (d) of P. C Act,
1988 and Section 420, 471 of IPC and substantive offences
against Vilas Rao Ghodeswar, CCA, N.K. Gupta, Sr. accounts
Officer, M.D. Gupta, AAO, R.K. Bhambi, AAO and Amit Dabas,
Accountant, all of Office of PAO (IRLA), Ministry of
Information and Broadcast, New Delhi, Vibhuti Thakur
proprietor of M/s Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers and M/s
Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers. It is further alleged that the
charge sheet besides reiterating the findings of preliminary
inquiry also mentions that approval of estimated area of work
4725 sq. ft. for Rs. 85,07,060/- was beyond financial delegation
of power and financial approval was to be obtained from the
Additional Secretary and Financial Advisor of Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting, Government of India but no such
approval was obtained from him.
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 5 of 66.
5. The charge sheet also alleged that besides above three
firms, the other two firms which had submitted their bids were
Sudan Carpets and Vimal Carpets. The investigation revealed
that all the firms except M/s Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers were
non existent firms and no such firm was found at the given
address. It is further alleged that the drafts towards EMD were
deposited by M/s Vibhuti Thakur proprietor M/s Sunsilk Carpets
and Furnishers in his account no. 12598, Canara Bank, South
Extension, New Delhi and State bank of India, Subroto Park,
New Delhi bearing account No. 010454632508 which shows that
these firms were dummy firms floated by Vibhuti Thakur. The
charge sheet also relied on positive opinion from CFSL to allege
that the drafts forms of EMD of M/s Vidhi Carpets and M/s
Vimla Carpets were filled in the handwriting of Vibhuti Thakur.
The charge sheet further alleged that a Quality Control
Committee was constituted by Vilas Rao Ghodeshwar but no
technically skilled person was involved in that committee. It is
further alleged that the members of this committee despite not
being technically skilled, certified the material casually. It is
further alleged that the lapses were referred for departmental
action as no criminality on their part could be established.
6. In the charge sheet, the prosecution also relied on report by
Sh. Partap Singh, AE (Civil), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New
Delhi to allege that the material used by M/s Sunsilk Carpets and
Furnishers were found to be substandard and payments were
made to exorbitant rates against the prevailing rates of 2008 as
well as rates stipulated in DSR 2007. In the charge sheet, it is
further alleged that the accused Vibhuti Thakur (private person),
Vilas Rao Ghodeswar, N. K. Gupta, M. D. Gupta, R. K. Bhambi
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 6 of 66.
and Amit Dabas (public servants) entered into a criminal
conspiracy and dishonesty and fraudulently abused their position
as public servants for the purpose of facilitating the contractor
resorting to illegal means and by aforesaid modus operandi,
caused wrongful loss to the extent of Rs. 53,36,945/- to the
government exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to
themselves. It is prayed that the aforesaid accused persons may
be summoned and tried according to law.
7. It is pertinent to mention that all the accused persons were
discharged for all the offences against them by Ld. Predecessor
vide order dated 19.04.2016. The said order was challenged by
CBI before the Hon’ble High Court and the matter was remanded
back vide orders dated 08.01.2019 with the directions that
question charge or discharge shall be considered afresh after
taking into consideration the evidence/material submitted with
the charge sheet in entirety. Thereafter vide order dated
16.12.2020, Ld. Predecessor has framed charges against all the
accused persons vide order dated 23.12.2020. A-1 to A-5 were
charged for the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13
(1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13 (2) of P.C
Act (prior to its amendment w.e.f 26.07.2018). A-1 to A-5 are
also charged for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section
120B IPC r/w Section 420 and 471 IPC r/w Section 13 (1) (d)
and 13 (2) of P.C. Act, 1988. A-6 was also charged for the
offence under Section 420 and 471 IPC.
8. During the course of proceedings, accused no. 5 V. R.
Godeshwar expired and proceedings against the accused no. 5
stands abated vide order dated 09.10.2021.
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 7 of 66.
9. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as
many as 27 witnesses and also relied upon the following
documents. Details of which are given as under :
Sr. No. Exhibit Document
1. Ex.PW1/A Khaki colour envelope
2. Ex.PW2/A Letter dated 19.09.2013
3. Ex.PW2/B Envelope
4. Ex.PW3/A Electricity bill in the name of Sh. Prem
Nath Jha
5. Ex.PW4/A Letter
6. Ex.PW5/A Envelope
7. Ex.PW6/A Sanction order dated 18.06.2015
8. Ex.PW7/A Search list
9. Ex.PW7/B Documents recovered from the search
proceedings
10. Ex.PW8/A List of rates prevailing in the market based
on DSR 2010
11. Ex.PW9/A Complaint dated 15.01.2013
12. Ex.PW9/B Handing over charge memo
13. Ex.PW9/C Seizure memo
14. Ex.PW9/D Production cum receipt memo
15. Ex.PW9/E Production cum receipt memo
16. ExPW9/F Letter dated 09.11.2012
17. Ex.PW10/A Tender file bearing No. G-11917/1/2008-
09/ Renovation/Admn.I
18. Ex.PW11/A Copy of the given Rules and Delegation of
Financial rules
19. Ex.PW12/A Letter dated 07.06.2013
20. Ex.PW12/B Letter dated 24/25.07.2013
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 8 of 66.
21. Ex.PW12/C-1 CFSL report dated 31.07.2013
22. Ex.PW12/C Report dated 13.08.2013
23. Ex.PW12/D Specimen writing of accused Vibhuti
Thakur
24. Ex.PW12/E Cheque
25. Ex.PW12/E-1 Cheque
26. Ex.PW12/E-2 DD No. 468923
27. Ex.PW12/E-3 DD application form dated 22.07.2008
28. Ex.PW12/E-4 DD dated 22.07.2008
29. Ex.PW12/E-5 DD application form dated 22.07.2008
30. Ex.PW12/E-6 Cheque of Vijya Bank
31. Ex.PW12/E-7 Letter dated 23.07.2008
32. Ex.PW12/E-8 Envelope
33. Ex.PW12/E-9 Letter dated 20.07.2008
34. Ex.PW12/E-10 Letter dated 22.07.2008
35. Ex.PW12/E-11 Letter dated 21.07.2008
36. Ex.PW12/E-12 Envelope
37. Ex.PW13/A Sanction order against the accused Amit
Dabas
38. Ex.PW16/A Search list and Inventory memo
39. Ex.PW17/A Letter of proprietorship
40. Ex.PW17/B Account opening form of M/s Sunsilk
Carpets & Furnishers
41. Ex.PW17/C Statement of account of M/s Sunsilk
Carpets & Furnishers
42. Ex.PW17/D Certificate under Section 2 of the Bankers
Book of Evidence Act
43. Ex.PW17/E Two vouchers
44. Ex.PW18/A Seizure memo
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 9 of 66.
45. Ex.PW18/B Account opening form
46. Ex.PW18/C Statement of account
47. Ex.PW18/D Letter dated 19.11.2012
48. Ex.PW19/A Seizure memo
49. Ex.PW19/B Account opening form
50. Ex.PW19/C Statement of account
51. Ex.PW20/A PNG Gas bill, electricity bill and water
bill
52. Ex.PW21/A Letter dated 26.05.2014
53. Ex.PW21/B Letter dated 09.06.2014
54. Ex.PW22/A FIR
55. Ex.PW22/B Letter dated 23.11.2012
56. Ex.PW22/C Statement of account of M/s Sunsilk
Carpets & Furnishers
57. Ex.PW22/D Notice inviting tender
58. Ex.PW22/E Tender application of M/s Sunsilk Carpets
& Furnishers
59. Ex.PW22/F Tender application of M/s Vimala
Enterprises
60. Ex.PW22/G Tender application of M/s Vidhi Carpets
61. Ex.PW22/H Tender application of M/s Sudan Carpets
62. Ex.PW22/J Comparative statement of quotation rates
63. Ex.PW22/K Letter dated 31.07.2008 to M/s Vimala
Enterprises
64. Ex.PW22/L Letter dated 31.07.2008 to M/s Vidhi
Carpets
65. Ex.PW22/M Letter dated 01.08.2008 to M/s Sunsilk
Carpets & Furnishers
66. Ex.PW22/N Letter dated 05.08.2008 to M/s Sunsilk
Carpets & Furnishers
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 10 of 66.
67. Ex.PW22/O Measurement/dimension statement of
renovation work
68. Ex.PW22/P Statement of job work and prescribed rates
69. Ex.PW22/Q Measurement/dimension statement of
renovation work
70. Ex.PW22/R Statement of job work and prescribed rates
71. Ex.PW22/S Constitution of quality control committee
72. Ex.PW22/T Certificate of quality of materials
73. Ex.PW22/U Certificate of quality of material
74. Ex.PW22/V Bill/invoice dated 25.02.2009
75. Ex.PW22/W Original bill of renovation of PAO
76. Ex.PW22/X Rubber stamps of Vimala Enterprises
77. Ex.PW22/Y Letter dated 07.06.2013
78. Ex.PW22/Z Letter dated 24/25th July, 2013
79. Ex.PW22/Z-1 Letter dated 19.09.2013
80. Ex.PW22/Z-2 Report of postman
81. Ex.PW22/Z-3 Letters
82. Ex,.PW22/Z-4 Letter
83. Ex.PW22/Z-5
84. Ex.PW22/Z-6 Charge sheet
85. Ex.PW23/A
10. In his examination in chief, PW 1 Sh. Dayanand deposed
that he was posted as Postman at the Post Office situated at
Sector-5, R.K. Puram, and in the year 2013, and his duty was to
collect letter from the post office and to deliver the same to their
prospective addresses. During his examination in chief, his
attention was drawn to D-62 ExPW1/A (colly.) which is letter
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 11 of 66.
dated 19.09.2013 along with Khaki colour envelope. He deposed
that this envelope was handed over to him by speed post
Dispatch Section of R.K. Puram, Post Office for delivery to the
respective address and he went to the said address but he could
not find the person or the proprietor whose name was written on
the letter. PW 1 further deposed that he gave his report in Hindi
language on the envelope i.e “1295/5- Praptkarta nahi rehta hai
24.09.2013” and identify his report at point X. He further
deposed that he made inquiry from the neighbors regarding the
whereabouts of the said person and it revealed that now such
person is not living at the said address. PW 1 proved the Khaki
colour envelope as Ex.PW1/A and identified the envelope as the
same envelope which he collected from dispatch Section and he
tried to deliver.
11. In his examination in chief, PW 2 Sh. Gyanender Kumar
deposed that he was working as Postman and promoted in the
year 1986 and his duty was to collect the letters from
Indraprastha Post Office and to deliver it to its respective
addresses. He deposed that area of Daryaganj falls in his
jurisdiction and he used to deliver the letter of that area.
Attention of PW 1 was drawn to the envelope handed over to him
by the dispatch Section for delivery to its address. PW 1 further
deposed that he visited the 21 Block, Daryaganj and found no
such address written on the envelope and gave his report on the
envelope at point X. He further deposed that he went at the
given address but the said address was not found and does not
exist in the said area. PW 1 further deposed that as the letter was
returned to the originator address with his report. He identified
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 12 of 66.
his report as correct and proved the letter dated 19.09.2013 as
Ex.PW2/A and envelope as Ex.PW2/B.
12. In his examination in chief, PW 3 Sh. Prem Nath Jha
deposed that he was working as MTS, CGHS, South Zone,
Sector-8, R. K. Puram since 2008 and Flat No. 1295, Sector-5, R.
K. Puram was allotted to him in the year 2005 and he is living in
this flat. He further deposed that he is living in the said house
along with his wife and no other person except his family have
been residing in the said Government flat. PW 3 further deposed
that no firm is running in the aforesaid flat and no firm in the
name of M/s Vimala Enterprises was being run from the
aforesaid flat/address. He further deposed that Sh. Vibhuti
Thakur is his brother in law and Smt. Vimla is his wife. PW 1
further deposed that he had not rented his aforesaid quarter/flat to
anyone for running any business. Attention of the witness is
drawn to Ex.PW1/A and the witness identified his address on the
on the brown envelope. The witness further identified the
electricity connection CRN No. 2550019018 in the name of Prem
Nath Jha S/V/1295, R.K. Puram and deposed that the bill belongs
to his quarter/flat and it is in his name. PW 3 proved the bill as
Ex.PW3/A.
13. In his examination in chief, PW 4 Sh. Narender Kumar
deposed that he was working as Postman and posted at Sector-5,
Post Office, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. He further
deposed that he has been working in Beat No. 10 which comes in
Section-12, R. K. Puram. PW 4 further deposed that as a
Postman, he collect the letters/posts from Sector-5, Post Office
and deliver these letters on their respective address mentioned on
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 13 of 66.
the letters/envelopes. Attention of the witness was drawn
towards brown envelope which was collected by him from
Sector-5, Post Office and was handed over to him for delivery.
He further deposed that he visited at the given address and he do
not remember who was the person who met him, however, the
person on whose name the letter was addressed was not found.
He further deposed that the report regarding non existence of said
person was given by him in his handwriting on the envelope
itself at point X. PW 1 proved the said envelope as Ex.PW4/A.
He further deposed that thereafter the said letter was returned
undelivered to the Post Office, Sector-5 and there was no person
with the name of proprietor Kamal Enterprises at 328/12, R. K.
Puram, New Delhi-110022.
14. In his examination in chief, PW 5 Sh. Rajpal Singh Rana
deposed that he was also working as Postman and was posted as
Post Office Burari since 1998 and the locality/mohalla which
falls under the jurisdiction of his posting were Harijan Basti,
Satyavihar, Tomar Colony and Kamal Vihar. The attention of
the witness was also drawn towards envelope which was
collected by him from the Post Office of Burari for delivering the
same at the mentioned address and the address mentioned on the
envelope was not found as there was no gali number mentioned
in the envelope. He further deposed that he gave his report on
the envelope at point X and proved the envelope as Ex.PW5/A.
He further deposed that as in the address, there was no gali
number mentioned on the envelope, therefore, it was not possible
to deliver the same and accordingly, he returned the envelope to
the Post Office.
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 14 of 66.
15. In his examination in chief, PW 6 Sh. M. Pran Konchady
deposed that he was posted as Additional Controller General of
Accounts, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, New
Delhi and his work profile was to look after items of work like
internal audit, grant of sanction for prosecution etc. He accorded
the sanction for prosecution against M.D. Gupta, AAO and
proved the sanction order dated 18.06.2015 as Ex.PW6/A.
16. In his examination in chief, PW 7 is Sh. Haris Mukhtar
deposed that during the year 2013, he was posted as Jr. Engineer
at DDA in Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi and on 17.01.2013, he
was directed by his Sr. officer to report to CBI office. On
18.01.2013, he reported in CBI office where he was informed
that he had to participate in the house search proceedings. He
deposed that he along with the CBI official went to some address
where search proceeding were conducted and the documents
which were recovered there were seized and search document
was prepared in his presence and he signed the searched
documents. PW 7 proved the search list as Ex.PW7/A and the
documents as Ex.PW7/B. PW 7 also identified the accused in the
Court in whose house search was carried out.
17. In his examination in chief, PW 8 Sh. Pratap Singh
deposed that he was working as AE Vigilance (CPWD) at
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi during the year 2010 to 2014. He
identified his signature on the list of prevailing market rates on
DSR 2010, which was prepared by him. He deposed that the list
was prepared by him on the basis of the rates prevailing in the
market based on DSR 2010. PW 8 also calculated the difference
amount paid to contractor and the loss caused to Government
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 15 of 66.
exchequer. He proved the list as Ex.PW8/A (colly) and deposed
that the loss caused to the Government in the renovation work at
IRLA, AGCR Building was of Rs. 53,36,945.91 p.
18. In his examination in chief, PW 9 Insp. Raman Kumar
Shukla deposed that during the year 2013, he was posted as Sub
Inspector in CBI, ACB, New Delhi and one preliminary inquiry
was registered in CBI in the month of September, 2012 in ACB,
CBI, New Delhi in this case and he was the preliminary inquiry
officer of that preliminary inquiry. PW 9 further deposed that
there was a source information received in the CBI office with
regard to irregularities in Award for renovation of work at Pay &
Accounts Office, Information and Broadcast, New Delhi. He
further deposed that there was an allegation that the tender was
manipulated by a committee comprising of four members namely
Naresh Kumar Gupta-Sr. AO, M.D. Gupta-AAO, R.K. Bhambhi-
AAO and Amit Dabas-Accountant and there was a criminal
conspiracy with private person namely Vibhuti Thakur,
proprietor of M/s Sunsilk. He proved the complaint as
Ex.PW9/A. He further deposed that after concluding the
preliminary inquiry, he found that there is a prima facie case
against the public servants as well as private person. He proved
the handing over charge memo as Ex.PW9/B, seizure memo
Ex.PW9/C, production cum receipt memo as Ex.PW9/D,
production cum receipt memo as Ex.PW9/E and letter dated
09.11.2012 as Ex.PW9/F.
19. In his examination in chief, PW 10 Sh. Dharam Pal Dahiya
deposed that he joined the office of PAO, Main Secretariat,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as Accounts officer on
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 16 of 66.
27.10.2008 and Mr. Godeshwar was the Chief Controller of
Accounts at that time. He proved the tender file bearing No. G-
11917/I/2008-09/Renovation/Admn.I maintained in the Office of
Pay and Accounts Officer, IRLA as Ex.PW10/A (colly.).
20. In his examination in chief, PW 11 is Sh. Ramesh Chander
Misra deposed that in the year 2008-2009, he was posted as
Additional Secretary and Financial Advisor in the Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting and as far as he remember, Sh. Vilas
Rao Godeshwar was Chief Controller (Accounts) in the Ministry
of Information & Broadcasting. He further deposed that as per
the requirement, the department can carry out the renovation
work of civil through open tender of CPWD. After seeing the
file Ex.PW10/A, PW11 deposed that his approval is not there in
this file for award of contract and this contract was awarded to
M/s Sunsilk Carpet & Furnishers. PW 11 further deposed that
Mr. Vilas Godeshwar approved this on 05.08.2008 and the file
was never put up before him while he was working as Additional
Secretary & Financial Advisor in Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting.
It is pertinent to mention here that on the application of
prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C, witness PW 11 Sh.
Ramesh Chander Misra was again recalled for examination vide
order dated 31.08.2023.
PW 11 further proved the copy of given Rules and the
Delegation of Financial Rules as Ex.PW11/A.
21. In his examination in chief, PW 12 Sh. Vijay Verma
deposed that he has joined CFSL, CBI in the year 2012 and
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 17 of 66.
earlier he was working from 1999 to 2007 as Scientific Assistant
in FSL, Delhi. He further deposed that the documents of this
case were forwarded by SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide letter
dated 07.06.2013 through which questioned documents along
with specimen writing and signatures of Vibhuti Thakur were
sent. Further, some more writing and signatures were sent vide
letter dated 24/25.07.2013. He further deposed that both the
letter bears the stamp of Case Assistant, CFSL, CBI, CGO
Complex. He proved the letter dated 07.06.2013 as Ex.PW12/A
and letter dated 24/25.07.2013 as Ex.PW12/B. PW 12 further
deposed that after receiving the documents in CFSL through
proper channel, the case was allotted to him and he has examined
the documents of this case scientifically and thoroughly and
expressed his opinion with detailed reasons. He proved his
report as Ex.PW12/C-1 and the letter dated 13.08.2013 vide
which the report was forwarded as Ex.PW12/C. PW 12 further
proved the specimen writing of accused Vibhuti Thakur as
Ex.PW12/D and cheque bearing marking as Ex.PW12/E. He
further proved the original DD application form of Canara Bank
dated 17.07.2008 as Ex.PW12/E-1 and original cancelled DD
No. 468923 dated 17.07.2008 as Ex.PW12/E-2. He further
proved the original DD application form dated 22.07.2008 as
Ex.PW12/E-3, cancelled DD no. 440707 dated 22.07.2008 as
Ex.PW12/E-4, DD application form dated 22.07.2008 as
Ex.PW12/E-5, cheque of Vijaya Bank as Ex.PW12/E-6, letter
dated 23.07.2008 of Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers as
Ex.PW12/E-7, envelope as Ex.PW12/E-8, letter dated
20.07.2008 of Vimala Enterprises as Ex.PW12/E-9, letter dated
22.07.2008 as Ex.PW12/E-10, letter dated 21.07.2008 as
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 18 of 66.
Ex.PW12/E-11 and envelope written as quotation, renovation as
Ex.PW12/E-12.
22. In his examination in chief, PW 13 Sh. Dalip Singh
deposed that during the year 2014-15, he was posted in the rank
of Brigadier as Commandant of AOC Centre and Officer
Incharge (records) at Secundrabad. He further deposed that after
going through the material placed before him, he had accorded
prosecution sanction against the accused Amit Dabas and proved
the sanction order as Ex.PW13/A.
23. In his examination in chief, PW 14 Sh. Rajesh Kumar
deposed that during the year 2012, he was posted as Under
Secretary to Government of India in Vigilance Wing of Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting. He deposed that his profile
was to process the complaint received against the employee of
the ministry and media Units. After perusal of letter dated
09.11.2012, PW 14 deposed that the tender file bearing no. G-
11917/1/2008-09/ Renovation/Admn.I relating to work order
PAO/IRLA/I&B-608 dated 05.08.2006 was provided to CBI after
obtaining the same from the Principal Account Office (IRLA),
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. He identified the file
Ex.PW10/A which was provided to CBI from the office record.
24. In his examination in chief, PW 15 Sh. Surender Singh
deposed that during the year 2013, he was posted as Inspector,
Central Excise, Delhi-I, Range-20, Rajendra Place, New Delhi
and on the instructions of Assistant Commissioner, he visited
CBI office on 19.07.2013. He further deposed that the writing of
accused Vibhuti Thakur was given by the accused in his
presence. PW15 proved the said writing as Ex.PW15/A.
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 19 of 66.
25. In his examination in chief, PW 16 Sh. Kumar Rakesh
Mohan deposed that in the year 2013, he was posted as Inspector
in Central Excise, Division-VII, Nehru Place, New Delhi and on
the instructions, he went to CBI Office. He along with CBI
officials went to some house, exact address, he do not remember.
He further deposed that at the said house some search
proceedings were conducted in his presence and documents were
also collected. He identified his signature at point A on search
list and inventory memo and proved the same as Ex.PW16/A
(colly.).
26. In his examination in chief, PW 17 Sh. Raj Pal Singh
deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as Senior Manager
at Canara Bank, South Extension, New Delhi and on the asking
of CBI, some documents from the bank record were given to CBI
by him. He proved letter of proprietorship given by Vibhuti
Thakur as Ex.PW17/A, opening form of the proprietorship
concern of M/s Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers as Ex.PW17/B,
Certificate under Section 2 of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act
as Ex.PW17/D, original cheque bearing no. 627266 as
Ex.PW12/E, three vouchers as Ex.PW17/E and original cancelled
DD as Ex.PW17/F.
27. In his examination in chief, PW 18 Sh. Hem Chand Mehra
deposed that in the year 2013, he was posted as Senior Branch
Manager at R. K. Puram Branch of Vijaya Bank and in the year
2019, Vijaya Bank had merged in Bank of Baroda. He further
deposed that on the asking of CBI, some documents were handed
over to CBI from the bank record. PW 18 proved the original
account opening form along with specimen signature of Vibhuti
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 20 of 66.
Thakur and statement of account in the name of Vibhuti Thakur
as Ex.PW18/A, original account opening form alongwith
specimen signature card in the name of Vibhuti Thakur as
Ex.PW18/B and statement of account along with certificate under
the Bankers Book of Evidence Act as Ex.PW18/C.
It is pertinent to mention here that on the application of
prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C, witness PW18 Sh. Hem
Chand Mehra was again recalled for re-examination vide order
dated 28.01.2023.
PW18 further proved the letter dated 19.11.2012 addressed
to SI Raman Kumar Shukla as Ex.PW18/D, account opening
form along with statement of account as Ex.PW18/E, application
for issuing DD as Ex.PW22/E5 and self cheque as Ex.PW12/E6.
28. In his examination in chief, PW 19 Sh. Ram Lal deposed
that in the year 2013, he was posted as Sr. Manager, South
Extension-I and on the asking of CBI, the original account
opening form of account no. 0267201012598 in the name of M/s
Sunsilk Carpets and its statement of account were handed over to
CBI. PW 19 proved the seizure memo dated 20.09.2013 which
bears his signature at point A, account opening form of M/s
Sunsilk Carpets having CC account No. 12598 and deposed that
this account was opened on 25.05.1995 and proved the same as
Ex.PW19/B. PW 19 further proved the statement of account for
the period 01.07.2008 to 30.08.2008 which bears his signature at
point A as Ex.PW19/C and deposed that the statement of account
mentioned the account No. 0267201012598 which consists the
branch DP code, Product code and account number.
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 21 of 66.
29. In his examination in chief, PW20 Sh. Inder Singh Bisht
deposed that he was posted as Auditor in BSF, HQ, IT-Wing,
CGO Complex, New Delhi and he resided at H. No. 1295,
Sector-5, R.K. Puram, Delhi and resided there till 2016. He
deposed that before his occupation in this quarter, Sh. B.K.
Thakur was residing in this quarter and no business under the
name of M/s Kamal enterprises used to be run by him or by his
family members in this quarter. He further deposed that even
before occupancy of this quarter by him, no such business was
reportedly carried out in the name of M/s Kamal Enterprise.
After seeing the PNG and electricity bill, PW 20 deposed that
both the PNG and electricity bill are of the year 2013 and in his
name and the water bill dated 20.03.2012 is in the name of
previous occupant/allottee B.K. Thakur. He further deposed that
since the change in the name of allottee in respect of water bill
happened later on, the bill dated 20.03.2012 was however paid by
him towards the consumption of water for the given period. He
proved the bills as Ex.PW20/A (colly.).
30. In his examination in chief, PW 21 Sh. M.C. Dagar
deposed that in the year 2014, he was posted as Accounts Officer
(Admn.) in Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi as accounts Officer, he was looking after the
office of Chief Controller of Accounts. He further deposed that
in response to CBI letter dated 13.05.2014 with the approval of
the competent authority to CBI and vide this letter, it was
informed to the CBI the requisite file/document was not traceable
despite strenuous efforts. He proved the letter dated 26.05.2014
bearing his signature at point A as Ex.PW21/A. He further
proved letter dated 09.06.2014 bearing his signature at point as
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 22 of 66.
Ex.PW21/B. PW 21 further proved the internal note and copy of
CCA’s diary as Ex.PW21/C (colly.).
31. PW 22 is Inspector H. Suresh Kumar Singh. He was
Investigating Officer of this case and has proved FIR and all
other relevant documents which were seized and relied upon by
the prosecution. He had filed the charge sheet of the present
case.
32. In her examination in chief, PW 23 Mrs. Annie G.
Mathew deposed that on 07.08.2015, he was posted as Joint
Secretary (PERS) & CVO in the Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure, Govt. of India and this matter came
to her department for sanction for prosecution under PC Act
against Vilas Rao Godeshwar, the then chief Controller of
Accounts, Ministry of I & B. She further deposed that on the
basis of document received from CBI, they examined the matter
and took the comments from CVC and thereafter the file was sent
to the Competent Authority i.e The Finance Minister who
granted sanction for prosecution after due application of mind
and she prepared this sanction order and sent it to CBI after
perusal of the concerned file and documents. PW 23 proved the
sanction order as Ex.PW23/A bearing her signature at point A.
This witness is not cross examined by any of the counsel for the
accused persons.
33. In his examination in chief, PW 24 Sh. S. K. Tandon
deposed that in the year 2013, he was posted in the Regional
Office of Syndicate Bank at Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi and
he do not remember the date, month or year but it was about 1½
– 2 years before his retirement in March, 2015 and that on the
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 23 of 66.
instructions of the Personnel Department of his bank, he had
visited CBI office. He further deposed that in the CBI office he
was told that the other person would give his specimen writing
and signature and that he had to witness it. He proved the
specimen writing and signature of accused Vibhuti Thakur as
Ex.PW12/D (colly.) and deposed that the same
specimen/signature were given by the said person voluntarily in
his presence and bears her signature at point Y on each sheet.
34. In his examination in chief, PW 25 Sh. Naresh Kumar
deposed that in the year 2013, he was posted as Data entry
Operator, NDMC, Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and
on the instructions of his department, he visited CBI office to be
a witness to some proceedings. He proved the specimen
writing/signature of accused Vibhuti Thakur as Ex.PW12/D and
deposed that specimen writing/signature were given by the said
person voluntarily in his presence and bears his signature at point
Y1.
35. In his examination in chief, PW 26 Sh. Baljit Singh
deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as AGM, Subroto
Park Branch of CBI and one CBI officer visited their branch in
November, 2012 and asked for some documents. He further
deposed that on the asking, he provided some documents from
the bank record. PW 26 proved the letter dated 23.11.2012 as
Ex.PW22/B and Ex.PW 12/E3 which is original draft application
of Rs. 2 lacs. PW 26 further proved Ex.PW12/E 4 which is
original draft bearing No. 440707 of Rs. 2 lacs, Ex.PW22/C
which is statement of account no. 10454632508 and
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 24 of 66.
Ex.PW12/E4 which is credit entry of Rs. 2 lacs in respect of
cancelled DD.
36. In his examination in chief, PW 27 Sh. Atul Priadarshi
deposed that in the year 2015, he was posted as AGM, Subroto
Park branch of SBI and on asking of CBI office, he issued a
certificate under Section 2 A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act in
support of the statement of account of account No. 10454632508.
PW 27 proved the certificate under Section 2 A of Evidence Act
as Ex.PW27/A.
37. It is pertinent to mention that during the course of trial, the
the Court has taken judicial note on the CPWD manual for
understanding the tender process.
Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
38. On the submissions of Ld. Sr. PP for CBI the prosecution
evidence was closed on 15.03.2023. Thereafter, separate
statement of all the accused persons A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 and
A-6 under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, in which the entire
incriminating evidence appearing against all the aforesaid
accused persons was put to them, in which the defence of A-1
mainly was that-
“The entire case is made by CBI on a concocted story.
Even the loss to Govt. of India is calculated based on the figure
obtained from a person who is not authorised nor competent to
provide the same. Therefore, the basis of prosecution is bad and
doubtful in the eyes of law. The entire prosecution is based on
an estimate nor on actual basis. Therefore, I have been
prosecuted for a loss which is completely imaginary without anyCC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 25 of 66.
material in support. This is a false and fabricated case. I have
honestly performed my duty as Govt. Officer following all the
rules and regulations and following the directions of Superiors. I
am innocent and I have not done anything wrong either in my
capacity as Sr. A.O in PAO, IRLA or in my capacity as a
member of the tender committee. Whatever notings I made in
the tender file were as per my competence and knowledge and
my notings/proposals were subject to approval/rejection by my
superiors/CCA/HOD”.
39. Similarly, the defence of A-2 was that-
“It is a false case and the answering accused has been
made a scape goat being one of the junior officer in the
department. I followed all the instructions, written as well as
verbal, issued by the Chairman of the Committee and the Chief
Controller of Accounts. I had no power to take decision rather
being a junior I was made to follow the instructions of the
Chairman and the CCA. I am innocent and have been falsely
implicated”.
40. Similarly, the defence of A-3 was that-
“It is a false case and the answering accused has been
made a scape goat being one of the junior officer in the
department. I have never worked in PAO, IRLA. I used to
receive phone call from CCA office informing me to come to
the office of PAO IRLA. Being a subordinate, I used to visit
the office and used to find CCA and the Chairman sitting.
CCA used to direct me to sign note-sheets, committee
proceedings etc. and I used to sign on the same being a veryCC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 26 of 66.
subordinate officer. I was also not at all aware about the other
members namely Mata Deen Gupta and Amit Dabas. I do not
know what all proceedings were done in the present matter as I
used to merely sign on the directions of the CCA. I am
innocent. Further, it was hardly 1 ½ months of my having
joined PAO, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting from
Ministry of Home Affairs where I was then posted as AAO.
As AAO in MHA, we never even used to see the CCA and
contrary to this, in PAO, MIB, CCA used to often visit our
seats and also often called us to his office and to PAO, IRLA.
Being such a subordinate, we were literally afraid of the CCA
and could not utter a word against him or his directions.
Further, whatever we did as members of the tender committee
we did as per the written directions of CCA/Chairman”.
41. Similarly, the defence of A-4 was that-
“My initial appointment was a Lower Division Clerk in
Ordinance Depot, Shakur Basti, Ministry of Defence. My
recruitment and controlling authority was AOC Records,
Secundrabad, AP. Even my prosecution sanction was
accorded by Col. (Record) who was Brigadier Dalip Singh and
he had no knowledge of my work profile in my deputation
posting. I was never called by him or by any officer
subordinate to him either at that point of time or till date. I
was also not called to give any explanation. On deputation, I
got the posting as Accountant in PAO IRLA, AGCR Building,
ITO, New Delhi on 04.01.2008. When my name was given in
the Tender Committee, I had only brief experience in the
department of not more than six months and that too in GP
Fund Section. I had no knowledge of the tendering processCC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 27 of 66.
and at the time when I was nominated in the tender committee,
I was verbally told by the CCA that my role would only be as
a Typist and nothing more. He also gave me assurance of
nothing to worry about not knowing anything about the
tendering process and that he would keep on guiding the
committee. Believing him since he was Head of the
Department, I kept on following the instructions as and when
the same were received. I was about 8 ranks junior to the
CCA. I was also technically incompetent to look into and
ascertain the breaches/violations being made in the tendering
process or thereafter. I had followed the orders of my
superiors keeping in mind the conduct rules. I am innocent.
42. Similarly, the defence of A-6 was that-
“I am a civil contractor and taking Government
contracts since the year 1996. I had worked for any
Government departments like MHA, Defence, Ministry of
Commerce, Textiles, Environment, MEA, AAI and Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting. While inviting open tenders
every Government Department stipulates its own conditions in
the tender and the contractor do not have any role in that. I did
not know the co-accused persons personally before this tender
was awarded to me. Neither, I had met them nor talked to
them on phone. I was approached by the proprietors Sh.
Murlidhar and Sh. Santosh Kumar of Vidhi Carpets and
Vimala Enterprises respectively requesting me to advance
them business loan as they also wanted to apply for the NIT
published by PAO, IRLA, MIB. It is quite common in our line
of business to seek small temporary loans without interest and
also for proper competition in tendering process and as suchCC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 28 of 66.
we help fellow contractors. It is in this spirit and as the
proprietors were known to me, that I had helped them by
advancing loan in the form of issuing bank DDs to be
submitted by them with PAO, IRLA. They applied for the said
tender independently. When they could not succeed in the
tender process, that they returned the DDs to me for
cancellation and encashment. I am a small contractor. I did
not commit nor I had any intention to commit cheating or
forgery. I had not hatched any conspiracy. This case has in
fact damaged my reputation as a Government contractor”.
Defence Evidence
43. In his defence, accused no. 6 Vibhuti Thakur has
examined two witnesses. D6W1 Sh. Santosh Kumar deposed
in his examination in chief that M/s Vimala Enterprises was a
proprietorship concern of his late father Sh. Rudrakant Thakur
under which he was doing the business of renovation work.
He further deposed that Vimala is the name of his late grand
mother and during the lifetime of his father, he used to assist
him in this firm and after his death in the year 2006, he took
the control of this firm. In his examination in chief, D6W1
further deposed that in July, 2008, there was a tender floated
by I&B, IRLA for some renovation work in IRLA, ITO and he
tried to participate in his tender process, however, he had some
financial constraints due to the death of his father in the year
2006 and he started looking for arranging the earnest money
deposit of Rs. 2 lacs. He further deposed that he contacted
Vibhuti Thakur who was known to him and Vibhuti Thakur
helped him by arranging DD of Rs. 2 lacs and he assured him
that he will return the amount after the tender. He further
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 29 of 66.
deposed that since his quotation was not accepted in the
tender process, therefore, he visited the office of IRLA at ITO
and took return of his EMD DD of Rs. 2 lacs which he handed
over to Vibhuti Thakur for cancellation. He further deposed
that firm M/s Vimala Enterprises was running from the address
H. No. 1295, Sector-5, R.K. Puram, Delhi and it was a
temporary shed that kept by him behind the Government
quarter 1295, Sector-5, R.K. Puram. He further deposed that
the allottee of the said quarter was one Prem Nath Jha and as
per oral understanding with him, he was permitted to continue
his shed on making payment of Rs. 2,000/- per month. He
further deposed that all the correspondences were received at
the said Government quarter and Prem Nath Jha used to hand
it over to me and some of the letters, he had received at the
said address has been brought by him and proved the same as
Ex.DW6W1/A (colly.). He further deposed that he brought
blank letter head of his said concerned firm with the stamp
impression of his concerned firm and proved the letter head as
Ex.D6W1/B with the stamp impression of his firm at point A.
He also proved the stamp of his firm as Ex.D6M1.
44. In his examination in chief, D6W2 Murlidhar Thakur
deposed that he started his work under the name and style of
M/s Vidhi Carpets in the year 2001 and he was dealing in the
work of furniture, laying of tiles, carpets dry cleaning etc. with
its registered address as of his home address. D6W2 further
deposed that in the year 2008, he had participated in a tender
process of some Ministry, the name he do not remember but it
was at ITO and on 5th Floor in respect of some furniture, carpet
and paint work and for this, he had taken one DD of Rs. 2 lacs
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 30 of 66.
from Vibhuti Thakur which he returned as he was not selected
in the tender process. He further deposed that he took the DD
from the office of the said Ministry to return it to Vibhuti
Thakur. He further deposed that he has stopped doing his said
work during the Covid period and presently he is unemployed,
however, his children who are now grown up are working.
D6W2 further deposed that he has brought some blank letter
heads, bill book of his firm and some other letters and he had
received from various departments and proved the same as
Ex.D6W2/A (colly.). He also proved the seal/stamp of his
firm as Ex.D6M2. He also proved his AADHAR card
showing his address as 14/264, Kamalpur, Kamal Vihar,
Burari, Delhi-110094 and proved the copy of AADHAR card
as Ex.D6W2/B (OSR).
45. Thereafter accused no. 6 has not examined any witness
in his defence and defence evidence was closed vide order
dated 11.07.2023.
46. In his defence accused no. 1 has examined Sh. Ramesh
Chand Jain as D1W1 and during his examination in chief
D1W1 deposed that he joined as Auditor in Director General
of Security, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India in the
afternoon of 31st July, 1976 and on 09.02.2009, he joined the
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting as Assistant
Controller of Accounts. He further deposed that as ACA, he
had the responsibility of doing administrative work in
Accounts Branch and at the time when he had joined as ACA,
the post of his immediate superior Deputy Controller of
Accounts was lying vacant and his boss in the accounts branch
was Chief Controller of Accounts. He further deposed that his
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 31 of 66.
subordinates in the branch were the Pay & accounts officers
(PAOs) and he know Naresh Kumar Gupta who at that point of
time was either the accounts officer or Senior Accounts
Officer in the accounts branch of MIB. He further deposed
that he was the reporting officer of all the PAOs including
Naresh Kumar Gupta and any file which was to go to CCA
from the PAOs including Naresh Kumar Gupta were used to
be routed in the administrative chain through him. D1W1 has
proved the tender file of Ministry of I & B as Ex.PW10/A.
D1W1 after seeing the noting prepared by Naresh Kumar
Gupta seeking administrative approval of payment of Rs.
45,47,000/- against the bill of Rs. 47,07,296/- to M/s Sunsilk
Carpets and Furnishers and on seeing the same, witness states
that the file was put up before him on 25.02.2009 and as he has
joined the Ministry only in February, 2009 (on 09.02.2009), he
was not much aware of the file and as such Naresh Gupta had
told him that as the bill which is of approximately Rs. 47 lacs
and was in excess of the allocated budget of Rs. 45 lacs, that
necessary finance has to be diverted from other PAO to PAO
(IRLA).
He further deposed that since he was new and was not
knowing much about the procedure that Naresh Gupta told him
that the file has to go to Deputy Secretary (B&A) and as such
on the information so given and on the guidance of Naresh
Kumar Gupta that he gave the noting. He further deposed that
he has no knowledge whether budgetary approval of the excess
amount was sought for by Naresh Kumar Gupta under his
given noting. D1W1 further deposed that it is correct that in
his noting from X1 to X1, he had proposed budgetary
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 32 of 66.
diversion of Rs. 1,60,296/- for the excess amount of the bill
raised by the contractor and he was not aware at that point of
time as to who had the competence to accord administrative
approval of such budgetary diversion and on the guidance of
Naresh Gupta that it would go to DS (B&A) that he referred
his noting to DS (B&A). He further deposed that generally in
the administrative chain any file coming to him would go to
the CCA and he is not aware what was the equivalent posting
of ACA in the administrative chain what he know is that the
ACA was a Group A Gazetted Post. He further deposed that
he can not tell whether the post of Under Secretary was a
Group A post or not. During the examination in chief, witness
identify his noting at file Ex.PW10/A and deposed that the said
noting is the noting of AAO and this noting was put up before
him by Naresh Gupta with his signature at point X3. D1W1
further deposed that he had approved by appending his
signatures at point X4 and his approval was formal in as much
as the budgetary approval was already given by the DS (B&A)
and CCA and it was only to be conveyed which he approved.
During the examination in chief, witness identify his
noting at file Ex.PW10/A and deposed that the said noting is in
the handwriting of Naresh Kumar Gupta giving information of
payment of Rs. 43,93,276/- to M/s Sunsilk Carpets and
Furnishers and it bears signature of N. K. Gupta at point X6
and his signatures at point X7 as acknowledgment of such
information.
During the examination in chief, witness identify his
noting at file Ex.PW10/A and deposed that on this noting
page, his signature are at point X8 and is in the context of
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 33 of 66.
sending the file for further approval under his remarks at point
X9 which is marked in red.
During the examination in chief, witness identify his
noting at file Ex.PW10/A and deposed that his signature and
remarks are at point X10, marked in red.
D1W1 further deposed during his examination chief
that he was aware about the General Financial Rules and he is
not able to recollect what was the sanctioning power of the
officers under the said rules. He further deposed that he did
not have the occasion to go through the GFR when the noting
file came before him for the first time and by that time, the
budgetary approval was already accorded and he was not
aware of the financial powers of each of such officer. D1W1
further deposed that he has given as general description and he
do not exactly remember but the Head of the department of our
accounts branch was CCA. He further deposed that payment
made to the contractor is within his knowledge as per the
notings in the file.
47. D1W2 Sh. V. A. K. Nambiar deposed in his
examination in chief that he joined as LDC in Department of
Industrial Development, Ministry of Industry, Udyog Bhawan
on 29.05.1972 and in early, 2007, he joined the Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting as Deputy Secretary and he was
posted in the Finance Wing under AS&FA. He further
deposed that as Deputy Secretary, he was to process all the
files coming from Administrative Wings of the Ministry of
I&B to the AF&FA and the Administrative Wings under its
head who is of the level of Joint Secretary process the
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 34 of 66.
proposals for approval and the file comes to Finance Wing
only for concurrence.
During his examination in chief, attention of D1W2
was drawn to the tender file Ex.PW10/A and on seeing the
same, he deposed that this file came to him in his official
capacity and that he had returned the file with his noting on
page 22 N with the remarks that the file for the purposes of
seeking budgetary approval for an excess amount of Rs.
1,60,296/- need not come to AS&FA and should be dealt with
by the CCA who is the Administrative Head of PAO, IRLA.
D1W2 identify his noting at point D1 to D1 and his signature
at point X.
During his examination in chief, attention of the
witness was further drawn to tender file Ex.PW10/A and on
seeing the same, D1W2 states that the noting on this page
records payment of Rs. 43,93,276/- which was within the
budget of Rs. 45 lacs and he had acknowledged noting of this
fact by his signatures at point D2 sending the file to CCA who
again sent the file to him under his signature at point D4
intimating of his approval which he acknowledged by
appending his signature at point D3. He further deposed that
the file was never meant to be put up before the AS&FA and
he is not aware of the financial power of the CCA under the
General Financial Rules as he was not concerned with it. He
further deposed that whenever any file is to be put up from the
CCA to AS&FA, it was to be routed through him as Deputy
Secretary.
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 35 of 66.
48. All the DWs as examined by the accused persons in
their defence has been cross examined at length by Ld. Sr. PP
for CBI.
49. I have heard Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Ld. Counsels for
accused persons and carefully gone through the record.
50. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has argued that accused Vibhuti
Thakur (Contractor, private person) and Vilas Rao Godeswar
(since expired), N.K. Gupta, M.D. Gupta, R.K. Bambi and
Amit Dabas (all public servants) entered into a criminal
conspiracy and they dishonestly and fraudulently by abusing
their position as public servant for the purpose of facilitating
the contractor and resorted to illegal means and cause
wrongful loss to the extent of Rs. 53,36,945/- to the
Government exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to
private contractor. In pursuance of conspiracy, accused N. K.
Gupta, Sr. Accountant moved a proposal dated 16.08.2008
(Ex.PW10/A colly.) (N-1 tender file) for constitution of the
three member committee to get stock of the position and
suggest a way to provide suitable remedies regarding
dilapidated condition of PAO (IRLA). Accused Vilas Rao
Godeswar CCA constituted four members committee
consisting of N. K. Gupta Sr. Accounts Officer, M. D. Gupta
AAO, R. K. Bambi AAO and Amit Dabas Accountant vide
order dated 18.06.2008 (Ex.PW10/A colly.) (N-1 tender file).
It is further argued by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that there was no
single technical person in the aforesaid committee. The tender
committee submitted an estimated area for renovation work
and accused Vilas Rao Godeshwar approved the estimated
area work of 4725 sq. ft. (D-21-N3 part of Ex.PW10/A).
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 36 of 66.
Accused Vilas Rao Godeshwar approved for inviting the
tender and NIT was issued consequently (D-22 page 282 of
Ex.PW10/A colly). In furtherance of the criminal conspiracy,
accused Vibhuti Thakur managed to submit NITs of five firms
(most of the firms were non existence/dummy firms). The five
firms in conspiracy with Vibhuti Thakur and other accused
persons submitted their bids as under :
1. Vimala Enterprises (D-24 page no. 52 to 70 of Ex.PW10/A
(colly.), Ex.PW12/E-9 (PW22/F colly.)
2. Sudan Carpets (Ex.PW12.E-11 paged No. 71 to 73 of
Ex.PW10/A colly.) (PW22/H colly. D-26)
3.Vidhi Carpets (page no. 74 to 84 of Ex.PW22/G (colly.) D-
25)
4. Sunsilk Carpets (D-23 Ex.PW12/E-7 page no. 85 to 164 of
Ex.PW10/A colly) (Ex22/E colly. D-23).
5. Kamal Enterprises (page no. 165 to 171 of Ex.PW10/A
colly.) (D-
51. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, the tender
committee after examining the bids prepared a comparative
statement (page no. 172 of tender file Ex.PW10/A colly.). The
lowest rate was quoted by Vidhi Carpets and second lowest
rate was quoted by Sunsilk Carpets. The tender was not
awarded to Vidhi Carpets as the requirement of seven years
experience was not fulfilled by this firm. Therefore, the tender
was awarded to next lowest bidder i.e Sunsilk Carpets which
had quoted rate Rs. 85,07,060/- and also fulfilling the seven
year experience condition. The bid of M/s Vimala Enterprises
was rejected as it has quoted higher rates. Kamal Enterprises
and Sudan Carpets had not submitted drafts of Rs. 2 lacs qua
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 37 of 66.
EMD therefore, tenders of both the firms were rejected by the
committee. It is alleged that these firms except the Sunsilk
Carpets & Furnishers were dummy firms which were used in
the tender process by Vibhuti Thakur in conspiracy with other
accused persons. It is argued that the department was induced
by the accused persons to award the tender in favour of
Sunsilk Carpets by fraudulent and dishonest acts/omission.
Further, it is argued that there was no competitive bidding in
the entire process and department was induced to award the
tender in favour of Sunsilk Carpets & Furnishers by putting
the dummy firms in the tender process and there was intention
from the inception to cheat the department fully knowing the
fact that the dummy firms were put in the process just to
complete the corum of the tender process and
fraudulently/dishonestly obtained the tender for which Sunsilk
Carpets and Furnisher was not legally entitled as
fictitious/dummy firm were put in the tender process.
52. It is further argued that the EMD draft of Vidhi Carpets
(Ex.PW12/E-2) (D-50) was prepared by accused Vibhuti
Thakur proprietor M/s Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers from his
bank account. In the same manner the EMD draft of Vimala
Carpets was prepared by accused Vibhuti Thakur proprietor
M/s Sunsil Carpets and Furnishers from his SBI account no.
10454632508. The relevant debit entry is reflected in
statement of account Ex.PW22/C (colly.). It is further argued
that there is positive opinion of CFSL on the draft forms of
EMD (Ex.PW12/E-2 D-15) and (Ex.PW12/E-4 D-19) that the
draft forms bears the writing of accused Vibhuti Thakur.
Ex.PW12/E-3 (D-18) draft form for draft Ex.PW12/E-4 (D-19)
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 38 of 66.
has the writing of Vibhuti Thakur at Q5 and Q5A. CFSL
Expert vide his expert report Ex.PW12/C-1 (part of D-54)
gives his positive opinion that the Q5 and Q5A when
compared with the specimen writing of accused Vibhuti
Thakur S1 to S64, S1A to S9A, S19A to S28, S41A to S50A,
S70A to S79A, S84A, S85A and S111A to S115A, S152A to
S161A are of accused Vibhuti Thakur.
53. In the same manner the draft form Ex.PW12/E-1 (D-9)
of draft Ex.PW12/E-2 (D-5) is also in the handwriting of
accused Vibhuti Thakur. CFSL Expert vide his expert report
Ex.PW12/C-1 (part of D-54) gives his positive opinion that the
Q3 and Q3A (D-9), Q1A (D-8) when compared with the
specimen writing of accused Vibhuti Thakur S1 to S64, S1A to
S9A, S19A to S28, S41A to S50A, S70A to S79A, S84A,
S85A and S111A to S115A, S152A to S161A (D-53
Ex.PW12/D (colly.) and Ex.PW15/A (colly.) are of accused
Vibhuti Thakur.
54. It is further argued by Ld. Prosecutor that cancelled
DD of Canara Bank bearing No. 468923 dated 17.07.2008
Ex.PW12/E-2 was later on deposited by accused Vibhuti
Thakur in his bank and the amount of this DD was got credited
in his firms account no. 026201012598 i.e Sunsilk Carpets and
Furnishers account. Q-4 questioned handwriting of Vibhuti
Thakur on Ex.PW12/E-2 (D-50) (cancelled DD) when
compared with the above said specimen handwriting given in
Ex.PW12/D (colly.)/Ex.PW15/A (colly.) (part of D-53) gives
positive opinion regarding the writing of Vibhuti Thakur. It is
further submitted that it was the same draft Ex.PW12/E-2 (D-
50) which was submitted by dummy firm i.e M/s Vimala
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 39 of 66.
Enterprises along with the tender documents Ex.PW22/F (D-
24). It is submitted that relevant debit entry for issuance of
draft (dated 22.07.2008) and credit entry (dated 02.08.2008)
for cancellation of draft is reflected in Ex.PW22/C (colly.). It
is alleged that the draft was collected from the office of P&A
Account office (IRLA) by putting bogus signature on the letter
dated 31.07.2008 Ex.PW22/K (D-28).
55. It is further submitted by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that
in the same manner cancelled DD of SBI bearing No. 440707
dated 22.07.2008 Ex.PW12/E-4 was later on deposited by
accused Vibhuti Thakur in his bank and the amount of this DD
was got credited in his firms account no. 10454632508 i.e
Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers account. Q-6 and Q-6A
questioned handwriting of Vibhuti Thakur on Ex.PW12/E-2
(D-50) when compared with the above said specimen
handwriting given in Ex.PW12/D (colly.)/Ex.PW15/A (colly.)
(part of D-53) given positive opinion regarding the writing of
accused Vibhuti Thakur. It is further submitted that it was the
same draft Ex.PW12/E-4 (D-19) which was submitted by
dummy firm i.e M/s Vidhi Carpets along with the tender
documents Ex.PW22/G (colly.) (D-25). It is submitted that the
relevant debit entry for issuance of draft (dated 22.07.2008)
and credit entry (dated 02.08.2008) for cancellation of draft is
reflected in Ex.PW22/C (colly.) (D-20) in the statement of
account bearing no. 10454632508 of M/s Sunsilk Carpet &
Furnishers. The draft was allegedly collected from the office
of P&A Account office (IRLA) by putting bogus signature on
the letter dated 31.07.2008 Ex.PW22/L (D-29). D6W2 Sh.
Murli Dhar Thakur who was examined as defence witness by
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 40 of 66.
accused Vibhuti Thakur who was not able to identify the
signature on Ex.PW22/L and Ex.PW22/Z-4. It is further
submitted that during the investigation search were also
conducted at the residence of Vibhuti Thakur at third floor,
Munirka Village, Prateek Market, New Delhi and in this
search the incriminating document like seal in the name of
Vimala Enterprises, seal in the name of Vidhi Carpets
proprietor, letter heads of Vidhi Carpets Ex.PW7/B (colly.)
(D-47), Vimala Enterprises, Sudan Carpets and other blank
letter heads of different firms were recovered from the
residence of accused Vibhuti Thakur. It is submitted that the
incriminating documents/articles were duly seized in the
presence of independent witness PW7 Harish Mukhtar which
was duly recorded in the search list vide Ex.PW7/A (D-47). It
is further submitted that recovery of blank letter head of
dummy firms Vidhi Carpets, Vimala Enterprises, Sudan
Carpets who were made to participate in the tender process,
proves that the Vibhuti Thakur was having connection with
these dummy firms.
56. It is further argued by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that during
cross examination of Prem Nath Jha PW3, who was brother in
law of accused Vibhuti Thakur, no suggestion was given by
him that Vimala Enterprises which claimed to be run from the
above said address that any rent or rent of Rs. 2,000/- used to
be paid to Prem Nath Jha PW3 and witness specifically denied
that any firm with the name of Vimala Enterprises used to be
run from this address. It is further argued by Ld. Prosecutor
that Vibhuti Thakur never put any suggestion during cross
examination of the prosecution witnesses that he gave friendly
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 41 of 66.
loan by way of demand draft to participate in the tender
process. This particular fact was specifically in his knowledge
even at the time of arguments on charge and during trial. The
accused Vibhuti Thakur took this plea only during defence
evidence and while recording the statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C, which is after thought.
57. Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 has argued that the D-28
(Ex.PW22/K letter regarding return of DD to Vimala
Enterprises) the presence of forwarding letter and
acknowledgments and as such prosecution evidence is false
that forwarding letter and acknowledgments are absent and is
completely misdirected and therefore, the plea of payment of
EMD without forwarding letter in the complaint is false and
fabricated. It is further submitted that no firm M/s Sudan
Carpets has been returned with the EMD indicates non
application of mind and as such foundation of prosecution
evidence is completely non existence. It is further submitted
that prosecution evidence suggests loss of Rs. 42.7 lacs
without any basis or supportive documents and as the relevant
documents were obtained from the concerned department on
09.11.2012 whereas complaint is filed on 26.09.2012 and as
such the calculation of loss has no basis. It is further
submitted that the FIR is lodged on 16.01.2013 wherein the
loss amount is mentioned as 53 lacs. It is further submitted
that due to absence of technical person prior estimation was
not done that is attributable to administrative authority who
has chosen to form the tender committee on their own and
accused no. 1 has no role to play in this. It is further submitted
that seven works experience was included in the NIT of PAO
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 42 of 66.
(IRLA) as per the direction of the CCA and as such this is not
attributable to the tender committee. It is further submitted
that the experience is a paramount criteria for the contract, the
seven works experience was included in the NIT adopting the
earlier NIT of Principal Account Office of MIB as per the
written direction of the CCA (HOD). It is further submitted
that despite being the opinion regarding the bogus inspection,
no action has been initiated against the quality control
committee. It is further submitted that the tender committee
has only recommended the name of the lowest bidder and the
tender committee on its own did not award any contract and
contract was awarded after having the administrative approval
of the CCA (HOD) and as such acceptance of the
recommendation is the exclusive duty of administration. It is
further submitted that tendering process was initiated for the
second time as the same was already rejected on account of
single bidder.
It is further submitted that accused no. 1 has initiated
the recovery of income tax of Rs. 24,514/- from the contractor
as a part of TDS as Senior Accounts Officer (Administration)
which indicates his role is biased to the contractor. It is further
submitted that no incriminating material was found from the
residence of accused no 1 in the search dated 18.10.2013. It is
also argued by Ld. Counsel for A-1 that preliminary inquiry
has been conducted by a person who was on probation which
is against the crime manual of CBI/law. It is also submitted by
Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 there is no allegation of
gratification to the accused persons and no amount was ever
transferred to their account and no amount was recovered
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 43 of 66.
during search and seizure. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for
accused that NIT was duly sent to the DAVP for publication
which is a pre condition for every Government tender that it is
to be published in the publication of DAVP. It is submitted
that the first tender process was dropped due to the non
application of the bidders in the first tender and the second
tender was floated to get the work done as the office of CCA
was in a shabby condition and it was not in a position to be
utilize for office, which required to be repaired at the earliest.
It is also submitted that no departmental action or any inquiry
has been conducted against any of the public servant by their
department and CBI has registered the case on source
information without any basis. Ld. Counsel for accused
persons prayed for acquittal of the accused persons from the
charges framed against them. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel
for accused no. 1 that D-48 (Ex.PW8/A) is the rate list which
is not certified and is having no reference regarding the
certification of material whether it is ISO/ISI standard material
as deposed by PW 8 Pratap Singh.
It is also submitted by ld. Counsel for accused that PW
14 in his cross examination dated 15.03.2022 wherein he has
categorically deposed that he has no knowledge of the bill no.
66 of June, 2008. It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for
accused that there is no case of Disproportionate of Assets
against the accused persons or no such case has been
registered against any of the accused. It is also submitted by
ld. Counsel for accused that no action against the CCA has
been taken by the ministry. It is also submitted by ld. Counsel
for accused that complaint was filed in September, 2012 and
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 44 of 66.
the relevant documents were received by the inquiry officer in
November, 2012 and he calculated the amount on imaginary
calculation. It is also not clear from the record that what is the
difference of amount of loss whether it is Rs. 43.7 lacs or Rs.
53 lacs. In his arguments it is submitted by ld. Counsel for
accused that in the tender file at page no. 160 and 161, the
letter was forwarded to 9 agencies including DAVP. It is
submitted by ld. Counsel for the accused that awarding of
tender was not within the competence of A-1 Naresh Gupta
and there was no Chairman of the Managing Committee and
all were working under the directions of CCA.
58. Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2, 3 and 4 argued that
accused persons had no criminal conspiracy and were acting
on the written directions of their senior as they all are
governed by the CCS (Conduct) Rules. It is further argued by
Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2, 3 and 4 that the tender file was
never in the custody of accused no. 2, 3 and 4 at any point of
time and before 16.06.2008, no written administrative order on
record for the formation of committee between N. K. Gupta
and Vilas Godeswar. It is further submitted that the proposal
for committee was raised by N. K. Gupta on 16.06.2008
directly to CCA by bypassing official hierarchy and also the
office of CCA as file was directly put to CCA without any
movement of file. It is further submitted that the decision of
PAO’s and Sr. A.O’s was also mentioned by N. K. Gupta and
no technical person was involved even in the proposal. It is
further submitted the the CCA saw the file on 18.06.2008 and
gave the name of the members of the committee in his own
writing without their knowledge and consent and he also called
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 45 of 66.
them and asked them to sign the same in front of him and this
fact is also proved from the statement of the IO and other
witnesses. It is further submitted that directions were given to
N. K. Gupta by CCA to contact Sr. A.O and obtain NIT/NIQ
vide written direction dated 01.07.2008 and vide order dated
03.07.2008 N. K. Gupta himself contacted Sr. A.O collected
NIQ and modified it. It is further submitted that accused no.
2, 3 and 4 were not even asked about the same and it can be
proved by the noting sheet bearing no reference or signature of
the accused no. 2, 3 and 4 and even the statement of IO has
proved the said version. It is further submitted that accused
no. 2, 3 and 4 have no role in the entire payment procedure and
after the 1st phase of the work i.e 29.08.2008, accused no. 2, 3
and 4 were not involved in the 2 nd phase of work which was
awarded on 12.01.2009. It is further submitted that none of
the member of the committee was being asked anything in the
2nd phase of the work except the Chairman i.e N. K. Gupta,
thereafter, the entire work was being look after by Chairman
and CCA.
It is further submitted that vide order dated 14.01.2009
Chairman proposed the name of quality control officials in his
own writing, however, CCA also introduce the name of M. D.
Gupta in his writing. It is further submitted that M. D. Gupta
never signed the certificate of quality control except the
certificate of completion of work. It is further submitted that
accused N. K. Gupta was made the Chairman on 24.07.2008
by the members of the committee and the notice inviting
tender proves that accused no. 2, 3 and 4 has no connivance
with any person nor there was any conspiracy by them at any
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 46 of 66.
point of time. It is also argued by Ld. Counsel for accused
persons that the CCA was a very strict HOD who always keep
threatening the subordinates to get them suspended on petty
issues and there was so much pressure from CCA that even
PW 10 Dharm Singh Dahiya in his voluntarily statement
during cross examination deposed that he suffered a heart
attack due to the pressure from the CCA and the accused
persons are working under the threatening atmosphere. It is
also submitted that whenever any subordinate official does not
obey the direction of CCA, he was issued show cause notice
and got suspended.
Discussion on evidence and submissions made by the counsels
for the prosecution and the accused persons.
59. I have heard Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Ld. Counsels for
accused persons and gone through the record carefully.
60. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, the
principle allegations in the present case are that the tender
committee was constituted without a single technical person.
The second allegation is that accused no. 5 Vilas Rao
Ghodeshwar, CCA was competent to award tender upto Rs. 10
lacs and above the said amount, approval of AS & FA was
required. No such approval was taken. Third allegation is that
the material used was found to be of sub-standard and payment
was made at exorbitant rate as per rates stipulated in DSR
2007. It is alleged that during the investigation, the material
was inspected by Sh. Partap Singh, AE (Civil), CPWD,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi who found the same as sub-
standard and calculated a loss of Rs. 53,96,945.91 to the
Government Exchequer. The other allegations are regarding
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 47 of 66.
non-existence of the firm, who had participated in the tender
and the EMD was returned without verification and the same
got deposited by A-6 Vibhuti Thakur in his account.
61. The investigating officer had recorded the statement of
Sh. Raman Kumar Shukla, Sub-Inspector who had conducted
the preliminary enquiry. In his testimony, PW9 Sh. Raman
Kumar Shukla stated that work order was issued to firm of A-6
Vibhuti Thakur, namely, M/s Sunsilk Carpets & Furnishers
was on exorbitant rates and was in violation of CPWD rates.
He further stated that on analogous rates quoted by the firm,
total loss of Rs.42.7 lacs was caused to Government
Exchequer. He had filed the complaint on the basis of which
FIR was registered. He had seized bank documents from Sr.
Manager, Canara Bank showing the payment and the file
containing the tender and bills.
62. Apart from Sh. Raman Kumar Shukla, other witnesses
were also examined to prove the case of prosecution.
63. PW10 Sh. D. S. Dahiya, who was LDC in the office of
Accountant Central Revenue, AGCR Building stated that
sealed quotations were handed over to him for safe custody
and he returned the same on the next day to the Chairman of
the Committee. Approval of the rate was communicated to
contractor; renovation work was handed over and was
completed. After obtaining the sanction from CCA, bill was
submitted to PAO, Admin. Payment was released under the
signatures of witness (Sh. D. S. Dahiya). Bill was passed after
obtaining certificate from Committee regarding use of quality
material up to the mark as per the specification. The work was
completed within stipulated time. Material used was got
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 48 of 66.
approved by from the committee. Work station was prepared
as per the specification and waste material was cleared by the
agency.
64. PW 1 Sh. Dayanand, PW2 Sh. Gyanender Kumar, PW
3 Sh. Premnath Jha, PW 4 Sh. Narender Kumar, PW 5 Sh.
Rajpal Singh are from Postal Department who stated with
respect to addresses of bidder firms. PW20 Sh. Inder Singh
Bisht stated about his relation with the accused A-6 Vibhuti
Thakur and the firm M/s Kamal Enterprises.
65. PW11 Sh. R. C. Mishra, Additional Secretary &
Financial Advisor stated that Chief Controller of Accounts can
award works upto Rs.10 lacs and approval of AS and FA is
required, if the work is above Rs.10 lacs. On seeing the file of
renovation, he stated that work in the case was awarded and
was approved by A-5 Vilas Rao Ghodeswar and payment was
released. Approval was to be obtained from competent
authority, which was not taken.
66. There is no statement of any witness on record nor any
inspection report made by Sh. Partap Singh, AE who had
allegedly said the work to be of sub-standard quality and that
payment was made at exorbitant rates. Admittedly, the work
was not carried out by CPWD. There is also no evidence of
any witness recorded whether member of tender committee
required to join the technical person for the purpose of
renovation work.
67. From the perusal of file, it transpired that tender was
published on the website of Ministry of I&B two times. The
first time, there was only one bidder and, therefore, the same
was re-published. Further, it is also the case of the prosecution
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 49 of 66.
itself that work was got checked from the quality control
committee consisting of Sh. R. P. Sharma, Sr. AO, Smt. Sunita
Sharma, AO and Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. AO, all of PAO was
constituted by A-5 Vilas Rao Ghodeswar. There is no evidence
or document on record which shows that the quality control
committee is required to join technical person for the same.
The committee certified that the material used by the agency
was got approved by the committee and also regarding quality
of work. Even the PW8 Pratap Singh has failed to provide the
updated rate list for the material used in renovation work for
the relevant period.
68. From the perusal of the tender file vide Ex.PW10/A
(colly.), it was also transpired that note was put up by A-1 N.
K. Gupta for renovation work and suggestion was given for
making 3 Members committee for consideration of the same.
A-5 Vilas Rao Ghodehswar had made four Members
Committee instead of three members and, thereafter, on the
perusal of file it transpired that committee took decision and
details of the renovation requirements were prepared and
tender was published and after due consideration tender was
awarded. A-5 Vilas Rao Ghodeswar approved the
recommendation of the tender committee by accepting the
tender.
69. Surprisingly, IO has neither got any quality control
check from any independent agency nor checked the prevalent
market rates for the purpose of comparison. No evidence has
been brought on record to this aspect. It is also worthwhile to
mention that prosecution has examined 27 witnesses.
Testimonies of witnesses which have been recorded which do
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 50 of 66.
not in any manner show any incriminating material on record
regarding public servants.
70. Before coming to the final conclusion, it is necessary to
go through the relevant provisions of the offence of conspiracy
which is defined under 120 A IPC which read as under :
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 offence of conspiracy is punishable under
Section 120 B IPC. Section 120 B IPC reads as under :
120 B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy. — (1)
Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to
commit an offence punishable with death,
2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment
for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no
express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in
the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy
other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term
not exceeding six months, or with fine or with
both.
72. It may also be noted that mere agreement to commit a
conspiracy is a punishable offence. So essentially in case of
criminal conspiracy, the Court has to infer certain facts and
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 51 of 66.
circumstances to arrive at its conclusion of existence of
conspiracy and the involvement of the persons so conspiring
from their act and attending circumstances. So, keeping these
fundamental and governing principles of law relating to
conspiracy in mind, it is necessary to examine the case of each
accused qua his involvement, if any, in the conspiracy and other
offences in terms of the charges so framed against them.
73. To arrive at a conclusion that there was conspiracy
between the contractor and public servants, there has to be some
bedrock evidence which may be of quality from which inference
can be drawn about meeting of minds. But, the entire record does
not show any iota of evidence by which one can come to
conclusion of any conspiracy hatched or entered into between A-
1 to A-4 with contractor. Further, the fact that all the tenders
were submitted by one person, which was later on found by CBI
would not come to the knowledge of the tender committee
members in any manner as the addresses and names itself show
that they were of different identities. Had there been any
conspiracy, the tender would not have been published on the
website and that too on two occasions. The quality was checked
by the quality control committee and found to be in order and,
thereafter, amount was released. There is not even an iota of
evidence that rates quoted by the bidder was not as per the
prevalent market rate or exorbitant in any manner. The only
allegation which is left is that A-5 Vilas Rao Ghodeswar was not
competent to approve the tender beyond Rs.10 lacs. The fact
remains that the amount was subsequently released and approved
by providing budget. for the same amounts to ratification of the
act and may be an irregularity for which departmental action can
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 52 of 66.
be taken. It does not amount to criminal misconduct within the
meaning of Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.
74. Even the prosecution has failed to show that there was
prior meeting of minds with guilty intention to hatch the
conspiracy for the purpose of cheating and for the purpose of
offence of corruption under the PC Act for which the charges
have been framed against the public servants. There may be a
meeting of minds with the positive thought to get the office
renovated as it was not in a good working condition which is to
be used as office but there was no criminality on the part of
public servants. Moreover, all these public servants were
working under the supervision and control of CCA who was the
head of the department and CCA was having a rude behavior
against the subordinates and was creating a threatening
atmosphere to get them suspended on petty issues. There may be
a irregularity on the part of public servants while performing
their duties but it can not be termed as they were having any
criminal conspiracy with guilty intention to cheat the department
or to gain something wrongfully or to favour some other person.
75. Even there are no allegation of any gratification and no
departmental action has been taken by the department against any
of the public servants and there is no abuse of official position by
A-1 to A-4 as defined under 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of PC
Act, 1988 which read as under :
“13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.- (1) A
public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct,-
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) xxx xxx xxx
(d) if he,-
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 53 of 66.
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for
any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for
himself or for any other person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for
any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage
without any public interest; or”
76. In the judgment titled as C. Surendranath and Ors. Vs.
State of Kerala and Ors. cited as MANU/KE/0112/2024, the
Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held as under :
12. A reading of Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act would
reveal that a public servant can be prosecuted only if he
has abused his position as a public servant and obtained
for himself or any other person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage. The intention of the legislation is not
to punish a public servant for erroneous decision, but to
punish for corruption. To fall within the four corners of
sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) of sub-section
(1) of Section 13 of the PC Act, the decision/conduct of
the public servant must be dishonest, amounting to
corruption.
13 . To attract the term ‘abuse’ as contained in Section
13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the prosecution has to establish
that the official concerned used his position for something
it is not intended. The sum and substance of the discussion
is that dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under
Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
14. The prosecution allegations, at the most, point to
certain irregularities committed in the tender process. The
prosecution also alleges conspiracy among the petitioners
and the other accused.
15. It is trite that conspiracy need not be yet necessarily
proved by direct evidence. It is also capable of being
proved by circumstances pointing out the existence of a
conspiracy to commit an unlawful act.
16. In Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of
Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 682) a three-Judge Bench of
the Apex Court held that the offence of conspiracy can be
established either by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence and the section will come into play only when
the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to
believe that two or more persons have conspired to
commit an offence or an actionable wrong, that is to say,
there should be prima facie evidence that a person was a
party to that conspiracy.
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 54 of 66.
17. In State of M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai
[MANU/SC/1425/2009 : (2009) 8 SCC 617], the Apex
Court has held as follows:-
“Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It
is punishable separately. Prosecution, therefore,
for the purpose of bringing the charge of criminal
conspiracy read with the aforementioned
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act
was required to establish the offence by applying
the same legal principles which are otherwise
applicable for the purpose of bringing a criminal
misconduct on the part of an accused.”
18. In Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat
(MANU/SC/0809/2022 : 2022:INSC:653 : AIR 2022 SC
3050), the Apex Court held that every act of commission
and omission would not result in hatching criminal
conspiracy unless the acts have been done deliberately and
there is meeting of minds of all concerned.
19. Dishonest intention is sine qua non to attract the
offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.
Mere conduct and action of the accused contrary to rules
and departmental norms would not amount to criminal
misconduct by a public servant.
20. A fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
with regard to the liability of an accused is the element of
mens rea. On the principles of actus reus and mens rea, the
learned author Sri. Glanville Williams in the ‘Textbook of
Criminal Law’ [Third Edition, Dennis J. Baker, page 95]
comments thus:
“The mere commission of a criminal act (or
bringing about the state of affairs that the law
provides against) is not enough to constitute a
crime, at any rate in the case of the more serious
crimes. These generally require, in addition,
some element of wrongful intent or other fault.
Increasing insistence upon this fault element
was the mark of advancing civilization.”
21. On the principles of Criminal Liability, the learned
author Sri. K.D. Gaur in his book Criminal Law [Lexis
Nexis, Butterworths, page 37] explains thus:
“Criminal guilt would attach to a man for
violations of criminal law. However, the rule
is not absolute and is subject to limitations
indicated in the Latin maxim, actus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea. It signifies that there
can be no crime without a guilty mind. To
make a person criminally accountable, it must
be proved that an act, which is forbidden by
law, has been caused by his conduct, and that
the conduct was accompanied by a legallyCC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 55 of 66.
blameworthy attitude of mind. Thus, there are
two components of every crime, a physical
element and a mental element, usually called
actus reus and mens rea respectively.”
22. Dishonest intention is the crux of the offence under
Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The question of whether
violation of the rules and departmental norms would
amount to the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act was considered by the Apex Court in C.K. Jaffer
Sharief v. State [MANU/SC/0960/2012 : 2013 (1) SCC
205]. The Apex Court
held thus:
“If in the process, the rules or norms applicable
were violated or the decision taken shows an
extravagant display of redundance it is the
conduct and action of the appellant which may
have been improper or contrary to
departmental norms. But to say that the same
was actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain
an undue pecuniary advantage will not be
correct. That dishonest intention is the gist of
the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is implicit
in the words used i.e corrupt or illegal means
and abuse of position as a public servant.”
23. In M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala
(MANU/SC/0164/1962 : AIR 1963 SC 1116), while
dealing with Section 5 of the 1947 Act, the Apex Court
held that dishonest intention is the gist of the offence.
24. In the present case, the prosecution records reveal only
a violation of the rules and departmental norms or
procedural norms for the tender process. The prosecution
failed to produce any material to show that the petitioners,
with dishonest intention, committed any acts.
77. The offence under section 420 IPC already has in its
sweep the meaning of ‘cheating’ as defined u/s 415 IPC. For
ready reference, Section 415 IPC defines cheating as under:
“S.415. Cheating.–Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived
to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that
any person shall retain any property, or intentionally
induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to
cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
Explanation.– A dishonest concealment of facts
is a deception within the meaning of this section.
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 56 of 66.
78. Section 420 IPC read as under :
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.– Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part
of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or
sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
79. Reliance is placed on the judgment titled as Ajay Mitra
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2003 SC 1069 wherein it
has been held by the Hob’ble Apex Court as under :
“Even if the allegation made in the complaint are accepted
to be true and correct, the appellants can not be said to have
committed any offence of cheating. Since the appellants
were not in picture at all the time when the complainant
alleges to have spent money in improving the bottling
plant, neither any guilty intention can be attributed to them
nor there can possibly be any intention on their part to
deceive complainant”.
80. As the prosecution has failed to bring on record that
rates approved by tender committee was not as per the
prevalent market rate, there is not even an iota of evidence to
show that they have by corrupt or illegal means obtained for
themselves or for any other person any valuable or pecuniary
advantage. Therefore, neither any conspiracy between public
servants and bidder (A- 6 Vibhuti Thakur) nor any criminal
misconduct is found on the part of public servants.
81. In the present case the investigating officer Insp. H.
Suresh Singh has been examined at length as PW 22. In his
cross examination certain suggestions were given to the
witness where he categorically admits the suggestion of Ld.
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 57 of 66.
Counsel for A-1. in the cross examination dated 20.01.2023,
the witness deposed as under :
“It is correct that the tender committee was constituted
by accused Vilas Rao Godheswar (since died). It is further
correct that accused N.K. Gupta did not become member of
the tender committee by his choice”
In the cross examination, it was also put to the witness
whether there was reference of any ISO ISI material in
Ex.PW8/A and the witness answered to this question as under :
“This can be explained by Pratap Singh PW8, A.E
CPWD”.
In the cross examination witness also answered to the
question as under :
“That I had requisitioned the record w.e.f 01.01.2006 to
31.12.2007 and from 01.01.2008 to 30.06.2008 from the
AS&FA, M/o I&B, New Delhi vide letter dated 27.05.2014
(which is part of Ex.PW21/C (colly) at page no. 657 of judicial
file and reply is a matter of record”
Witness also deposed as under :
“It is correct that I did not received the noting for the
relevant period from the office of AS&FA”.
The witness further admits as under :
“It is correct that the suggestions made on 25.06.2008
reflecting on note sheet page no. 2 of tender file Ex.PW10/A
(colly.) are not signed by any members of the tender
committee”.
The witness also deposed when the attention of the
witness was drawn to D-21 which has been exhibited in the
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 58 of 66.
testimony of PW10vide Ex.PW10/A (colly. Note sheet page 9)
witness deposed as under :
“It is correct I did not find any irregularities in the
proceedings done by the tender committee as mentioned on
page 9N. He also admits that the tender was awarded to M/s
Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers only after the approval of
CCA. The witness in his cross examination on seeing the
preliminary inquiry report has deposed that in the preliminary
inquiry what has been opined is of exorbitant rate and not of
substandard material.
It is also admitted by the witness in the cross
examination when a suggestion has been put to him by the ld.
Counsel for the accused that
“It is correct that during the investigation, accused R.K.
Bhambi, Amit Dabass and M.D. Gupta stated that they were
following the written orders of their superior officials”.
It is also admitted by the witness as under :
“It is correct that nothing incriminating material qua
this case was found during the searches of house/locker. I did
not find any undisclosed amount or elsewhere in the name or
possession of the three accused”.
In his cross examination witness also deposed as
under :
“It is correct that as per the noting on page no. 32 N, the
file was marked by ACA to CA but CCA on his own cut that
marking and marked to file to himself and signed it on
08.06.2009”.
82. The accused have also examined witnesses in their
defence and one of the witness namely A. K. Nambiar as
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 59 of 66.
D1W2. In his examination in chief, he has deposed that he
was working as Deputy Secretary in 2007 and he was posted in
the finance wing under AS&FA to whom the file was to be
processed as alleged in the prosecution complaint but the same
was not allegedly processed by CCA to the higher ups. The
witness further deposed that he was to processed all the files
coming from the administrative wings of the Ministry of I&B
to the AS&FA. During the examination in chief, the attention
of the witness is drawn to D-21 to D-39 vide Ex.PW10/A
(colly.). On seeing the same the witness states that this file
came in his official capacity and he had returned the said file
with his noting on page no. 22 N with his remarks that the file
for the purposes of seeking of budgetary provision for excess
amount of Rs. 1,60,296 need not to come to AS&FA and
should be dealt with by the CCA who was the administrative
head of IRLA. The witness also identified his noting on the
file at point D-1 to D-1.
83. All these admissions on the part of IO and other
witnesses made it crystal clear that there was no abuse of
official capacity by any of the accused and they were working
under the commands of their superior that is A-5 Vilas Rao
Godeshwar who already died and the proceedings have been
abated against him. The prosecution has failed to establish on
record any criminal conspiracy to commit the offence under
Section 120 B r/w Section 420, 471 IPC and 13 (1) (d) r/w
Section 13 (2) of PC Act by all the accused.
84. However, as regards the contractor, the charges have
been framed against him for the offences under Section 120 B
r/w Section 420, 471 IPC and 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 60 of 66.
PC Act for the offence of conspiracy along with the public
servants. The separate charge for the substantive offences of
IPC i.e 420 and 471 is also been framed against the accused A-
6.
85. It has been brought on record that the addresses
mentioned by other bidders were found to be either non-
existent or of that of A-6 Vibhuti Thakur. The FSL report has
confirmed that the draft form of EMD of M/s Vidhi Carpets
and Vimala Enterprises, the bidders other than M/s Sunsilk
Carpets and Furnishers were prepared by A-6 Vibhuti Thakur
in his handwriting. Further, drafts were got cancelled and
deposited by A-6 Vibhuti Thakur in his own account. There
are allegations of cheating and forgery against A-6 Vibhuti
Thakur.
86. It is important to note that the EMD draft of Vidhi
Carpets (Ex.PW12/E-2) (D-50) was prepared by accused
Vibhuti Thakur proprietor M/s Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers
from his bank account. In the same manner the EMD draft of
Vimala Carpets was prepared by accused Vibhuti Thakur
proprietor M/s Sunsil Carpets and Furnishers from his SBI
account no. 10454632508. The relevant debit entry is
reflected in statement of account Ex.PW22/C (colly.). It is
established on record by the prosecution that there is positive
opinion of CFSL on the draft forms of EMD (Ex.PW12/E-2 D-
15) and (Ex.PW12/E-4 D-19) that the draft forms bears the
writing of accused Vibhuti Thakur. Ex.PW12/E-3 (D-18) draft
form for draft Ex.PW12/E-4 (D-19) has the writing of Vibhuti
Thakur at Q5 and Q5A. CFSL Expert vide his expert report
Ex.PW12/C-1 (part of D-54) gives his positive opinion that the
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 61 of 66.
Q5 and Q5A when compared with the specimen writing of
accused Vibhuti Thakur S1 to S64, S1A to S9A, S19A to S28,
S41A to S50A, S70A to S79A, S84A, S85A and S111A to
S115A, S152A to S161A are of accused Vibhuti Thakur.
87. In the same manner the draft form Ex.PW12/E-1 (D-9)
of draft Ex.PW12/E-2 (D-5) is also in the handwriting of
accused Vibhuti Thakur. CFSL Expert vide his expert report
Ex.PW12/C-1 (part of D-54) gives his positive opinion that the
Q3 and Q3A (D-9), Q1A (D-8) when compared with the
specimen writing of accused Vibhuti Thakur S1 to S64, S1A to
S9A, S19A to S28, S41A to S50A, S70A to S79A, S84A,
S85A and S111A to S115A, S152A to S161A (D-53
Ex.PW12/D (colly.) and Ex.PW15/A (colly.) are of accused
Vibhuti Thakur.
88. It is pertinent to mention here that cancelled DD of
Canara Bank bearing No. 468923 dated 17.07.2008
Ex.PW12/E-2 was later on deposited by accused Vibhuti
Thakur in his bank and the amount of this DD was got credited
in his firms account no. 026201012598 i.e Sunsilk Carpets and
Furnishers account. Q-4 questioned handwriting of Vibhuti
Thakur on Ex.PW12/E-2 (D-50) (cancelled DD) when
compared with the above said specimen handwriting given in
Ex.PW12/D (colly.)/Ex.PW15/A (colly.) (part of D-53) gives
positive opinion regarding the writing of Vibhuti Thakur. This
was the same draft Ex.PW12/E-2 (D-50) which was submitted
by dummy firm i.e M/s Vimala Enterprises along with the
tender documents Ex.PW22/F (D-24). The relevant debit
entry for issuance of draft (dated 22.07.2008) and credit entry
(dated 02.08.2008) for cancellation of draft is reflected in
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 62 of 66.
Ex.PW22/C (colly.). The draft was collected from the office
of P&Account office (IRLA) by putting bogus signature on the
letter dated 31.07.2008 Ex.PW22/K (D-28).
89. It is also established on record that in the same manner
cancelled DD of SBI bearing No. 440707 dated 22.07.2008
Ex.PW12/E-4 was later on deposited by accused Vibhuti
Thakur in his bank and the amount of this DD was got credited
in his firms account no. 10454632508 i.e Sunsilk Carpets and
Furnishers account. Q-6 and Q-6A questioned handwriting of
Vibhuti Thakur on Ex.PW12/E-2 (D-50) when compared with
the above said specimen handwriting given in Ex.PW12/D
(colly.)/Ex.PW15/A (colly.) (part of D-53) given positive
opinion regarding the writing of accused Vibhuti Thakur. This
was the same draft Ex.PW12/E-4 (D-19) which was submitted
by dummy firm i.e M/s Vidhi Carpets along with the tender
documents Ex.PW22/G (colly.) (D-25). The relevant debit
entry for issuance of draft (dated 22.07.2008) and credit entry
(dated 02.08.2008) for cancellation of draft is reflected in
Ex.PW22/C (colly.) (D-20) in the statement of account bearing
no. 10454632508 of M/s Sunsilk Carpet & Furnishers. The
draft was collected from the office of P&Account office
(IRLA) by putting bogus signature on the letter dated
31.07.2008 Ex.PW22/L (D-29). D6W2 Sh. Murli Dhar
Thakur who was examined as defence witness by accused
Vibhuti Thakur who was not able to identify the signature on
Ex.PW22/L and Ex.PW22/Z-4. During the investigation
search were also conducted at the residence of Vibhuti Thakur
at third floor, Munirka Village, Prateek Market, New Delhi
and in this search the incriminating document like seal in the
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 63 of 66.
name of Vimala Enterprises, seal in the name of Vidhi Carpets
proprietor, letter heads of Vidhi Carpets Ex.PW7/B (colly.)
(D-47), Vimala Enterprises, Sudan Carpets and other blank
letter heads of different firms were recovered. The
incriminating documents/articles were duly recorded in the
presence of independent witness PW7 Harish Mukhtar in
search list Ex.PW7/A (D-47). The recovery of blank letter
head of dummy firms Vidhi Carpets, Vimala Enterprises,
Sudan Carpets who were made to participate in the tender
process, proves that the Vibhuti Thakur was having connection
with these dummy firms, has been proved by the PW7 vide D-
47 Ex.PW7/A, the search list.
90. The defence witness who has been examined by the A-
6 in his defence also admits that the amounts for DD was paid
by the accused no. 6 from his account. It is also admitted by
the defence witnesses that the amount was DD was returned by
them to accused no. 6 and the same was got transferred in his
account of A-6. It is also admitted by the accused in statement
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he got the DD
prepared from the concerned bank and deposit the returned
DDs in his account. The argument of Ld. Counsel for accused
no. 6 is having no force and can not be believed as in the
competitive bidding it is not expected that a bidder is
providing financial assistance to his competitors. The accused
has gained wrongfully by adopting fraudulent means and get
the tender awarded in his favour and thereby he has
committing the offence of cheating as defined under Section
415 IPC and punishable under Section 420 IPC. Though, there
is no evidence of using forged documents as the documents
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 64 of 66.
were prepared by the accused himself which can not be termed
as forgery on the part of the accused. It is also necessary to
mention here that there is no charge framed against the A-7
M/s Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers under proprietorship of A-
6. Therefore, no such finding can be given qua the A-7.
Conclusion
91. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion and
taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances and the
evidence led by the prosecution, I am of the considered
opinion that the prosecution have failed to prove on record that
the accused persons have committed any offence of criminal
conspiracy punishable under Section 120 B IPC r/w Section
420, 471 of IPC and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.
The prosecution has also failed to prove on record that the
accused public servants have committed offence punishable
under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.
Accordingly, A-1 N. K. Gupta, A-2 Mata Deen Gupta, A-3 R.
K. Bhambi and A-4 Amit Dabas are acquitted from all the
charges framed against them.
92. So far as the role of accused no. 6 Vibhuti Thakur is
concerned, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that he has committed the offence of cheating
punishable under Section 420 IPC. However, there is no
evidence has come on record that the accused has used the
forged documents or he was a part of any criminal conspiracy
with the public servants to commit the offence of 120 B IPC
r/w Section 420, 471 of IPC and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d)
of PC Act. Accordingly, accused no. 6 Vibhuti Thakur is
convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Accused No.
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 65 of 66.
6 is acquitted of the charges under Section 120 B IPC r/w
Section 420, 471 of IPC and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of
PC Act and 471 IPC. Let he be heard on the quantum of
sentence.
93. Accused persons are directed to furnish bonds under
Section 437-A Cr.P.C. Ahlmad is directed to page and book-
mark the file forthwith so as to enable digitization of the entire
Digitally
record. File be consigned to record room. signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
Announced in the open Court KUMAR Date:
2024.12.24
today i.e December 21, 2024.
15:00:16
+0530(MUKESH KUMAR)
SPECIAL JUDGE CBI-05 (PC Act)
RADC, NEW DELHI.
CC No. 249/2019, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0004, CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 66 of 66.