Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Uttam Chand Surena Etc. (Dhruv Sangam … on 28 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR SPECIAL
JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-16,ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS)
U/S 120-B r/w 420,468,471,511 of IPC &
Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) & Sec.15 of PC Act 1988
RC No. SIB 2006 E0001 EOU-V/CBI/Delhi
CBI No. 89/2019
CNR No. DLCT11-000372-2019
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus.
1. Uttam Chand Surana (A-1)
(Proceedings abated vide order dated 19.07.2018)
2. Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A-2)
S/o Late Jagdish Prasad, R/o A-603 & 703,
Ashoka Apartments, Plot No. 35/2, Sector-9,
Rohini, Delhi.
(presently in Judicial custody in another case)
3. Satyaveer Singh Malik (A-3)
S/o Sh. Karan Singh, R/o 83/22, Gandhi Nagar,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
4. Prahlad Kumar Thirwani (A-4)
S/o Late Moti Ram Thirwani, R/o 348E, Pocket-
II, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-92.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 1 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
5. Vipin Kumar Jain (A-5)
S/o Late R.K. Jain,
R/o C-5, Gali No. 11, Shashi Garden, Mayur
Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-91.
6. Satya Prakash Saxena ( A-6)
(Proceedings abated vide order dated 26.04.2023)
7. Ashwani Sharma (A-7)
S/o Late R.K. Sharma,
R/o 291/A, Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II,
Delhi-91.
8. Ashutosh Pant (A-8)
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand Pant,
R/o B-160, Sadatpur Colony, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-94.
9. Naveen Kaushik (A-9)
S/o Late Mahendra Sharma,
R/o I-2/38, 2nd Floor, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi.
10. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (A-10)
S/o Late Ganpat Sahai Srivastava,
R/o G-12, HUDCO Place, Andrewsganj, New
Delhi.
11. Shakuntala Joshi (A-11)
W/o Late B.K. Joshi, R/o R-51, Suraj Nagar,
Azadpur, Delhi-53.
Date of Institution : 19.12.2006
Date of Arguments: 16.04.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.04.2025
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 2 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
JUDGMENT:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to
the order dated 02.08.2005 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 10066/2004, a Preliminary
Enquiry bearing No. SIB 2005E0001 was
registered against unknown office bearers of
Cooperative Group Housing Societies
including Dhruv Sangam CGHS (hereinafter
referred to as “The said Society”) as well as
unknown officials of Registrar of Cooperative
Societies (RCS) Delhi and others.
2. As a result of the aforesaid Preliminary
Enquiry, present RC SI82006 E0001 was
registered on 3.1.2006 in CBI/EOU.V Branch
against Uttam Chand Surana and Gokul Chand
Aggarwal. During the course of investigation,
complicity of Satyaveer Singh Mallik (A-3),
P.K Thirwani (A-4), Vipin Kumar Jain, (A-5),
S.P.Saxena (A-6), Ashwani Sharma (A-7),
Ashotosh Pant (A-8), Naveen Kaushik (A-9),
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 3 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (A-10) and
Shakuntala Joshi (A-11) was also surfaced.
3. The investigation has revealed that the said
society came in existence as a result of efforts
made by some of the employees of DCM Tent
Factoy, Ganesh Line, Kishan Ganj, New Delhi.
The first general body meeting of the said
society was held on 25.10.1983. The following
office bearers and members of managing
committee were elected unanimously:-
1. Tej Pal Sharma President
2. Bishan Swarup Gupta Vice President
3. Ramesh Chand Sharma Secretary
4. Atam Prakash Treasurer
5. Vishnu Raj Singh Member
6. Harish Chandra Member
7. Maan Singh Member
8. Hausla Prasad Singh Member
9. Shiv Sharan Singh Member
10.Badri Prasad Member
11.Chet Ram Member
4. The minutes of the meeting were drawn and it
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 4 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
was resolved that RCS, Delhi be requested to
register the society.
5. Accordingly, an application dated 18.11.1983
was moved to RCS, Delhi for registration of
the said society having registered office at
DCM Tent Factory, Ganesh Line, Kishanganj,
New Delhi-6. Necessary papers, required for
registration of the society, were submitted in
the office of RCS. The matter was processed in
the office of RCS, Delhi and the said society
was registered vide No. 1205(GH) on
30.12.1983.
6. The investigation has revealed that the founder
members of said society resolved to open an
account of the said society in Delhi State
Cooperative Bank Ltd Daryaganj, Delhi. An
SB A/c No.6056 was opened in Delhi state
Cooperative Bank, Daryaganj Branch, New
Delhi. It was resolved that two society officials
amongst Sh. Tej Pal Sharma, Bishan Swarup
Gupta, Ramesh Chand Sharma and Atam
Prakash would operate the account.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 5 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
7. During the course of investigation it was
revealed that after the closure of the DCM Tent
Factory Building, the workers of the factory
dispersed here and there in search of job and
vacated the quarters provided by the DCM
Factory. As such the said society could not run.
The members did not take interest in the
upcoming/revival of the society. All the
documents of the society were being kept by
Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Secretary.
8. As per the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Act
1972 and Cooperative Society Rules 1973, all
the registered Cooperative Societies are
required to fulfill certain statutory
requirements, viz; MC meetings, GBM,
Election, Audit etc and submit the same to the
RCS on regular basis as a proof of the
functioning of the society.
9. The investigation revealed that the said society
could not fulfill these requirements prompting
the RCS office to issue letters for holding the
election of the society. However, this failed to
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 6 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
evoke any response from the said society,
thereupon a notice u/s 63(2) of DCS Act.1972
dated 25.2.1992 was issued by RCS office. The
said notice returned back with the remarks of
the postman as “left”. Sh.Azad Singh, SI, RCS,
was then directed to conduct spot verification
of the society who after doing the needful
reported that no such society was found at the
given address at Kishanganj, Delhi. This
amongst other reasons prompted the issuance
of winding order dated 22.09.1992 by the RCS
office.
10. The investigation revealed that during this
period a large number of societies, who could
not fulfill statutory requirements, were ordered
to be wound-up by the RCS, Delhi. It also
came to light that Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
had passed order dated 10.5.1991 in CWP No.
2885/90 Kaveri CGHS Vs. Union of India to
the effect that the original date of registration
of the society with the RCS office was to be
considered for establishing the seniority of the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 7 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
society for allotment of land by DDA. In order
to obtain advantage of this ruling the building
mafia of Delhi started looking after such
societies who were registered during 1980 but
were subsequently declared defunct. As there
was a provisions under DCS Act for revival of
such societies.
11. The investigation has further revealed that in
the last quarters of 2000, accused Gokul Chand
Aggarwal (A-2) got documents relating to this
society from Ramesh Chand Sharma, the
founder Secretary of the society. A receipt in
this regard was given by Gokul Chand
Aggarwal (A-2) to Ramesh Chand Sharma in
his own handwriting at a much later date.
These documents were handed over to
S.P.Saxena (A-6) by Gokul Chand Aggarwal
(A-2). Sh. S.P.Saxena (A-6) thereafter asked
accused Ashwani Sharma (A-7) for completing
the documentation work. Accused Ashwani
Sharma was already doing the documentation
work relating to various societies controlled by
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 8 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
S.P.Saxena (A-6) viz, RPF CGHS Ltd &
Anjuman CGHS Ltd. As such accused
Ashwani Sharma had an expertise in the
documentation work of the society. During this
period, accused S.P.Saxena (A-6) also met
Uttam Chand Surana (A-1) through one Sh.
A.S.Rana, a builder at the residence of one Sh.
B.D.Arora, a prominent architect in his office
at Patel Nagar. Accused Uttam Chand Surana
showed keen interest in purchasing the said
society and finally it was agreed that the
society’s affairs would be managed by Uttam
Chand Surana (A-1).
12. It is alleged that after getting record of the said
society Ashwani Sharma (A-7) along witn
Ashutosh Pant (A-8) and Naveen Kaushik
(A-9) recorded false proceedings in the
proceeding register, falsely showing that these
entries were made prior to issue of wining up
order by the RCS. The GEQD has confirmed
that the minutes of the Managing Committee
meeting were forged by Naveen Kaushik (A-9)
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 9 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
while the signatures in respect of various
founder members, newly enrolled members
were forged by Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh
Pant and Naveen Kaushik.
13. It is alleged that while recording the Managing
Committee Meeting proceedings dated
13.11.1990, 22.12.1990 and 19.02.1992 etc.
accused Ashwani Sharma falsely mentioned
enrollment of 41 new members. In order to
insert new members, false resignation letters of
old members were also prepared or got
prepared by accused Ashwani Sharma and
placed on record. In order to regularize the
resignations of old members, false proceedings
were recorded in the Proceeding Register on
15.4.1989, 26.6.1989, 28.8.1989, 30.10.1989,
21.6.1990 and 13.7.1990 etc. The investigation
conducted on this aspect revealed that almost
none of the founder members had resigned
from the membership of the society. The
investigation also revealed that the signatures
of the members thus shown as resigned were in
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 10 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
fact forged/got forged by the accused Ashiwani
Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik.
The GEQD vide its opinion No.CX-304/2006
dated 7.8.2006 has confirmed that the
signatures of the promoter members were, in
fact, forged.
14. The investigation has further revealed that in
furtherance to the criminal conspiracy Uttam
Chand Surana got himself and his
relatives/acquaintance enrolled as member in
the said society by mentioning their date of
enrollment as prior to the winding of the
society. In the list of members Uttam Chand
Surana included the name of his daughter-in-
law Mrs. Sudha Surana who has been shown as
the member of this society since 1990.
Whereas, she married his ( Uttam Chand
Surana) son Abhishek only after 1996 and in
1990 she was a minor hence not eligible for
membership in the said society.
15. The investigation has also revealed that the
GBM of the society was allegedly shown to
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 11 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
have been held on 18.6.2000 in which one Sh.
Tejpal Sharma was appointed as Election
officer. It has falsely been shown in the
minutes of meeting by accused persons that out
of 150 members, 83 members attended this
meeting. And following office bearers were
purportedly elected:-. Uttam Chand Surana as
President, Sh Vinay Sethia as Vice President,
Sh Ajay Suri as Secretary and Ms. Tannu
Arora, Sh. P.T.Paul, Sh. Ramesh Chand
Sharma, Mrs. Raj Jain, as members.
16. It is alleged that Sh Tej Pal Sharma, during his
examination has denied to have participated in
the said GBM or signed the minutes of the
meetings. Most of the old and newly enrolled
members denied having attended such meeting.
The GEQD opinion also confirmed the fact that
the signatures of these members were forged.
The GEQD has confirmed that the signatures of
Sh. Sanjeev Sethia, Manas Panda, U.C Surana,
Ashish, Ashok Kumar Jain, Alok Lodha,
Bajrang Nahata, Abhishek Bansal, Ram Sunder
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 12 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Singh and Sulochana Surana have been forged
by Ashwani Sharma.
17. The investigation has also revealed that an
application dated 30.11.2000 signed by accused
Uttam Chand Surana, the alleged President of
the society, was moved for revival of the said
society in the RCS office. In the said
application Uttam Chand Surana dishonestly
and deliberately mentioned that the General
Body Meeting of the said society was held in
the month of June, 2000 and the members of
society were willing to make the society
functional.
18. It is alleged that the application for revival of
the said society was received in the office
RCS, Delhi on 30.11.2000. The same was
processed by accused Satyaveer Singh Malik,
Dealing Assistant who recorded his note dated
10.01.2001. Accused Satyaveer Singh Malik
while recording his note in the file mentioned
that the society was brought under liquidation
vide order dated 22.09.1992. But dishonestly
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 13 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
and deliberately did not mention the reasons for
passing the liquidation/winding up order. He
also did not recommend to appoint any
inspector to verify the records and address of
the society, which should have been done in the
normal course. Accused Satyaver Singh Malik
also recommended in the note to consider the
request of the society for revival and submitted
the file to Smt. Shakuntala Joshi, Assistant
Registrar, R.C.S Delhi.
19. It is further alleged that Smt. Shakuntala Joshi
Assistant Registrar, RCS, forwarded the file to
RCS for orders. As per normal procedure,
Satyaveer Singh Malik was supposed to go
through the submission of the society,
scrutinies the files and record his notings for
verification of address of the society and
genuineness of papers submitted by the society.
20. It is alleged that Smt. Shakuntala Joshi was
also supposed to exercise proper care before
forwarding the file to the RCS. Accused
R.K.Srivastava, the then RCS thereafter
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 14 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
recorded his note dated 10.1.2001 in the file
and asked for issuing notice to the society to
appear with original records on 19.01.2001.
Accordingly, a letter was issued to the
President/Secretary of the society at its
registered address i.e DCM Tent factory
building, Ganesh Line, Kishan Ganj, New
Delhi which was a non-existent address. This
letter however, reached the hands of accused
persons then holding dominion over the
society.
21. During the course of investigation it was
revealed that Sh. B.S.Arora, Advocate
appeared for the society on 19.01.2006 on
behalf of the society at the instance of accused
S.P.Saxena. Uttam Chand Surana and
Sh.B.S.Arora, Advocate appeared before the
RCS on 24.01.2001. In his notings dated
24.01.2001, R.K.Srivastava, the then RCS
mentioned about the submissions made on
behalf of the said society. On that day he also
passed the order for revival of the society. It is
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 15 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
pertinent to mention that no direction for
inspection of the records of the society u/s 54
of DCS Act, 1972 was found necessary to be
given by the Registrar. Sh. R.K.Srivastava,
RCS also mentioned in the order that:-
1. That the society will obtain and submit fresh
affidavits from all the members of the society.
2. That the society will obtain and furnish
necessary proof of the present residence of the
members.
3. That the President and Secretary of the
society will also file an affidavit stating that the
documents furnished by them are in order and
the enrolments made by the society were in
order and in accordance with the provisions of
DCS Act and Rules.
4. That all the documents will be submitted by
the society within next 30 days before A.R(W)
for verification and no extension of time will be
allowed.
5. The pending Audit shall be got conducted
within two months time.
6. That the elections to the Managing
Committee will be conducted by appointing a
departmental Election officer in due course of
time.
22. The investigation has also revealed that most
of the affidavits purportedly given by the newCBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 16 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
members have been forged by accused
Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen
Kaushik. In addition to that false audit reports
were prepared with the help of accused
P.K.Thirwani, Sr. Auditor. These documents
along with other related papers were submitted
through affidavit to the RCS. On receipt of
documents from the society, Satyaveer Singh
Malik was supposed to obtain the verification
report through some Inspector of RCS office.
He deliberately and dishonestly did not choose
to follow the same and on the other hand, he
himself recorded a detailed note in the file
without actual verification of the records. The
Bye laws of the society and other original
documents containing the details of the
promoter members including their signatures
were already available in the file of the said
society maintained by Satyaveer Singh Malik.
He did not scrutinize the records put before
him, on the other hand he dishonestly and
deliberately accepted the same as true without
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 17 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
factually verifying the documents. He was
having the knowledge that no inspection of
records u/s 54 of DCS Act, 1972 had been
ordered.
23. The investigation has also revealed that Smt.
Shakuntala Joshi dishonestly and deliberately
forwarded the list of 140 members of the this
revived society recommending allotment of
land to said society ( Dhruv Sangam CGHS) by
the DDA. She deliberately and dishonestly
ignored the fulfillment of the pre condition by
the society in the orders for revival.
24. It is further alleged that during investigation it
was also revealed that S.P.Saxena had
developed proximity with R.K.Srivastava, the
then RCS and accommodated him as well as
his sister-in-law, Smt. Vijaya Srivastava in a
society named Shiv Shankar CGHS. This
society was controlled by Sh. S.P.Saxena.
Accused R.K.Srivastava dishonestly and
deliberately passed the revival order in respect
of M/s Dhruv Sangam CGHS as a quid pro quo
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 18 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
(advantage granted in return for something) in
favour of S.P.Saxena.
25. It is alleged that in view of documentary, oral
and circumstantial evidence gathered during
the course of investigation which are
enumerated above, there is sufficient material
on record for prosecution u/s 120 B r/w 420,
468, 471 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC
Act, 1988 against the accused persons namely,
Uttam Chand Surana, Gokul Chand Aggarwal
Satyaveer Singh Malik, P.K.Thirwani, Vipin
Kumar Jain, S.P.Saxena, Ashwani Sharma,
Ashotosh Pant, Naveen Kaushik, R.K.
Srivastava and Smt. Shakuntala Joshi and for
substantive offences against accused Uttam
Chand Surana, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh
Pant and Naveen Kaushik u/s 420 r/w 511 IPC.
And against accused Ashwani Sharma,
Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik u/s 468 of
IPC. Against accused Uttam Chand Surana
U/s 471 of IPC. Against accused Satyaveer
Singh Malik, P.K.Thirwani, Vipin Kumar Jain,
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 19 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
R.K.Srivastava and Smt. Shakuntla Joshi u/s
15 r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
26. It is stated that sanction for prosecution of the
competent authority u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988 in
respect of Satyaveer Singh Malik,
P.K.Thirwani has been received. The sanction
for prosecution in respect of Vipin Kumar Jain,
R.K.Srivastava and Smt. Shakuntla Joshi was
filed afterward. The charge sheet has been filed
accordingly.
FRAMING OF CHARGES
27. After considering the material on record, vide
detailed order dated 23.03.2012, Ld. Predecessor
of this Court decided the charges against the
accused persons. On 02.04.2012, accused persons
were charged as under:
1 Uttam Chand Surana Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S
420/511/471 IPC.
(Proceedings already stands abated
vide order dated 19.07.2018. )
2 Gokul Chand Aggarwal Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 20 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
3 Satyaveer Singh Malik Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15
r/w 13 (1) (d) punishable u/s 13 (2)
of PC Act,1988
4 Prahlad Kumar Thirwani Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15
r/w 13 (1) (d) punishable u/s 13 (2)
of PC Act,1988
5 Vipin Kumar Jain Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15
r/w 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC
Act,1988
6 Satya Prakash Saxena Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
(proceedings already stands abated
vide order dated 26.04.2023. )
7 Ashwani Sharma Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S
420/511/468 IPC.
8 Ashutosh Pant Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 21 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
420/511/468 IPC.
9 Naveen Kaushik Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S
420/511/468 IPC.
10 Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w
13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15
r/w 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC
Act,1988
11 Shakuntla Joshi Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15
r/w 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC
Act,1988
28. All the accused persons pleaded not
guilty to the aforesaid charges so framed and
claimed trial.
ABATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AS
AGAINST THE ACCUSED UTTAM CHAND
SURANA (A-1) AND SATYA PRAKASH
SAXENA (A-6)
29. Here it is pertinent to mention that during
the pendency of the present case, accused Uttam
Chand Surana (A-1) and Satya Prakash Saxena
(A-6) have expired and Proceedings against them
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 22 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
were abated vide order dated 19.07.2021 and
26.04.2023.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
30. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
has examined 34 ( Thirty Four ) witnesses. For
the sake of convenience, the witnesses have been
categorized in different groups. Although, the
detailed testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
shall be discussed herein after in the subsequent
para’s, wherever necessary. However, it would be
appropriate to discuss in brief the testimonies of
these witnesses to have an overview of the nature
and kind of evidence which has come on the
record.
The witnesses who are promoter
members and were falsely shown to have
resigned or not participated in the
proceedings of the said society.
31. As per the case of the prosecution, accused Uttam
Chand Surana, Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Satya
Prakash Saxena, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant,
Naveen Kaushik, all private persons conspired
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 23 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
with Satyaveer Singh, Assistant Registrar,P.K
Thirwani (Auditor) Vipin Kumar, Election
Officer, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Registrar, RCS,
Delhi and Smt Shakuntla Joshi, Assistant
Registrar who dishonestly and fraudulently got
revived the society on the basis of the forged and
false documents. Some of the members of the
said society have been examined by the
prosecution who have stated that they never
resigned from the society; had not given any
affidavit and denied their signatures on the
minutes of the Managing Committee. The
witnesses so examined by the prosecution, in this
regard, are as under:
32. PW1 Sh Tejpal Sharma, has deposed that he was
the founder member of the said Society. He
became founder President of the society in the
year 1983. He has deposed that the registered
office address of the society was DCM Tent
Factory Building, Kishan Ganj, Ganesh Line,
Delhi-06. He has deposed that said society was
formed by the employees of DCM factory. He has
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 24 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
deposed that the said society was became inactive
after the closure of DCM factory in the year 1989,
though, it remained functional till 1993. He has
deposed that Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma was the
Secretary of the said society. The record of the
society used to remain with Ramesh Chand
Sharma who was residing in Mandawali, Delhi.
33. This witness has identified his signatures on the
membership register of the said society Ex
PW1/PX (D-11); proceeding register Ex PW1/PA
(D-16); on the application for registration, Ex
PW1/A of a Cooperative Society in the Union
Territory of Delhi signed by Sh Ramesh Chand
Sharma at point A. He has also identified his
signatures on the bye-laws of the said society Ex
PW1/A-1, intensive inquiry proforma of the said
society Ex PW1/A-2. He has identified his
signatures as well as signatures of Sh Ramesh
Chand Sharma, President of the said Society on
the affidavit dated 11.06.1985, Ex PW1/A-3; on
the list of members of the said society Ex
PW1/A-4.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 25 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
34. He has deposed that report dt. 18.06.2000
regarding election of the managing committee of
the said society, marked Ex PW1/A-5. The
signatures appearing at point A do not belong to
him and he never acted as election officer of the
said society on 18.06.2000. He has further
deposed that he never issued any election schedule
marked as ExPW1/A-6 and signatures appearing
at points A are not of him.
35. He has further deposed that affidavit dated
25.01.2001 already marked as Ex.PW22/C-92, the
signatures at points A & B on the said affidavit are
not of him. He has deposed that bye laws of the
society alongwith list of membership, already
Ex.PW22/C-112 (colly.), bears his signatures at
point A against serial no.2.
36. He has further deposed that in the proceeding
register (D-12), marked Ex.PW1/B, he has seen
his signatures at points Q5, Q9, Q1.7, Q21, Q81
and deposed that the signatures are not of him. He
has deposed that the signatures appearing at
points Q14, Q39, Q46, Q53, Q55, Q57, Q71, Q83
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 26 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
at point X on the various pages i.e. Page 4, 5, 9,
10, 11, 12 & 13 of the register are of his
signatures.
37. He has further deposed that IO of the case, had
obtained his specimen signature/ handwriting
during investigation. He has seen his specimen
signatures /handwriting sheets S-149 to S-151,
Ex.PW1/C (colly.), on which he had given his
specimen signatures during investigation to the
IO.
38. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused person despite the
opportunity being given to them.
39. PW2 is Sh Badri Prasad, he has deposed that he
became member of the society in the year 1983
when the said society was formed. He has
identified his signature on the application for
registration of a cooperative society Ex PW1/A;
bye laws of the society Ex PW1/A1; intensive
enquiry performa Ex PW1/A2; affidavit dated
09.01.2001 and 20.04.2005 Ex PW2/A Ex
PW2/B1; on Form 60, Ex PW2/B2 and on the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 27 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
membership register Ex.PW1/PX.
40. He has further deposed that he did not attended
any meeting of the society after 1989. He has
deposed that in the proceeding register and the
proceeding dated 08.07.2001 (already
Ex.PW14/L). The signature appearing at point C
against serial no.48 is not of him. He has deposed
that the proceedings dated 05.09.1990 (already
Ex.PW22/C4), proceedings dated 13.11.1990
(already Ex.PW22/C5), proceedings dated
13.07.1991 (already Ex. PW22/C8), proceedings
dated 21.06.1996 (already Ex.PW22/C11),
proceedings dated 26.07.1998 (already
Ex.PW22/C12), proceedings dated 21.12.1998 Ex
PW2/C and proceedings dated 18.06.2000
(already Ex.PW20/G) do not bear his signatures at
points Z. He has deposed that he had given Form
60 (Ex.PW2/B2) to the CBI around 17-18 years
prior from today.
41. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused persons despite the
opportunity being given to them.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 28 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
42. PW 3 is Sh Alok Lodha, he has deposed that
Uttam Chand Surana ( since expired ) was their
family friend and earlier their neighbour also. He
has further deposed that on his asking, he ( this
witness) had signed certain forms pertaining to
membership of housing society.
43. He has further deposed that photocopy of
application form, Mark PW3/A for becoming
member of Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd bears his
signature at point A. He has deposed that his
particulars mentioned at serial no. 1 to 6 of the
said application are in his handwriting and are
correct. However the date mentioned i.e.
01/02/1991 in the said application at point B is
incorrect as there was no date when he filled-in
the said application and the said date may have
been mentioned by accused Uttam Chand Surana.
As he had handed over the said filled-in
application, without date. The said application
form was filled-in by him ( this witness) and was
handed over to Uttam Chand Surana, in the year
2000. He has deposed that he had shifted on the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 29 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
address mentioned in the application form, in the
year 2000 only. His marriage took place on
21/01/1995 and the application form mentions
name of his wife Rachna Lodha at serial no. 6.
And thus from the same also it is clear that the
application could not have been bearing the date
01/02/1991. Her has deposed that on the top of the
application, merely the word “the secretary” was
mentioned till the time he handed over the
application form duly filled in to accused Uttam
Chand Surana. The words “Dhruv Sangam CGHS
Ltd. Delhi” at point C may have been
subsequently added by accused Uttam Chand
Surana.
44. He has further deposed that his affidavit dated
15/04/2005, Ex. PW3/B bears his signature at
points A & B and his photograph is pasted at point
C. He has deposed that verification certificate, Ex.
PW3/C issued by J.K. Gulati, Section officer,
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in
his favour qua his membership no. 186 of Dhruv
Sangam CGHS Ltd. The said verification
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 30 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
certificate bears his signature at point A and his
photograph at point B. He has deposed that the
said verification certificate was not issued in his
presence. He has deposed that affidavit Ex.
PW3/B and the verification certificate Ex. PW3/C
were got prepared by accused Uttam Chand
Surana and he had signed the said documents on
his asking.
45. He has further deposed that he had not received
any document qua his membership of the said
society and had not attended any meeting of the
said society. Whatever was being done qua the
same was done by accused Uttam Chand Surana.
46. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of the accused Vipin Kumar Jain, but not by rest
of the accused persons despite the opportunity
being given to them.
47. PW4 is Sh Bhisham Thakkar, he has deposed that
he did his schooling from St. Xavier School, Civil
Lines, Raj Niwas Marg, Delhi and passed class
12th in the year 1991. He has deposed that
Abhishek Surana was his classmate in the said
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 31 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
school. He has further deposed that earlier they
used to reside in ancestral joint family property
bearing no. K-2/6, Model Town-I, Delhi till the
year 1996. Thereafter they shifted to E-3/14,
Model Town-I, Delhi at the end of 1996/start of
1997.
48. He has further deposed that as Abhishek Surana
was his classmate, therefore they used to visit
each others house and gradually they developed
family relations and knew each others family
members. He has deposed that accused Uttam
Chand Surana, father of Abhishek Surana, had
informed that he ( Uttam Chand Surana ) was
forming a group housing society and would like
that all his known persons to become members of
the said society.
49. He has further deposed that application form,
Mark PW4/A for membership for becoming
member of the said society bears his signature at
point A and the particulars mentioned at serial no.
1 to 6 of the said application are in his handwriting
and are correct. He has further deposed that
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 32 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
however the column meant for date and place
were blank at the time he handed over the said
form to accused Uttam Chand Surana. Somebody
else may have filled-up the said columns
subsequently with the date “08/02/1991” and place
“Delhi”. He has further deposed that on top of the
application, merely the word “the secretary” was
mentioned till the time he handed over the
application form duly filled in to accused Uttam
Chand Surana. He has deposed that the words
“Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd. Delhi” may have
been subsequently added by someone else.
50. He has further deposed that his affidavit dated
09/01/2001 bears his signature at points A & B
and the particulars mentioned in the said affidavit
are correct. He has deposed that the affidavit
dated 15/04/2005 Mark PW4/A bears his
signature at points A, B & C and his photograph
is pasted at point D.
51. He has further deposed that verification
certificate,Ex. PW4/D issued by J.K. Gulati,
section officer, Ministry of Social Justice and
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 33 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Empowerment in his favour qua his membership
no. 197 of Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd which bears
his signatures at points A & B and his
photograph. He has further deposed that he do not
know Mr. J.K. Gulati who had issued the said
certificate. The said verification certificate was not
issued in his presence.
52. He has deposed that membership register already
Ex. PW1/PX, his purported signature is
appearing at point A on page 20, besides other
details related to him against serial no. 197, Ex.
PW4/E. He has deposed that had not appended
signature at point A as shown in the said register
on page 20 against serial no. 197. He has deposed
that during investigation he has given his
specimen signatures/handwriting sheets consisting
of six pages (S-204 to S-209) Ex. PW4/F (colly).
53. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of the accused Vipin Kumar Jain but not by rest of
the accused persons despite the opportunity being
given to them.
54. PW 5 is Sh Asish Goel, who has deposed that he
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 34 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
and Abhishek Surana used to study in the same
class but in a different section in St. Xavier school
Delhi. He has further deposed that they had
family relations. Abhishek’s father Uttam Chand
Surana and his father knew each other well.
55. He has further deposed that around the year, 2000
on the asking of accused Uttam Chand Surana, he
had filled-up and signed one form relating to
Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd. Photocopy of his
membership form of Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd is
is marked as Mark PW5/A. He has further
deposed that the original of the same was filled-in
and signed by him on the asking of Uttam Chand
Surana and his particulars mentioned at serial no.
1 to 6 of the said application are in his handwriting
and are correct.
56. He has deposed that he do not remember whether
he had paid any fee towards membership fee of
the society and about the receipt marked as Mark
PW5/B. He has deposed that his affidavit dated
05/01/2001,Ex. PW5/C, bears his signature at
points A & B and the particulars mentioned in the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 35 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
said affidavit are correct.
57. He has further deposed that on the membership
register already Ex. PW1/PX, his purported
signature appearing at point A besides other
details were related to him against serial No.160
exhibited as Ex. PW5/D. He has further deposed
that he had not appended his signature at point A
58. He has deposed that on application dated
11/04/2005, Ex. PW5/E, addressed to Assistant
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi; his
affidavit dated 15/04/2005, Ex. PW5/F and his
verification certificate, Ex PW5/G bears his
signatures and photographs. He has deposed that
he had given all the said three documents.
59. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vipin Kumar Jain and Ashwani
Sharma but not by rest of the accused persons
despite the opportunity being given to them.
60. PW 6 is Sh Surya Nath Chaurasiya, he has
deposed that he was having a Paan shop at 6/92,
Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. One
Ramesh Chand Sharma, used to work in DCM,
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 36 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
and used to frequently come to his shop. He has
deposed that Ramesh Chand Sharma got him
introduced to one Sh Tejpal Sharma who was also
working in DCM. He has deposed that Ramesh
Chand Sharma took him to Tejpal Sharma in the
office of DCM. There Tejpal Sharma told him that
they are forming a society with the name Dhruv
Sangam CGHS, which will be allotted land in
Pappan Kalan, Dwarka, for construction of flats.
61. He has deposed that he became member of the
said society and used to attend the meetings of the
society as and when called till closure of DCM.
62. He has identified his signatures in the membership
register already Ex. PW1/PX serial no. 137, Ex.
PW6/A; on his affidavit dated 04/06/1985, Ex.
PW6/B; on his another affidavit dated
30/04/2005, Ex. PW6/C containing his photograph
and on his verification certificate dated
30/04/2005 Ex. PW6/D containing my
photograph.
63. He has further deposed that proceeding dated
18/06/2000 of General Body Meeting of the said
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 37 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
society Ex. PW6/E bears his signature at point A.
He has deposed that purported proceeding dated
08/07/2001 of Special General Body Meeting of
of the said society and his purported signature
appearing at point A was forged by someone as he
had not attended the said meeting.
64. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of the accused Vipin Kumar Jain but not by rest
of the accused persons despite the opportunity
being given to them.
65. PW 7 is Abhay Jain, he has deposed that about
17-18 years ago, he had submitted the form of
membership of Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd, given
to him by his relative accused Uttam Chand
Surana through somebody whose name he do not
remember now.
66. He has deposed that photocopy of his
membership form of the said society, Mark
PW7/A in the judicial file. And deposed that the
original of the same were filled-in in his
handwriting and he had put his signature on the
same at point A. However the date of 13/12/1990
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 38 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
and place Delhi were not filled-up by him. He has
deposed that his age was wrongly mentioned in
the same as 19 years, whereas he was 16 years old
on 13/12/1990. He has deposed that the
photocopy, Mark PW7/B of purported receipt of
Rs. 110/- dated 16/11/1990 issued in his name by
the said society qua membership fee. He has
deposed that due to lapse of time he is unable to
remember as to whether the membership fee was
paid and the said receipt was issued.
67. He has deposed that affidavit dated 09/01/200,Ex.
PW7/C bears his signatures at point A and B and
particulars mentioned in the said affidavit except
age and being in Delhi by birth, are correct. But
his age was wrongly mentioned in the affidavit as
29 years, whereas he was 26 years of age at that
time and he was not born in Delhi, as he started
residing in Delhi continuously from the age of 25
years.
68. He has further deposed that the membership
register Ex. PW1/PX where his purported
signature is appearing at point A besides other
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 39 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
details related to him against serial no. 178, Ex.
PW7/D. He has deposed that his father’s name has
been wrongly mentioned as Vimal S. Singhi. He
has deposed that he had not appended his
signature at point A at serial no. 178 of said
register.
69. He has deposed that his application dated
09/04/2005, Ex. PW7/E addressed to Assistant
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi. The said
application was not filled-up by him, however the
particulars mentioned in the same are correct. He
has further deposed that his affidavit dated
15/04/2005 containing his photograph but his
father’s name has been wrongly mentioned as
Vimal S. Singhi.
70. He has further deposed that his verification
certificate dated 15/04/2005, Ex PW7/G,
containing his photograph. In the said certificate,
his father’s name has also been wrongly
mentioned as Vimal S. Singhi. He has deposed
that he had given all the said three documents.
The application dated 09/04/2005 bears his
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 40 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
signature at point A. His affidavit dated
15/04/2005, Ex. PW7/F bears his signatures at two
places at points A & B and his photograph at
point C. His verification certificate bears his
signatures at point A and his photograph at point
B.
71. He has deposed that he had never attended any
meeting of the said society and purported
proceeding dated 08/07/2001 of Special General
Body Meeting of the said society, in the said
proceedings, his purported signature is appearing
at point A against his membership number and
name at serial no. 69 Ex. PW7/H.
72. He has further deposed that purported proceeding
dated 29/08/2002 of General Body Meeting of the
said society and his purported signature is
appearing at point A against his name at serial no.
6, Ex. PW7/L.
73. He has deposed that his specimen signatures
sheets consisting of three pages S-188 to
S-190,Ex. PW7/M (Colly) were taken by the IO
during investigation.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 41 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
74. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of the accused Vipin Kumar Jain but not by rest
of the accused persons despite the opportunity
being given to them.
75. PW 8 is Smt Dev Keshar Devi, who has deposed
that she took membership of the said society in
the year 1983 through Ramesh Sharma and Jagpal
Sharma. She paid Rs.100/-towards membership
fee.
76. She has identified her signatures on the
membership register Ex.PW1/PX at serial no.
80,Ex.PW8/A; On the application for registration
of the said society Ex.PW1/A against serial no.80
and serial no.79 Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C
respectively; on the bye laws of the society
alongwith list of membership, Ex.PW1/A1 against
serial no.80, Ex.PW8/D; on the intensive enquiry
performa Ex.PW1/A2 AT serial no.80 Ex.PW8/E.
77. She has further deposed that she had never
resigned from the membership of the society. The
resignation letter dated 09.06.1990 Mark PW8/F
does not bears her signature. She has deposed that
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 42 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
refund voucher dated 24.07.1990, Mark PW8/G
does not bear her signature. The signature
appearing at point A is not of her. She has deposed
that she had not received Rs.100/- towards refund
of her share money from the said society.
78. She has deposed that I.O, CBI had obtained her
specimen signature vide specimen/handwriting
sheets S-191 to 192, Ex.PW8/H (consisting of
two pages). She has deposed that she had never
attended any meeting of the said society.
79. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Ashutosh Pant. But has not been cross
examined by any other accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
80. PW 9 is Sudesh Kumar, he has deposed that he
took membership of the said society through
Ramesh Chand Sharma, who was office bearer of
the said Society. He has deposed Sh. Ramesh
Chand Sharma, was his Saadu (co-brother). He
paid membership fee of Rs.100/- to become
member of said society. I do not recollect my
membership number.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 43 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
81. He has identified his signatures on the
membership register Ex.PW1/PX at serial no. 150
marked as Ex.PW9/A; affidavit dated 04.06.1985
Ex.PW9/B.
82. He has further deposed that he had never resigned
from the membership of the said society. The
photocopy of resignation letter dated 01.07.1990
Marked PW9/C does not bear his signatures. He
has further deposed that the receipt of Rs.100/-
available at the bottom of Mark PW9/C does not
bear his signature. The signature and name
appearing at points B are not of him as he had not
received Rs.100/- towards refund of his share
money from the said society. The receipt is Mark
PW9/D.
83. He has deposed that IO CBI had obtained his
specimen signature during investigation vide
specimen/handwriting sheets S-172 to 173.
Ex.PW9/E (consisting of two pages). He has
deposed that he may have attended 1-2 meetings
of the said society.
84. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 44 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
of accused Ashutosh Pant. But has not been cross
examined by any other accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
85. PW 10 is Sh Girwar Sharma, he has deposed that
he had taken membership of the said society
through Sh Ramesh Chand Sharma, who was his
brother-in-law ( Jijaji). He was Secretary of the
said society. He was allotted membership no. 151.
and had paid Rs.100/- as membership fee. He has
deposed that he never attended any meeting of the
said society. He never resigned from the
membership of the said society and has had never
received back any membership fee. He has
identified his signature on the membership register
Ex.PW1/PX at serial no.151, Ex.PW10/B. He has
deposed that on the photocopy of his purported
application dated 02.04.1989, Mark PW10/C and
signature appearing at point A is not of him. The
same is forged one.
86. He has deposed that photocopy of purported
resignation letter dated 02.07.1990,Mark PW10/D
and signature appearing at point A on the said
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 45 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
resignation letter is not him as somebody has
forged his signature. He has deposed that
photocopy of purported receipt of Rs.100/-dated
17.08.1990,Mark PW10/E, signature appearing at
point B is not of him as somebody has forged his
signature. He has deposed that he had not
received any such amount as shown in the
purported receipt.
87. He has further deposed that his specimen
signatures were taken by the CBI vide specimen
signature sheets (S-180 to S-181Ex.PW10/F
(colly.).
88. This witness has been cross examined by on
behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh
Pant,Naveen Kaushik, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
and Vipin Kumar Jain, but was not cross
examined by any other accused, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
89. PW 11 is Sh Azad Singh, he has deposed that
during May, 1990 to September, 1994, he worked
as Inspector in the Office of RCS and Sh. Pokhar
Mal Tanwar was AR (NGH) and Sh. S.P. Singh
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 46 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
was Deputy Registrar (NGH) during that period.
He has deposed that his work was to make
inquiries and visit places to verify about society.
90. He has further deposed that vide noting dated
20.04.1992,Ex.PW11/A by Dealing Assistant in
which he was deputed to inspect the existence of
Dhruv Sangam CGHS. He has deposed that this
note was prepared on the instructions of the AR
(NGH) Sh. Pokhar Mal Tanwar. He identify the
signature of Sh. Pokhar Mal Tanwar at point A on
the noting at Page 14/N.
91. He has deposed that he visited the DCM Tent
Factory at Ganesh Line, Kishan Ganj, Delhi on
23.07.1992 and found that no such society was
functioning at the given address. He gave report
in this regard dated 24.07.1992,Ex.PW11/B which
bears his signature at point A. He has deposed
that he submitted this report to AR (NGH) Sh.
Pokhar Mal Tanwar, who marked the same to
Dealing Assistant namely Sh. S.K. Jain.
92. He has deposed that Winding up Order dated
22.09.1992, Ex PW11/C bears the signature of Sh.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 47 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
S.P.Singh, Deputy Registrar at points A and B,
which he has identified.
93. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and
Rajeshwar Kumar, but was not cross examined by
any other accused, despite the opportunity being
given to them.
94. PW 12 is Sh Prem Singh, he has deposed that in
the year 1989, he was working as Khalasi in
NDMC, Delhi. He became member of the said
society in year 1989 through Ramesh Chand
Sharma, who was Secretary of the said society. He
paid Rs.110/- towards membership fee.
95. He has deposed that on the membership register
Ex.PW1/PX, signature appearing at point A
against his name and particulars at serial no.152,
marked as Ex.PW12/A is not of him. He has
deposed that on the photocopy of his purported
application form dated 03.04.1989,Mark PW12/B.
and the signature appearing on the point A on the
said application is not of him However, other
particulars in the said application are mine.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 48 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
96. He has further deposed that receipt of Rs.110/-
Mark PW12/C was issued to him at the time of
becoming member of the said society towards
payment of Rs.110/-.
97. He has deposed that he had never resigned from
the membership of the said society and his
signatures on the photocopy of resignation letter
dated 03.07.1990 Marked PW12/D at point A is
not of him. He has further deposed that the receipt
of Rs.100/- towards refund of share money,
signature appearing at point B on the receipt is not
of him.
98. He has further deposed that IO of the case had
obtained his specimen signature during
investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets
S-174 & 175,Ex.PW12/F (colly.).
99. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Ashwani Sharma and S.P Saxena but
was not cross examined by remaining accused
persons, despite the opportunity being given to
them.
100. PW13 is Sh Om Prakash Jain, he has deposed that
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 49 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
in the year 1989, he was working with DCM,
Delhi and had became member of the said society
in year 1989 through Ramesh Chand Sharma and
Tej Pal, clerks in the said society. He had paid
Rs.550/- towards membership fee vide
membership number was 149.
101. He has identified his signatures on membership
register Ex.PW1/PX vide relevant entry
Ex.PW13/A and on his affidavit dated
04.06.1985,Ex.PW13/B.
102. He has deposed that he had never resigned from
the membership of the said society and denied his
signatures at point on photocopy of resignation
letter dated 05.07.1990, Mark PW13/C. He has
further deposed that the receipt of Rs.100/- dated
17.08.1990,Mark PW13/D towards refund of share
money and signature appearing at point B on the
said receipt is not of him.
103. He has further deposed that IO of the case had
obtained his specimen signature during
investigation vode specimen/handwriting sheets
S-186 & 187, Ex.PW13/E (colly.).
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 50 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
104. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Ashwani Sharma,Satyaveer Singh
Malik and P.K. Thirwani but was not cross
examined by any other accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
105. PW 14 is Sh Ajay Suri, he has deposed that in the
year 1992, he had filled up form for enrollment of
member of the said society. He has further
deposed that form was provided to him by his
father-in-law Late Sh. Satish Sarup Gupta and
who has paid Membership fee for becoming
member of said society .
106. He has deposed that in the membership register
Ex.PW1/PX signature appearing at point B against
his name and particulars at serial no.165,
Ex.PW14/A is not of him. He has further deposed
that the purported affidavit dated 06.02.2001,
Ex.PW14/B and affidavit dated 19.01.2001 were
not sworn and signed by him and signatures
appearing at points A & B on the these affidavit
are not of him. He has deposed that he had not
submitted these affidavit as in the said affidavits,
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 51 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
he has been shown as Secretary of the said
society, which is incorrect.
107. He has further deposed that another purported
affidavit dated 19.01.2001 marked Ex.PW14/D
alongwith list of members shown to be resigned
from the membership of the society and newly
enrolled members was not sworn and signed by
him. He has deposed that he was never elected as
Secretary of the said society nor he had submitted
the said affidavit. The signatures appearing at
points A & B on the said affidavit are not of him.
108. He has further deposed that application for
becoming member of the society dated
01.11.1990,Mark PW14/E signature appearing at
point A on the said application is his signatures.
However, the date mentioned in the said affidavit
was not written by him. He has deposed that the
particulars mentioned in the said application are in
his handwriting which are correct. He has
identified his signatures on affidavit, Ex.PW14/F
dated 05.01.2001 and on the application dated
07.04.2005, Ex PW14/G addressed to the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 52 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, NCT, Delhi.
He has deposed that the said application was
submitted by him to the Assistant Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, NCT, Delhi alongwith his
affidavit and verification certificate. He has
further deposed that alongwith the said
application, he had enclosed the affidavit dated
15.04.2005,Ex.PW14/H which bears his signature
at points A & B and his photograph at point C.
109. He has further deposed that verification
certificate, Ex.PW14/J bears his signature at point
A and his photograph at point B.
110. He has further deposed that he had never attended
any meeting of the society dated 22.06.2000,
14.07.2000, 06.08.2000, 24.09.2000, 19.10.2000,
17.11.2000 and 16.12.2000, Ex.PW14/K (colly.)
and his signature at point A on these proceedings
is not of him. He has further deposed that he had
not attended the proceedings dated 08.07.2001,
29.08.2002, 10.08.2003, and 29.08.2004,
Ex.PW14/L (colly.) and signature at point A on
these proceedings are not of him.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 53 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
111. He has further deposed that he had not attended
such proceedings dated 08.08.2002, 11.09.2002,
27.10.2002, 11.11.2002, 18.12.2002, 07.01.2003,
19.02.2003, 11.04.2003, 23.05.2003, 11.06.2003,
10.07.2003, 20.08.2003, 28.09.2003, 09.10.2003,
22.10.2003, 19.12.2003, 23.01.2004, 15.02.2004,
10.03.2004, 04.04.2004, 15.05.2004, 09.06.2004,
11.07.2004. 03.08.2004, 25.09.2004, 15.10.2004,
11.11.2004, 04.12.2004, 08.02.2005, 05.04.2005,
20.05.2005, 13.06.2005 and 01.08.2005
Ex.PW14/M (colly.) and the signature at point A
on these proceedings are not of him.
112. He has further deposed that IO of the case had
obtained his specimen signature during
investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets
S-152 & 158, Ex.PW14/N (colly.).
113. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and
Naveen Kaushik. But not by any other accused
person, despite the opportunity being given to
them.
114. PW 15 is Smt Smita H. Kokane, she has deposed
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 54 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
that in the year 1990, she was working as Teacher
in Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalya, Mandawali, Delhi.
She became member of the said society in year
1990 through Smt. Pushpa Sharma who was also a
teacher in the same school and her husband Sh.
Ramesh Chand Sharma was looking after affiars
of the said society.
115. She has identified her signatures on the photocopy
of application for membership dated 11.01.1990,
Ex.PW15/A. She has further deposed that the
photocopy of receipt for Rs.110/- at serial no.005
was paid by her while becoming member of the
said society. She has also identified her signatures
on the membership register Ex.PW1/PX against
her name and particulars at serial
no.155,Ex.PW15/C.
116. She has further deposed that she never resigned
from the membership of the said society nor
received refund of share money of Rs.110/-.She
has deposed that photocopy of resignation letter
dated 02.07.1990, mark PW15/D and signature
appearing at point A is not of him. She has further
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 55 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
deposed that the receipt dated 17.08.1990,Mark
PW15/E of Rs.100/- towards refund of share
money which is at the bottom of Mark PW15/D.
117. She has deposed that I.O of the case had obtained
her specimen signature during investigation vide
specimen/handwriting sheets S-170 & 171,
Ex.PW15/F (colly.) She had never attended any
meeting of said society.
118. This witness has been cross examined on
behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh
Pant and Naveen Kumar. But not by any other
accused person, despite the opportunity being
given to them.
119. PW 16 is Sh Gaurav Goel, he has deposed that he
know Abhishek Surana as they both were together
in the same school. He became member of one
group housing society namely Dhruv Sangam
CGHS Ltd. through accused U.C.Surana, father
of Abhishek Surana in the year 1990 or 1991.
120. He has further deposed that photocopy of
application form dated 29.10.1990,Mark PW16/A,
for becoming member of the said Society does
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 56 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
not bear his signature at point A. He has deposed
after seeing the photocopy of receipt for Rs.110/-
at serial no.009. He has deposed that he do not
remember if he had paid Rs.110/- as membership
fee to the society. He has deposed that the
affidavit dated 05.01.2001,Ex.PW16/C does not
bear his signature at points A & B. However, he
has deposed that the application addressed to
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Office
of RCS, NCT of Delhi dated 14.04.2005, PW16/D
T bears his signature at point A. He had only
signed the said application. He do not remember
if he had sent the documents mentioned in the
application to the Office of RCS or not.
121. He has identified his signatures and photographs
on the affidavit dated 15.04.2005,Ex.PW16/E and
on the verification certificate Ex PW16/F. He has
deposed that in the membership register
Ex.PW1/PX and signature appearing at point B
against his name and particulars at serial no.159
against entry Ex.PW16/G is not mine. He has
deposed that he do not remember if he had
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 57 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
attended any meeting of the said society.
122. He has further deposed that the proceeding dated
08.07.2001 Ex.PW14/L (colly.) and signature
appearing at serial no.71 at point A is not of him.
123. He has further deposed that IO of the CBI had
obtained his specimen signature during
investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets
S-209 to 213, Ex PW16/H Colly)
124. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and
Naveen Kaushik. But not by any of the accused
person, despite the opportunity being given to
them.
125. PW 17 is Keshri Chand Bhansali, he has deposed
that he know accused Uttam Chand Surana. He
became member of the said society and had paid
Rs.100/- towards membership fee. He has deposed
that he had filled up the application form Mark
PW17/A, in his own handwriting. But he had not
filled up the date and place column.
126. He has further deposed that his affidavit dated
09.01.2001, Ex.PW17/B bears his signatures point
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 58 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
A & B. He has further deposed that the letter dated
11.04.2005,Ex.PW17/C addressed to the Assistant
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, NCT of Delhi
also bears his signature at point A.
127. He has deposed that affidavit dated
15.04.2005,Ex.PW17/D and the signatures
appearing at point A & B on the said affidavit are
not him. However the said affidavit contains his
photograph at point C. He has further deposed that
verification certificate, Marked Ex.PW17/E and
the signature appearing at point A is not of him.
However he has deposed that on the said
verification certificate contains his photograph at
point B.
128. He has denied his signatures on the membership
register Ex.PW1/PX at point B against his name
and particulars at serial no.174, marked
Ex.PW17/F.
129. He has deposed that he had never attended any
meeting of the said society. He has deposed that
the proceeding dated 08.07.2001, Ex.PW14/L
(colly.), and the signature appearing at point B
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 59 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
against his name at serial no.30 against the
relevant entry marked Ex.PW17/G is not of him.
130. He has deposed that IO of the case had obtained
his specimen signature and handwriting during
investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets
S-197 to 200, Ex.PW17/H (colly.).
131. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and
Naveen Kaushik, but not by any other accused
person, despite the opportunity being given to
them.
132. PW-20 is Sh Vinay Kumar Sethia, he has deposed
that he alongwith his brother Sh. Sanjeev Sethia
became member of the society in the 1990 or
1991 at the instance of Sh. Uttam Chand Surana.
He has identified his signatures on the photocopy
of application form dated 02.11.199,Mark
PW20/A and on the application qua his brother
Sanjeev Sethia at point A on Mark PW20/B.
133. He has further deposed that both the application
forms were given to them by accused Uttam
Chand Surana. He has deposed that they had
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 60 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
deposited Rs.100/- each towards taking the
membership of the said society but they had not
received any receipt thereof.
134. He has identified signatures of his brother
Sanjeev Sethia at points A & B, on the affidavit
Ex.PW20/C. He has deposed that in the
membership register Ex.PW1/PX his name and
particulars and that of his brother’s names and
particulars are appearing against serial no.168 &
169, marked as Ex.PW20/D1 & D2 which are
correct. However, the signature against these serial
numbers at points X & Y are not of him or of his
brother.
135. He has also identified his signatures and of his
brother’s signatures on the application addressed
to Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Office of RCS, NCT of Delhi dated 08.04.2005 as
well as on the affidavit and the verification
certificate annexed with the said letter. He has
further deposed that the said letter dated
08.04.2005 alongwith the annexures was given to
him by accused Uttam Chand Surana and after
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 61 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
signing and affixing the photographs thereon, he
had handed over back to accused Uttam Chand
Surana. The letter dated 08.04.2005 alongwith the
affidavits are collectively Ex.PW20/E (colly.) and
Ex.PW20/F (colly.).
136. He has deposed that he had never attended any
meeting of the said society and proceedings dated
18.06.2000 Ex.PW20/G (colly.) where his name
is written at serial no.2 and his designation is
shown as ‘Vice President but he had not attended
this meeting and he had never been elected as
Vice President or any other post in the Managing
Committee of the said society at any point of time.
He has deposed that this proceeding does not bear
his signature or initial at any point.
137. He has further deposed that proceeding dated
08.07.2001 Ex.PW14/L (colly.), signature
appearing against his name at serial no.14 at point
B is not of him and the signature appearing against
name of his brother at serial no.7 at point C is not
of his brother.
138. He has deposed that the list of members
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 62 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Ex.PW20/1-2 (colly.) annexed with the letter
dated 16.04.2001, Mark PW20/H addressed to the
Assistant Registrar (Policy), he has deposed that
he had never been the Vice President of the said
society and the signatures appearing at Points A
(Q-436, 439, 442, 445, 448, 451, 454, 457, 460,
463 & 466) in the list are not his signatures. He
do not know anything about this document.
139. He has further deposed that another list of
members Ex PW20/1-2 ( Colly) alongwith the
letter dated 16.04.2001, which bears the signatures
appearing at points A on the list are also not of his
signatures.
140. He has further deposed that another list of
members,Ex.PW20/J (colly.) annexed in the RCS
file where he had never been as the Vice
President of the said society and the signatures
appearing at Points A (Q-469, 473, 475, 478, 481,
484, 487, 490, 493, 496 & 499) in the list are not
of his signatures. He do not know anything about
this document.
141. He has further deposed that the proceedings in
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 63 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
register dated 08.08.2002, 27.10.2002,
09.10.2003, 15.02.2004, 09.06.2004, 11.07.2004,
03.08.2004, 15.10.2004 and 01.08.2005, Ex
PW14/M ( colly) bears his signatures at points B.
He has deposed that he had not attended the
abovesaid meetings and he had signed on the
proceedings on the asking of accused Uttam
Chand Surana later on when he (accused Uttam
Chand Surana) had sent the said register at his
office. He has further deposed that after signing
the said proceedings, he sent back the register to
Sh. Surana. He has depose that he signed these
proceedings as Sh. Surana told him that his
signatures were necessary for revival of the said
society.
142. He has further deposed that the proceedings in
register dated 22.06.2000, 14.07.2000, 24.09.2000
and 17.11.2000, Ex.PW14/K (colly.) and the
signatures appearing at points B are not of his
signatures. He has deposed that he had not
attended the abovesaid meetings.
143. He has further deposed that IO of the case had
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 64 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
obtained his specimen signature during
investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets
S-257 to 262, Ex.PW20/K (colly.).
144. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant
Naveen Kaushik and Vipin Kumar Jain. But not
by any other accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
145. PW 23 is Sh Ramesh Chand Sharma , he has
deposed that he was founder member of the said
society which was formed around year 1983. He
has deposed that there were 150 members and he
was General Secretary of the society and Sh.
Tejpal Sharma was the President.
146. He has identified his signatures on the application
for registration of the society Ex.PW1/A; on the
bye laws of the society alongwith list of
membership, Ex.PW1/A1; on another copy of
bye laws of the society Ex.PW22/C); on intensive
enquiry performa Ex.PW1/A2; on
affidavit,Ex.PW23/A. alongwith list of members
dated 31.01.1986 as Secretary and on the affidavit
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 65 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
dated 12.06.1985 Ex.PW1/A3. However he has
deposed that on purported affidavit dated
25.01.2001 Ex.PW22/C93. The signatures
appearing at points A & B are not of him. He had
not sworn and submitted the said affidavit. He has
identified his signatures on the membership
register Ex.PW1/PX.
147. He has further deposed that in the proceeding
register the proceedings dated 28.08.1989,
25.09.1989, 30.10.1989 (already Ex.PW22/C),
28.02.1990, 02.01.1990, 15.12.1989,
05.01.1991,Ex.PW23/B1 to B6, bears his
signatures at points A.
148. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated
15.04.1989, Ex.PW14/K, Proceedings dated
21.06.1990 Ex.PW22/C2, Proceedings dated
13.07.1990 Ex.PW22/C3, Proceedings dated
05.09.1990 Ex.PW22/C4, Proceedings dated
13.11.1990 Ex.PW22/C5), Proceedings dated
22.12.1990 Ex. PW22/C6), Proceedings dated
19.02.1991 Ex.PW22/C7), Proceedings dated
13.07.1991 Ex. PW22/C8), Proceedings dated
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 66 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
29.11.1991 Ex.PW22/C9), Proceedings dated
07.11.1992 Ex.PW22/C10), Proceedings dated
21.06.1996 Ex.PW22/C11, Proceedings dated
26.07.1998 PW22/C12, Proceedings dated
27.09.1999 Ex.PW22/C13, Proceedings dated
09.04.2000 Ex.PW22/C14 and Proceedings dated
18.06.2000 Ex.PW20/G). He has deposed that the
signatures appearing at point X on these
proceedings are not of him.
149. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated
13.08.1989, 02.01.1992, 24.04.1992, 23.07.1992,
11.02.1992,17.01.1998, 05.04.1999 and
11.01.2000, Ex.PW23/C1 to C8, in the proceeding
register, the signatures appearing at points Y are
not of him.
150. He has further deposed that in the proceeding
register (D-13), the proceeding dated 08.07.2001
Ex.PW14/L. The signature appearing at point D
against serial no.10 is not of him.
151. He has further deposed that the letter dated
11.07.1990 alongwith list of members,
Ex.PW23/D (colly.), addressed to Assistant
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 67 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Registrar regarding submission of list of members
bears his signature at point A. He has further
deposed that during investigation, he had
produced various documents of the said society to
IO Sh. Satish Chander Jha, vide production-cum-
seizure memo dated 02.05.2006,Ex.PW23/E.
which bears his signature at points A.
152. He has further deposed that accused Gokul Chand
Aggarwal met him in the year 2005 or 2006. He
( Gokul Chand Aggarwal ) offered to get the
society revived. After discussing with the
President, they met him again and he (Gokul
Chand Aggarwal) claimed that he had various
sources in the Office of Registrar of Co-operative
Society as well as DDA and could get the society
revived and land allotted. He has further deposed
that after becoming assure that Gokul Chand
Aggarwal could help them in getting the society
revived. He handed over to him some documents
such as personal ledger, proceeding
register/minute books and membership register.
He has deposed that a receipt was also prepared
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 68 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
dated 02.05.2006 Ex.PW22/C111), which bears
his signatures at point A and that of accused
Gokul Chand Aggarwal at point B.
153. He has further deposed that IO of the case had
obtained his specimen signature during
investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets
sheets S-138 to 144, Ex.PW23/F (colly.).
154. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant
Naveen Kaushik and Vipin Kumar Jain, but not by
any other accused person, despite the opportunity
being given to them.
155. PW24 is Sh Raj Kumar Rathi, he has deposed that
he was doing business of hosiery in the name and
style of M/S B.G. Hosiery, 1051, Pan Mandi,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He knew accused U.C.
Surana as he was his old neighbour.
156. He has further deposed that accused Surana got
signed one membership form of a society from
him but he had not filled the same. He also do
not remember the name of the society.
157. He has deposed that the signatures on the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 69 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
application form dated 02.02.1991 of the said
society at point A does not belongs to him. He has
paid Rs.110/- to accused Surana on his demand
when he had signed the application form vide
receipt Mark PW24/B.
158. He has further deposed that the affidavit dated
09.01.2001 Ex.PW22/C-63 does not bears his
signature at points A & B.
159. He has further deposed that the application
addressed to Assistant Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Office of RCS, NCT of Delhi dated
09.04.2005, Ex.PW24/C bears his signature at
point A. He has deposed that he had paid Rs.110/-
to accused Surana when he signed Ex.PW24/C.
160. He has further deposed that the affidavit dated
15.04.2005, Ex.PW24/D bears his signatures at
points A & B and his photograph at point C.
161. He has further deposed that the verification
certificate dated 15.04.2005,Ex.PW18/A-16 issued
by Sh. Azizdudin, Section Officer, Department of
Women & Child in his favour qua his
membership no. 189 of Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 70 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
bears his signature at point A and his photograph
at point B. However he has deposed that he do not
know Mr. Azizdudin who had issued the said
certificate. The said verification certificate was not
issued in his presence. He has deposed that he do
not remember how the same was got prepared and
by whom.
162. He has further deposed that the membership
register Ex.PW1/PX, against entry marked
Ex.PW24/E and the signature appearing at point
A against his name and particulars at serial
no.189 is not of him.
163. He has deposed that on the proceeding register
(D-13), the proceeding dated 08.07.2001
Ex.PW14/L (colly.), signature appearing at serial
at point E is not of him. He never attended any
meeting of the said society.
164. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and
Naveen Kaushik, but not by rest of the accused
person, despite the opportunity being given to
them.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 71 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Witnesses from the office of Registrar
Cooperative Society.
165. The office of RCS is the controlling and
supervising Government authority over the Co-
operative Group Housing Societies. It is a matter
of fact that a file pertaining to each of such
societies is maintained in the office of RCS from
the stage of its formation and registration and all
communications made with the society are placed
in such a file by the office of RCS.
166. In the present case also, the allegations against the
private accused persons are that they submitted a
false list of members which was based upon
forged and fake resignations and enrollments. The
file was processed in the office of RCS. Certain
officials/officers during the relevant time who had
actually processed the file pertaining to the present
society, were either posted as dealing assistants, or
Assistant Registrar, and finally all proposals were
approved by the Registrar, RCS.
167. The prosecution has examined the relevant
officials/officers posted in the office of RCS,
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 72 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
during the relevant time who had dealt with the
file pertaining to the present Society. These
witnesses were examined to prove the
proceedings, notings and certain communications
between the office of the RCS and the said
society, as maintained in the office of RCS. In this
regard, prosecution has examined following
witnesses from the office of RCS.
168. PW 25 Sh Mahendra Singh Sharma, is Assistant
Registrar ( North ) in the office of RCS New
Delhi. He has deposed that on 09.08.2005, he had
handed over various documents/files to the IO of
this case at CBI Office. He has deposed that a
production-cum-receipt memo,Ex.PW25/A was
also prepared which bears his signature at point A
on both the pages.
169. He has deposed that letter dated 27.02.2006 bears
his signature at point A. This letter is in
handwriting of Sh. J.R. Rasia (Head Clerk). He
has depsoed that vide this letter, Ex PW25/B
( Colly) list of approved members of the said
society was sent to IO of the case.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 73 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
170. He has further deposed that the list of approved
members is the same list which was sent to AR
(Policy) by Smt. Shakuntala Joshi, Assistant
Registrar earlier on 16.04.2001. The forwarding
letter of Smt. Shakuntala Joshi alongwith list of
approved members/final list of 140 members was
forwarded vide his letter dated 27.02.2006 to IO
of CBI. His letter alongwith these annexures is
Ex.PW25/B (colly.).
171. This witness has been cross examined by accused
Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen Kaushik
and Rajesh Kumar Srivastava but not by any of
the accused persons, despite the opportunity being
given to them.
Sanctioning Authority
172. In the present case, accused Satyaveer
Singh Malik, Vipin Kumar Jain, R.K.Srivastava
Smt. Shakuntla Joshi and Prahlad Kumar
Thirwani, are the public servant. At the conclusion
of the investigation they have also been charge-
sheeted. Since they were the public servants,
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 74 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
hence during the investigation requisite sanction
u/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was
obtained by the IO. The authorities which had
accorded the sanction to prosecute the above
named accused persons, have been examined as
prosecution witnesses, which are as under:
173. PW 27 is Sh Vijay Kumar, who has deposed that
in the year 2006, he was posted as Under
Secretary in the Department of Personnel and
Training. He was working in the Administrative
Vigilance Department which is dealing with
disciplinary matters of IAS officers including
sanction for prosecution.
174. He has further deposed that he has received a
number of proposals from the CBI regarding
accord of sanction for prosecution in respect of
Sh. R.K. Srivastava, IAS including the present
case. He has ensured the copies of all the
documents, statements of witnesses cited in the
SP’s report. After ensuring this, he has opened a
file and prepared a note summarizing the CBI
case. He has further deposed that he had also
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 75 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
placed the relevant documents in the folder below
the file for consideration of his senior officers. He
has submitted the file suggesting consultation with
the Central Vigilance Commission.
175. He has further deposed that the note was seen by
his officers i.e. Director Vigilance, Additional
Secretary and the Secretary. Thereafter, the file as
such, was referred to the Central Vigilance
Commission. The Central Vigilance Commission
advised for accord of sanction for prosecution. He
has further deposed that the case was again put up
by him along with opinion of CVC for seeking
orders of the Hon’ble Prime Minister as Minister
was in-charge of the Ministry of Personnel, who
was the competent authority to accord the sanction
for prosecution. He has further depoed that the
file was referred to the Hon’ble Prime Minister
through the hierarchy including the Minister of
State of his Department. After about 15 days, the
file was received back with the decision of the
Hon’ble Prime Minister conveyed by an officer of
PMO for accord of sanction in this case.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 76 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
176. He has further deposed that thereafter, he
prepared a draft sanction order which was
approved by his officer. Thereafter , he had
signed the same since he was competent to sign
the order on behalf of the President that is the
Hon’ble Prime Minister in this case for conveying
the decision of the competent authority.
Thereafter, the sanction order was sent to the CBI
with forwarding letter. He has deposed after
seeing the Sanction order Ex. PW27/A with
forwarding letter dated 21.02.2007, Ex. PW27/B
that this sanction order was issued by him.
177. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of the accused R.K. Srivastava, but not by rest of
the accused persons despite the opportunity being
given to them.
178. PW28 is Sh Ramesh Narayanaswami,who has
deposed that in December 2006, he was posted as
Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi. He
has further deposed that as Chief Secretary, Delhi,
he was competent to give sanction of prosecution
to DASS Grade-II, Head Clerk. He has deposed
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 77 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
that he would have received a request for sanction
from the CBI at the level of at least
Superintendent of Police. He has deposed that he
cannot recall precisely what documents he
received along with the request for according
sanction. He has further deposed that after going
through the report of the CBI and received, he
accorded his satisfaction for sanction of
prosecution. He has been shown sanction order
dated 07.12.2006 in respect of accused S.S. Malik.
After going through the same, he has correctly
identifies his signature on each page at point A
and also official seal on each page at point B on
the sanction order Ex. PW28/A.
179. He has further deposed that he has received a
request for sanction from the CBI but could not
recalled what documents he received along with
the request for according sanction. He has deposed
that after going through the report of the CBI and
such documents he accorded his satisfaction for
sanction of prosecution. He has deposed that he
was competent to accord sanction of prosecution
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 78 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
for level of Superintendent Grade-I, DASS at the
relevant time when he accorded sanction.
180. He has been shown the sanction order dated
07.12.2006 in respect of accused P.K. Thirwani.
He has correctly identifies his signature on each
page at point A and also official seal on each page
at point B, on the sanction order Ex. PW28/B.
181. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of the accused P.K. Thirwani and accused
Satyaveer Singh Malik, but not by rest of the
accused persons despite the opportunity being
given to them.
182. PW29 is Dr S.S. Shah, who has deposed that
during the year 2007, he was posted as Director,
Health Services, Government of Delhi. He has
further deposed that he being as an appointing
authority, was competent to remove accused Vipin
Kumar Jain working as S.I. in the Directorate
Service during the relevant time. Therefore, he
was competent to accord the sanction to prosecute
accused Vipin Kumar Jain.
183. He has further deposed that he had received a
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 79 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
request from the CBI for giving the sanction.
Along with the request, he had received various
documents/material. He has deposed that after
going through the material placed before him he
came to the conclusion that it is a fit case to
accord the sanction to prosecute accused Vipin
Kumar Jain. Accordingly, he granted the sanction
vide sanction order dated 03.01.2007 Ex. PW29/A
which bears his signature at point A.
184. He has further deposed that the aforesaid sanction
was sent by his Joint Director vide a
communication dated 03.01.2007 Ex. PW29/B
which bears the signature of his Joint Director,
Sh. Omkar Singh,at point A.
185. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of the accused Vipin Kumar Jain, but not by rest
of the accused persons despite the opportunity
being given to them.
186. PW30, is Sh Bhairab Dutt, Superintendent in the
Directorate of Vigilance, GNCT of Delhi. He has
identified the signatures of Late Sh. D.K. Mishra
Additional Secretary, Vigilance in the Directorate
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 80 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
of Vigilance, GNCT of Delhi on the sanction
order Ex. PW30/A (colly.) and the forwarding
letter dated 29.12.2006 Ex. PW30/B.
187. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused persons despite the
opportunity being given to them.
Witness from DDA
188. The role of DDA with regard to the co-
operative group housing society comes into
picture when a request is made by the society
through the office of RCS for allotment of land.
Once the land is allotted the last action on the part
of the DDA is generally to get executed Draw of
Lots in the presence of their officers. For this
purpose, at the first instance, the society would
send a list of freezed members to the office of
RCS with the request to onward transmission of
the same to the DDA for allotment of land. And
subsequently, another list is sent for Draw of Lots.
But in the present case, it is not the case of the
prosecution that land was ever allotted to the
society by the DDA.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 81 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
189. As stated earlier, a file is maintained by the office
of RCS pertaining to the society, in a similar way
a file is maintained pertaining to each of such
societies separately by DDA also. And all
proceedings and communications pertaining to the
society are placed in that file. The officer who
dealt with the file of present society during
relevant time in the office of DDA, has been
examined as prosecution witness as follows:
190. PW8 is Sh. Paras Nath, who has deposed that he
joined Co-operative Group Housing Society
Branch of DDA in June, 2004 as Assistant in the
office of Dy. Director, Cooperative Group
Housing Society Branch. Sh. B.N Singh was the
Director of the said Branch. He has deposed that
the letter dated 04.09.2003 (ExPW8/A) was
written to the Registrar, Cooperative Group
Housing Societies, Parliament Street, New Delhi
under the signatures of Director (RL), DDA. He
has deposed that Sh. B.S Bhardwaj, the then
Assistant Director, CGHS Branch (DDA) had
certified the letter ExPW8/A alongwith a list of
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 82 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
societies awaiting allotment below registration
no.1430 and he (Paras Nath) had identified the
signatures of Sh. B.S Bhardwaj on ExPW8/A.
191. This witness was not cross examined by any of
the accused persons despite opportunity being
given to them.
192. PW61 is Sh Devi Prasad Dwivedi, who has
deposed that in the year 2003 he was posted as
Director ( Vigilance) and for some time as
Director ( Residential Lands). He has deposed that
vide letter dated 04.09.2003 Ex PW8/A, alongwith
enclosures, he has written to the Registrar (CS),
Government of NCT of Delhi with regard to
conformation of recommendation made by RCS
for allotment of land to various CGHS listed in the
enclosure.
193. This witness was not cross examined by any of
the accused persons despite opportunity being
given to them.
Expert witness.
194. During the course of investigation certain
specimen and admitted writings/signatures were
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 83 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
sent to GEQD for examination by the CBI to
establish the case of forgery and role of accused
persons who committed the forgery. Prosecution
has examined PW66 as expert to prove the report
Ex PW66/H.
195. PW 22 is Dr. S Ahmed, GEQD, he has deposed
that in the instant case, questioned and standard
documents were received in his office i.e. GEQD,
Shimla vide letter No.4169 /3/SIB/ 2006/E0001/
EOU-V dated 15.06.2006,Ex.PW22/A (D-37).
from Addl. SP/CBI/EOU-V/New Delhi. . He has
deposed that in the said case, further questioned
and standard documents were received in his
office vide letter No.8808/ 3/ SIB/ 2006/
E0001/EOU-V dated 26.12.2006,Ex.PW22/B
(D-39) from SP/CBI/EOU-V/New Delhi.
196. He has further depsoed that he had examined
Questioned writings Mark Q-1 to Q-13 contained
in documents already exhibited as Ex.PW14/K
(Colly.); questioned writings Q-14 and Q-15
contained in documents marked as Ex.PW22/C1;
questioned writings Q-16 to Q-19 contained in
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 84 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
documents marked as Ex.PW22/C2; questioned
writings Q-20, Q-21, Q-26 and Q-27 contained in
documents marked as Ex.PW22/C3; questioned
writings Q-28 to Q-31 contained in documents
marked Ex.PW22/C4 ; questioned writings Q-32
to Q-37 contained in documents marked
Ex.PW22/C5 ; questioned writings Q-38 to Q-42
contained in documents marked as Ex.PW22/C6 ;
questioned writings Q-43 to Q-47 contained in
documents marked as Ex.PW22/C7; questioned
writings Q-48 to Q-53 contained in documents
Ex.PW22/C8; questioned writings Q-54 to Q-58
contained in documents Ex.PW22/C9; questioned
writings Q-59 to Q-63 contained in documents
Ex.PW22/C10; questioned writings Q-64 to Q-69
contained in documents Ex.PW22/C11;
questioned writings Q-70 to Q-75 contained in
documents Ex.PW22/C12; questioned writings
Q-76 to Q-81 contained in documents
Ex.PW22/C13 ; questioned writings Q-82 to Q-84
contained in documents Ex.PW22/C14;
questioned writings Q-85, Q-88, Q-89, Q-91 to
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 85 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Q-126, Q-94A, Q-109A, Q-117A contained in
documents Ex.PW20/G (Colly.); questioned
writings Q-86, Q-87, Q-127 to Q-129 contained in
documents Ex.PW22/C15; questioned writings
Q-130 to Q-135 contained in documents
Ex.PW22/C16; questioned writings Q-136 to
Q-140 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C17;
questioned writings Q-141 to Q-144 contained in
documents Ex.PW22/C18; questioned writings
Q-145 to Q-149 contained in documents
Ex.PW22/C19; questioned writings Q-150 to
Q-153 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C20;
questioned writings Q-154 to Q-157 contained in
documents Ex.PW22/C21; questioned writings
Q-158 to Q-162 contained in documents
Ex.PW22/C22; questioned writings Q-268 &
Q-548 contained in documents Ex.PW14/B;
questioned writings Q-269 & Q-270 contained in
documents Ex.PW14/C; questioned writings
Q-271 & Q-272 contained in documents
Ex.PW22/C23; questioned writings Q-273 &
Q-274 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C24;
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 86 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
questioned writings Q-275 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C25; questioned writings Q-276 to
Q-281 contained in documents Ex.PW14/D;
questioned writings Q-282 to Q-289 contained in
documents Ex.PW22/C26; questioned writings
Q-290 contained in document Ex.PW22/C27;
questioned writings Q-291 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C28; questioned writings Q-292
contained in document Ex.PW22/C29; questioned
writings Q-293 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C30; questioned writings Q-294 &
Q-295 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C31;
questioned writings Q-296 & Q-297 contained in
documents Ex.PW22/C32; questioned writings
Q-298 & Q-299 contained in documents
Ex.PW22/C33; questioned writings Q-300 &
Q-301 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C34;
questioned writings Q-302, Q-303 & Q-303A
contained in documents as Ex.PW10//C;
questioned writings Q-304 & Q-305 contained in
documents Ex.PW15/A; questioned writings
Q-306 to Q-308 contained in documents Mark
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 87 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
PW5/A; questioned writings Q-309 to Q-312
contained in documents Ex.PW22/C35;
questioned writings Q-313 to Q-316 contained in
documents Mark PW14/E; questioned writings
Q-317 to Q-320 contained in documents Mark
PW17/A; questioned writings Q-321 to Q-324
contained in documents Mark PW7/A; questioned
writings Q-325 & Q-326 contained in documents
Ex.PW22/C36; questioned writings Q-327 to
Q-329 contained in documents Mark PW3/A;
questioned writings Q-330 to Q-333 contained in
documents Mark PW4/A; questioned writings
Q-334, Q-335 and Q-334A contained in
documents Ex.PW22/C37; questioned writings
Q-336 & Q-337 contained in documents
Ex.PW22/C38;questioned writings Q-338 &
Q-339 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C39;
questioned writings Q-340 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C40; questioned writings Q-341 &
Q-342 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C41;
questioned writings Q-343 & Q-344 contained in
documents Ex.PW22/C42; questioned writings
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 88 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Q-345 to Q-347 contained in documents
Ex.PW22/C43; questioned writings Q-348 to
Q-350 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C44;
questioned writings Q-351 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C45; questioned writings Q-352 &
Q-353 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C46;
questioned writings Q-354 & Q-355 contained in
documents Ex.PW22/C47; questioned writings
Q-356 contained in document Ex.PW22/C48;
questioned writings Q-357 to Q-359 contained in
documents Ex.PW22/C49; questioned writings
Q-360 & Q-361 contained in documents Mark
PW8/F; questioned writings Q-362 & Q-363
contained in documents already Mark PW8/G;
questioned writings Q-410 to Q-412 contained in
documents Ex.PW22/C50; questioned writings
Q-407 to Q-409 contained in documents
Ex.PW22/C51; questioned writings Q-364 &
Q-365 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C52;
questioned writings Q-365A, Q-366 & Q-367
contained in documents Ex.PW22/C53;
questioned writings Q-363A, Q-364 & Q-365
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 89 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
contained in documents Ex.PW22/C54;questioned
writings Q-345 to Q-347 contained in documents
Ex.PW22/C55; questioned writings Q-368
contained in document Mark PW9/C; questioned
writings Q-369 & Q-370 contained in documents
Mark PW9/D); questioned writings Q-371 to
Q-373 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C56;
questioned writings Q-374 contained in document
Mark PW15/D; questioned writings Q-375 &
Q-376 contained in documents Ex.PW15/E;
questioned writings Q-377 contained in document
Mark PW10/D; questioned writings Q-378 &
Q-379 contained in documents Mark PW10/E ;
questioned writings Q-380 contained in document
Mark PW13/C; questioned writings Q-381 &
Q-382 contained in documents Mark PW13/D;
questioned writings Q-383 contained in
documents Mark PW12/D; questioned writings
Q-384 contained in document Mark PW12/E;
questioned writings Q-385 to Q-387 contained in
documents Ex.PW22/C57 and questioned
writings Q-389 & Q-549 contained in document
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 90 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Ex.PW22/C58.
197. He has further deposed that he had examined
questioned writings Q-388 & Q-550 contained in
document Ex.PW22/C59; questioned writings
Q-390 contained in document Ex.PW22/C60;
questioned writings Q-391 contained in document
s Ex.PW22/C61; questioned writings Q-392
contained in document Ex.PW22/C62 ; questioned
writings Q-393 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C63; questioned writings Q-394
contained in document Ex.PW22/C64; questioned
writings Q-395 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C65; questioned writings Q-396
contained in document Ex.PW7/C; questioned
writings Q-401P contained in document
Ex.PW22/C66; questioned writings Q-401S
contained in document Ex.PW22/C67; questioned
writings Q-397 contained in document
Ex.PW14/F; questioned writings Q-401T
contained in document Ex.PW22/C68 ; questioned
writings Q-401U contained in document
Ex.PW22/C69; questioned writings Q-401Z
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 91 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
contained in document Ex.PW16/C; questioned
writings Q-401V contained in document
Ex.PW22/C70; questioned writings Q-401E
contained in document Ex.PW22/C71 ; questioned
writings Q-398 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C72; questioned writings Q-4010
contained in document Ex.PW22/C73; questioned
writings Q-401Q contained in document
Ex.PW22/C74; questioned writings Q-401H
contained in document Ex.PW22/C75 ; questioned
writings Q-401N contained in document
Ex.PW22/C76; questioned writings Q-401L
contained in document Ex.PW22/C77; questioned
writings Q-401W contained in document
Ex.PW22/C78; questioned writings Q-401A
contained in document Ex.PW22/C79; questioned
writings Q-401B contained in document
Ex.PW22/C80; questioned writings Q-401F
contained in document Ex.PW22/C81; questioned
writings Q-401J contained in document
Ex.PW22/C82; questioned writings Q-401G
contained in document Ex.PW22/C83 ; questioned
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 92 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
writings Q-401K contained in document
Ex.PW22/C84; questioned writings Q-401X
contained in document Ex.PW22/C85; questioned
writings Q-401Y contained in document
Ex.PW22/C86; questioned writings Q-4011
contained in document Ex.PW22/C87; questioned
writings Q-399 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C88; questioned writings Q-401M
contained in document Ex.PW22/C89; questioned
writings Q-401C contained in document
Ex.PW22/C90; questioned writings Q-401D
contained in document Ex.PW22/C91; questioned
writings Q-400 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C92; questioned writings Q-401
contained in document Ex.PW22/C93; questioned
writings Q-162A, Q-427 to Q-429, Q-163 to
Q-196, Q-173A, Q-179A, Q-155A, Q-197A,
Q-198, Q-199, Q-199A, Q-200 to Q-212, Q-213,
Q-214 contained in documents Ex.PW14/L
(Colly.)
198. He has further deposed that he had also examined
questioned writings Q-215 contained in document
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 93 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Ex.PW22/C94; questioned writings Q-216
contained in document Ex.PW22/C95 ; questioned
writings Q-217 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C96; questioned writings Q-218
contained in document Ex.PW22/C97; questioned
writings Q-219 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C98; questioned writings Q-220
contained in document Ex.PW22/C99; questioned
writings Q-221 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C100; questioned writings Q-222
contained in document Ex.PW22/C101;
questioned writings Q-223 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C102; questioned writings Q-224
contained in document Ex.PW22/C103;
questioned writings Q-225 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C104; questioned writings Q-226
contained in document Ex.PW22/C105;
questioned writings Q-227 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C106; questioned writings Q-228 to
Q-238 contained in document Ex.PW22/C107
(colly.); questioned writings Q-239 to Q-249 &
Q-243 A contained in document Ex.PW22/C108
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 94 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
(colly.); questioned writings Q-250 to Q-265
contained in document Ex.PW22/C109;
questioned writings Q-266, Q-267 & Q-267A
contained in document Ex.PW22/C110 (colly.);
questioned writings Q-414 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C111; questioned writings Q-415 to
Q-424 contained in document Ex.PW22/C112
(colly.); questioned writings Q-425 contained in
document Ex.PW22/C113; questioned writings
Q-426 contained in document Ex.PW22/C114;
questioned writings Q-435 to Q-467 Ex.PW20/1
(colly.); questioned writings Q-468 to Q-500
Ex.PW20/J (colly.); questioned writings Q-508 to
Q-510 contained in document Ex.PW22/C115;
questioned writings Q-511 to Q-513 contained in
documentEx.PW22/C116; questioned writings
Q-514 contained in document Ex.PW22/C117
(D-6); questioned writings Q-515 to Q-519
contained in document Ex.PW22/C118;
questioned writings Q-520 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C119; questioned writings Q-521
contained in document Ex.PW22/C120;
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 95 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
questioned writings Q-522 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C121; questioned writings Q-523 &
Q-524 contained in document Ex.PW22/C122
(colly.); questioned writings Q-525 to Q-527
contained in document Ex.PW22/C123;
questioned writings Q-528 to Q-530 contained in
document Ex.PW22/C124; questioned writings
Q-531 contained in document Ex.PW22/C125;
questioned writings Q-532 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C126; questioned writings Q-533 to
Q-535 contained in document Ex.PW22/C127;
questioned writings Q-536 to Q-538 contained in
documentmEx.PW22/C128; questioned writings
Q-539 contained in document Ex.PW22/C129;
questioned writings Q-540 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C130; questioned writings Q-503 on
Ex.PW19/A; questioned writings Q-504 & Q-505
contained in document Ex.PW22/C131;
questioned writings Q-506 to Q-507 contained in
document Ex.PW22/C132; questioned writings
Q-502 contained in document Ex.PW22/C133;
questioned writings Q-541 contained in document
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 96 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Ex.PW22/C134; questioned writings Q-542 to
Q-544 contained in document Ex.PW22/C135;
questioned writings Q-545 contained in document
Ex.PW22/C136; questioned writings Q-546 &
Q-547 contained in document Ex.PW22/C137.
199. He has further deposed that he has also examined
Q-501, Ex. PW22/C138; S-1 to S-262 Ex.
PW22/C139; Q-402 , Q-404 , Q-403 ,Q-405 and
Q-406 Ex. PW22/C140, Ex. PW22/C141, Ex.
PW22/C142 and Ex. PW22/C143 respectively.
200. He has further deposed that he has also examined
A-14 to A-23Ex. PW1/A1.He has also examined
Q-548 , Q-549 and Q-550 Ex PW22/C144, Ex.
PW22/C145 and Ex. PW22/C146 respectively.
201. He has deposed that after examination of the
documents, he gave his report no. CX304/2006
dated 07.08.2006,Ex. PW22/D (colly.) which
bears his signature at point ‘A’. He also identified
signatures of Sh. Mohinder Singh, the then Deputy
GEQD at point ‘B’.
202. He has further deposed that his reasons in support
of his said report dated 07.08.2006, Ex. PW22/E
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 97 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
(colly.) bears his signatures at points ‘A’ on each
of the pages running into 28 pages. He has further
deposed that the said report was forwarded to
Additional SP, EOU-V, CBI, New Delhi vide
communication dated 01.09.2006,Ex. PW22/F
under the signature of Sh. N.C. Sood, the then
GEQD.
203. He has further deposed that he had also given a
supplementary report dated 30.03.2007,Ex.
PW22/G (colly.) which bears his signature at
point ‘A’ and the signatures of Sh. Mohinder
Singh, the then Deputy GEQD at point ‘B’. He has
deposed that he has also given reasons in support
of his supplementary report are dated 30.03.2007,
Ex. PW22/H (colly.). He has further deposed that
the said supplementary report was forwarded to
Additional SP, CBI, EOU-V, New Delhi vide
communication dated 19.04.2007, Ex. PW22/I.
under the signature of Sh. N.C. Sood, the then
GEQD.
204. This witness was cross examined on behalf of
accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 98 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Kaushik, Gokul Chand Aggarwal and Vipin
Kumar Jain and not by remaining accused persons
despite opportunity being given to them.
Other Witnesses
205. One of the allegations against the
accused persons is that some of the accused
persons have forged the signatures and documents.
To establish the same, during the investigation, IO
has taken the specimen handwritings/ signatures of
certain persons including accused persons. While
taking the said specimen handwriting/signatures,
some officials/officers from different departments
were called to witness such proceedings by the
CBI. Apart from these witness, the IO has also
examined Bank officers, an Advocate who has
appeared on behalf of accused in RCS office,
Delhi. Those persons, so summoned, by the CBI
have been examined as prosecution witnesses
which are as under:-
206. PW 18 is Sh Ashok Maheshwari, he has deposed
that he was working as Account Manager in the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 99 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
firm in the name and style of Associated
Engineers at Flat No.6, 3rd floor, Mahalaxmi
Market, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi-110006. Accused
Uttam Chand Surana was one of the partners of
the said firm.
207. He has further deposed that in the year 2004-2005,
accused Uttam Chand Surana gave him some
forms for attestation from Gazetted Officer. He
(witness ) was knowing one Mr. Kishan Kumar
Garg who was Gazetted Officer in some
department. He took those forms for attestation to
Mr. Garg but he had retired. However, he assured
him to get the same attested from some other
persons. He has further deposed that Mr. Garg
handed over to him those forms after attestation
after 4-5 days. Mr. Garg also asked him to fill
details of the attesting officers.
208. He has deposed that on the verification certificates
(Page 187, 184, 181, 175, 172, 169, 166, 163, 160,
157, 154, 151, 148, 145, 142, 139, 136, 133, 130,
127, 124, 121, 116, 113, 110, 107, 103, 99, 96,
93,89,85,82 & 79 of D-3) he had written the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 100 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
particulars of the attesting officers Sh. Azizuddin
and Sh. J.K. Gulati at the bottom except their
phone numbers and I-Card numbers on the
verification certificates Ex.PW18/A1 to A 29. He
has deposed that he handed over the attested
verification certificates to accused Uttam Chand
Surana. Who had told him ( Witness) that these
certificates were required in connection with the
said society.
209. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
210. PW 19 is Sh B.S Arora, he has deposed that he
was practicing in Patiala House Courts as
Advocate since 1977. He knew accused S.P.
Saxena for the last many years and also knew
accused Uttam Chand Surana. He has deposed that
Vakalatnama, dated 24.01.2001, Ex.PW19/A
bears his signature at point A and signature of
accused U.C. Surana at point B.
211. He has deposed that in the year 2001, he received
telephonic call from accused S.P. Saxena to attend
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 101 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
the RCS office relating to revival of the said
society. He has deposed that he was also told by
Saxena that some society members would be
available in the RCS Office. He has further
deposed that when he visited the RCS Office,
Delhi, societies members were already there in the
office. The said members gave him one
application for revival of said society dated
24.01.2001 Ex PW19/B which bears his
signature at point A . He has deposed that he had
submitted the said application before the RCS,
Delhi. He has further deposed that in the noting
file (D-6) on the margin of note sheet 18/N, bears
his signature at point A. He has deposed when he
put his signature on the margin of the note sheet
file, marked Ex.PW19/C nothing was written on
the note sheet at Page 18/N. He has deposed that
on the date when he made application before the
RCS, he had not submitted any original record
before the RCS. He has deposed that accused
Uttam Chand Surana had also put his signature on
the margin of note sheet at point B.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 102 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
212. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused S.P Saxena, but not by any of the
accused person, despite the opportunity being
given to them.
213. PW21 is Sh S.K. Abrol, he has deposed that in the
year 2006, he was posted as Asstt. Manager in
Delhi State Co-operative Bank, Dariyaganj
Branch, Delhi. He has deposed that vide seizure
memo Ex.PW21/A he has handed over documents
annexed thereto, Ex PW21/B to Inspector of CBI.
The memo bears his signature at point A.
214. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
215. PW26 is Sh Hemraj, who has deposed that he was
working in Punjab National Bank as Deputy
Manager and remained posted in Punjab National
Bank Chirag Delhi from November 2005 to 2009.
He has deposed that he had handed over
documents to CBI during his posting at Chirag
Delhi from Chief Manager, PNB, Chirag Delhi.
This witness has been shown certified copy of
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 103 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
letter from Chief Manager, PNB, Chirag Delhi
with statement of account of accused R.K
Shrivastava and Madhu Srivastava to which he has
deposed that the said letter was in his hand and
signed by the Chief Manager Sh Grover. He has
identified his signatures at point on the letter Ex.
PW26/A.
216. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant
Naveen Kaushik and R.K. Srivastava but not by
any other accused person, despite the opportunity
being given to them.
217. PW 31 is Sh Pradeep Kumar, he has deposed that
during the year 2006, he was working as a UDC
in the Ministry of Development of North Eastern
Region, Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi-110011. He
has further deposed that he had been called
number of times by the CBI through his office to
become a witness to certain proceedings.
218. He has further deposed that his signatures were
taken by the IO on certain proceedings which were
recorded in his presence. He has further deposed
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 104 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
that at that time besides he, the IO, one or two
more persons from CBI were also present there
and the persons whose signatures were taken, were
also present there.
219. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated
26.04.2006, from S-1 to S-4, belonging to accused
Uttam Chand Surana, Ex. PW31/A (colly.) bear
his signatures at points ‘A’ on each of the pages
and also the signatures of said Uttam Chand
Surana at points ‘B’ on each of the pages.
220. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated
25.05.2006, from S-152 to S-158, belonging to
witness Ajay Suri, Ex. PW14/N (colly) bear his
signatures at points ‘B’ on each of the pages
except the page no. S-153, S-154 and S-158 and
also the signatures of said Ajay Suri at points ‘A’
on each of the pages.
221. He has further deposed that the proceedings from
S-214 to S-221, belonging to accused Vipin
Kumar Jain Ex. PW31/B (colly.),bears his
signatures at points ‘A’ on each of the pages and
also the signatures of accused Vipin Kumar Jain
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 105 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
at points ‘B’ on each of the pages. He has
identified accused Vipin Kumar Jain sitting in the
court.
222. He has further deposed that the proceedings from
S-222 to S-223, belonging to accused S.P. Saxena
Ex PW31/C ( Colly.) bear his signatures at points
‘A’ on each of the pages and also the signatures of
said accused S.P. Saxena at points ‘B’ on each of
the pages.
223. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated
30.05.2006, from S-224 to S-226, belonging to
Chander Bhan Arya, (Ex. PW31/D (colly),) bear
his signatures at points ‘A’ on each of the pages
and also the signatures of said Chander Bhan Arya
at points ‘B’ on each of the pages.
224. He has further deposed that the proceedings from
S-227 to S-238, belonging to accused Gokul
Chand Aggarwal, (Ex. PW31/E (colly ), bear his
signatures at points ‘A’ on each of the pages and
also the signatures of accused Gokul Chand
Aggarwal at points ‘B’ on each of the pages.
225. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 106 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
09.10.2006, from S-253 to S-256, belonging to
P.T. Paul, ( Ex. PW31/F (colly), bear his
signatures at points ‘A’ on each of the pages and
also the signatures of said P.T. Paul at points ‘B’
on each of the pages.
226. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated
09.10.2006, from S-257 to S-262, belonging to
Vinay Kumar Setia, (Ex. PW20/K,(colly.) bears
his signatures at points ‘B’ on each of the pages
and also the signatures of said Vinay Kumar Setia
at points ‘A’.
227. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of the accused Satyavir Singh Malik, Shakuntala
Joshi and Gokul Chand Aggarwal, but not by rest
of the accused persons despite the opportunity
being given to them.
228. PW33 is Sh A.K.Yadav, he has deposed that in the
year 2006, he was posted as a Tehsildar in
Defence Colony, South District, Delhi. He was
attached with the CBI pertaining to the
investigation of cooperative group housing
societies cases.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 107 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
229. He has further deposed that in the present case,
the officer of CBI Sh S.C. Jha has taken the
specimen signatures/writings of one Ashwani
Sharma in his chamber in his presence on
26.05.2006 from S-30 to S-36 and S-70 to S-96,
(Ex. PW33/A (colly.). The aforesaid proceedings
bear his signatures at points ‘A’ on each of the
pages and the signatures of said Ashwani Sharma
at points ‘B’ on each of the pages. He has further
deposed that the specimen signatures/writings
encircled in blue color of said Ashwani Sharma
were taken in his presence. He has identified
accused Ashwani Sharma.
230. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Ashwani Sharma, but not by rest of
the accused persons despite the opportunity being
given to them.
Witnesses from CBI
231. In the present case, the FIR was
registered pursuant to the order of Hon’ble High
Court dated 03.10.2005. Initially, a preliminary
enquiry was conducted by the CBI officer and at
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 108 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
the conclusion of the preliminary enquiry, a
regular case was registered. During the
investigation certain documents were received and
seized from the office of RCS and also from the
office of DDA as well as from some accused
persons. From the stage of carrying out
preliminary enquiry till filing of chargesheet, the
officers from CBI, who one way or another, were
part of the investigation have been examined as
prosecution witnesses, which are as under:
232. PW 32 is the then Inspector Pramod Kumar, he
has deposed that during the year 2005, he was
posted as Inspector of Police, CBI, EOU-VI. He
has deposed that he was entrusted with the
preliminary enquiry of Dhruv Sangam CGHS
along with six other group housing societies as per
the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.After
conducting the preliminary enquiry, he had
submitted his enquiry report dated 30.12.2005
(Ex. PW32/A (colly.) to the then SP, CBI, EOU-
VI. He has further deposed that vide handing-
taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, (Ex. PW32/B
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 109 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
(colly.) he had handed over the documents
pertaining to the present society to the IO,Sh. S.C.
Jha. He has further deposed that vide production
cum receipt memo dated 29.08.2005/02.09.2005,
(Ex PW32/C (colly.), documents as mentioned in
the said memo were taken from the possession of
accused Uttam Chand Surana during the
preliminary enquiry.
233. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of the accused Satyavir Singh Malik, Shakuntala
Joshi, Gokul Chand Aggarwal and accused
Ashwani Sharma, but not by rest of the accused
persons despite the opportunity being given to
them.
234. PW34, Satish Chandra Jha, DSP,CBI is the IO of
the case, he has deposed that a preliminary
enquiry was instituted in the matter relating to
bungling in the revival of present society on the
orders of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Based on
the findings of the enquiry officer in the said
preliminary enquiry, the instant case was
registered against the office bearers of RCS and
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 110 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
other private persons.
235. He has further deposed that after registration of
the regular case, the investigation of the present
case was entrusted to him. During the course of
investigation, the witnesses were examined with
regards to the allegations made in the FIR,
documents were collected with a purpose to
ascertain the facts relating to the allegations and
with a purpose to ascertain the involvement of the
persons named in the FIR as well as other
unknown persons.
236. He has further deposed that during the course of
investigation, the documents found to be
suspicious with regards to their genuineness, in
terms of the signatures of the individual shown in
those documents as well as the contents of the
writings found in those documents, the same were
sent to GEQD along with the questioned writings
and signatures of the suspect/accused persons.
237. He has further deposed that on receipt of the
opinion of the GEQD as well as on the basis of
the oral testimony of the witnesses, documents on
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 111 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
records, a prosecution case was found to be made
out and after obtaining the mandatory sanction for
prosecution against the public servants, a charge-
sheet was filed in the court.
238. He has further deposed that FIR Ex. PW32/A was
registered on the basis of the outcome of the
preliminary enquiry and the investigation of the
present case was entrusted to him by Sh. S.K. Jha,
the then SP, CBI, EOU-V.
239. He has further deposed that vide handing and
taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B,
the documents collected during the preliminary
enquiry by the then enquiry officer Sh. P.K.
Tiwari, were handed over to him. He has further
deposed that vide production-cum-receipt memo
dated 29.08.2005/2.9.2005,Ex. PW32/C (colly.),
documents were collected by Sh. P.K. Tiwari from
Sh. U.C. Surena. He has deposed that vide
production-cum-receipt memo dated 09.08.2005,
Ex. PW25/A, documents were collected by Sh.
P.K. Tiwari from Sh. M.S. Sharma, Assistant
Registrar, RCS, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 112 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
240. He has further deposed that a file pertaining to
Dhruv Sangam CGHS, Ex. PW34/A (colly.) was
seized by him from RCS office containing
correspondence and affidavit of members of the
present society vide handing and taking over
memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
241. He has further deposed that a file no.
F47/1205/NGH/Coop./Vol. II of RCS, Ex.
PW34/B (colly.), containing bye-laws, application
for registration, affidavits, intensive enquiry
proforma pertaining to the said society was
collected vide handing and taking over memo
dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
242. He has further deposed that a file no.
F47/1205/NGH/1008/Vol.III,containing affidavits,
resignations, enrollment applications pertaining to
to the said society,Ex. PW34/C (colly.)was
collected vide handing and taking over memo
dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
243. He has deposed that the file no.
F47/1205/NGH/Coop./Vol.IV, containing note-
sheets, correspondence portion, comprising of
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 113 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
audit order, order for revival and original
membership etc. pertaining to said society,Ex.
PW34/D (colly.) was collected vide handing and
taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
244. He has further deposed that document i.e. an
election file pertaining to said society Ex. PW34/E
(colly.) was collected vide handing and taking
over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B. He
has deposed that the document i.e. file no. 001
comprising of bye laws, registration, revival order
of present society duly signed by U.C. Surena,
pertaining to the said society Ex. PW34/F (colly.)
was collected vide handing and taking over memo
dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
245. He has further deposed that the file comprising of
bank statements, pertaining to the said society,Ex.
PW34/G (colly.) was collected vide handing and
taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
246. He has further deposed that the file no. 6, Ex.
PW34/H (colly.) duly signed by U.C. Surena,
comprising of correspondence with DDA by the
office bearers of the society pertaining to the said
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 114 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
society was collected vide handing and taking
over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
247. He has further deposed that the document i.e.
membership register, Ex. PW34/I (colly.)
pertaining to the said society was collected vide
handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006,
Ex. PW32/B.
248. He has deposed that document i.e. proceeding
register, pertaining to the said society Ex PW34/J
( Colly) was collected vide handing and taking
over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
249. He has deposed that the proceeding registers,
pertaining to the said society,Ex. PW34/K (colly.)
and Ex. PW34/L (colly.) were collected vide
handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006,
Ex. PW32/B.
250. He has further deposed that vide production-cum-
seizure memo dated 02.05.2006 Ex. PW23/E, he
had seized certain documents during the
investigation from Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma in
the presence of independent witness namely Sh.
Neeraj Rawat, pertaining to the present society
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 115 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
and the same bears his signatures at point ‘B’. The
signatures of said Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma is at
point ‘A’ and that of Sh. Neeraj Rawat are at point
‘C’.
251. He has further deposed that proceeding register,
pertaining to the said society Ex. PW34/M (colly.)
was seized vide production-cum-seizure memo
02.05.2006, Ex. PW23/E.
252. He has deposed that sheet of paper containing the
text in handwritings Ex. PW22/C-111of accused
Gokul Chand Aggarwal with his signatures, dated
30.04.2001, with his address as 72, Dudhiyal
Apartments, Pitampura, Delhi was seized vide
production-cum-seizure memo 02.05.2006, Ex.
PW23/E. He has deposed that one cash book
register for the period of 01.07.1988 to
30.06.1989, Ex. PW34/N (colly.) pertaining to the
said society was seized vide production-cum-
seizure memo 02.05.2006, Ex. PW23/E.
253. He has deposed that the the audit report for the
period from 1986 to 1989, Ex. PW34/O (colly.)
pertaining to the said society was seized vide
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 116 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
production-cum-seizure memo 02.05.2006, Ex.
PW23/E . He has further deposed that the share
certificate book,Ex. PW34/P (colly.), pertaining to
the said society was seized vide production-cum-
seizure memo 02.05.2006, Ex. PW23/E.
254. He has further deposed that bye- laws,Ex.
PW34/Q (colly.) pertaining to the said society
were seized vide production-cum-seizure memo
02.05.2006, Ex. PW23/E.
255. He has deposed that vide a search-cum-seizure
memo dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/R (colly.), he
had seized certain documents during the searches
in the official premises of the present society bears
his signatures at all the three pages at points ‘A’. It
also bears the signatures of independent witness
namely Sh. Vijay Kumar as well as the occupant
of the office namely Sh. Rony Paul at points ‘B’
and at points ‘C’ respectively.
256. He has further deposed that the balance and
ledger account, for the period 01.04.1999 to
31.03.2000, Ex. PW34/S (colly.) pertaining to the
said society were seized vide search-cum-seizure
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 117 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
memo dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/R (colly.).
257. He has further deposed that a register, Ex.
PW34/T (colly.), pertaining to the said society
was seized vide search-cum-seizure memo dated
21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/R (colly.) He has deposed
that electricity bills and other documents,
pertaining to the said society,Ex. PW34/U (colly.)
were seized vide search-cum-seizure memo dated
21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/R (colly.)
258. He has further deposed that share allotment
register, pertaining to the said society Ex. PW34/V
(colly.) was seized vide search-cum-seizure memo
dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/R (colly.).
259. He has deposed that election file, pertaining to the
said society, Ex. PW34/W (colly.) was seized
vide search-cum-seizure memo dated 21.04.2006,
Ex. PW34/R.
260. He has deposed that balance sheet for the period
1989/90 to 2001/2002 and audit papers,
pertaining to the said society Ex. PW34/X (colly.)
were also seized vide search-cum-seizure memo
dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/R (colly.).
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 118 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
261. He has further deposed that search list dated
21.04.2006,Ex. PW34/Y (colly.) in respect of
search conducted at residence of accused U.C.
Surena, H. No. C-4/62, Rajasthali Apartment,
Pitampura Chowk, New Delhi certain documents
were seized in the presence of independent
witness namely Sh. Vijay Kumar. And which
bears his signatures at point ‘A’ and the signature
of said Sh. Vijay Kumar at point ‘B’. It also bears
the signature of Sh. U.C. Surena at point ‘C’.
262. He has further deposed that one wedding
invitation card,Ex. PW34/Z in respect of wedding
of Abhishek Surena S/o Uttam Chand Surena with
Sudha Surena dated 16.02.1997 was seized vide
search list dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/Y (colly.)
He has further deposed that the aforesaid
invitation card was seized because the said Sudha
was sought to be a member of the society as per
the fake membership done by the accused persons
which is relating to the period prior to the winding
up of the society showing her address in a post
dated manner.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 119 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
263. He has further deposed that letter no. 1241 dated
Feb, 2006, Ex. PW34/A1 was sent by him to
Registrar, Cooperative Group Housing society. He
has deposed that vide this letter, he had inquired
whether the matter relating to the allotment of land
to the said society was ever taken up by RCS
office.
264. He has deposed that vide letter no. 118 dated
27.02.2006 of M.S. Sharma, Assistant Registrar
Ex. PW25/B (colly.), it was informed therein that
list of 140 members of the said society were sent
to DDA for allotment of land on 16.04.2001. He
has deposed that a list of 140 members was also
provided to him in response to his letter. It was
also informed that the said society was unique and
that no other society by such name was existing
though some societies were existing with the same
registration number i.e. 1205.
265. He has further deposed that vide seizure memo
dated 20.07.2006, Ex. PW21/A, the statement of
account of the said society for the period 2000 to
2005 was seized from Sh. S.K. Abrol, Accountant,
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 120 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited along with
the specimen signature card of the authorized
signatories duly authenticated by the AR (GH) on
02.02.1984. It was informed the exact address of
the society as appearing in the bank account no.
6056, maintained with Delhi State Cooperative
Bank Limited. The aforesaid seizure memo Ex.
PW21/A bears his signatures at point ‘B’ and the
signature of Sh. S.K. Abrol at point ‘A’.
266. He has deposed that vide seizure memo dated
13.06.2006, Ex. PW34/A2 (colly.), the audit report
file pertaining to the present society for the period
1989-1990 to 1999-2000 and for the period 2000-
2001 to 2001-2002 were seized from Sh. Satya
Prakash Sharma on production. The said seizure
memo dated 13.06.2006 bears his signatures at
point ‘A’ and that of Satya Prakash Sharma at
point ‘B’.
267. He has deposed that a letter no. 4169 dated
15.06.2006, Ex. PW22/A was sent to the GEQD
by the then SP, CBI Sh. M.C. Sahani and it bears
the signature of Sh. M.C. Sahani at point ‘A’. He
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 121 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
has further deposed that a letter no. 8808 dated
26.12.2006, addressed to GEQD, Shimla, Ex.
PW22/B was also sent to GEQD by the then SP,
CBI Sh. M.C. Joshi and it bears the signature of
Sh. M.C. Joshi at points ‘A’.
268. He has further deposed that a letter,Ex. PW26/A
was sent by Chief Manager, PNB forwarding
therewith the statement of accounts in respect of
the accused Sh. R.K. Srivastava and his wife Smt.
Madhu Srivastava for the period 1998 to 2006.
269. He has further deposed that document i.e. file no.
6,Ex. PW34/A3 (colly.) relating to the present
society is part of Ex. PW32/B (Colly.), which is
containing the file relating to correspondence of
society with DDA. He has deposed that file Ex.
PW34/H (colly.). has been seized during search
vide search-cum-seizure memo, Ex. PW34/R.
270. He has further deposed that vide production-cum-
seizure memo dated 24.08.2006, Ex. PW34/A4
(colly.) certified copies of relevant documents
pertaining to Shiv Shankar CGHS were seized by
him from Sh. S.C. Bhalla, IO of the case
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 122 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
pertaining to Shiv Shankar CGHS. After
investigation, these documents were cited as well
as filed in the Hon’ble Court along with the
charge-sheet.
271. He has further deposed that the documents seized
vide aforesaid seizure memo were sent to GEQD
for examination. On receipt of the GEQD
examination report, the same along with the
documents were relied upon and submitted along
with the charge-sheet.
272. He has further deposed that vide seizure memo
dated 24.08.2006, Ex. PW34/A5 (colly) the
correspondence of society office bearers with the
Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited, abstract of
resolution passed at the meeting of the MC of the
society bearing the signatures of the MC members,
original specimen signatures cards were seized
from Smt. Sikha Verma, Manger, Delhi State
Cooperative Bank.
273. He has further deposed that vide a seizure memo
dated 10.10.2006, Ex. PW34/A6 (colly.), the
dispatch register maintained in the personal branch
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 123 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
of office of RCS for the period 20.10.2000 to
27.12.2001 pertaining to the court cases were
seized from Sh. Raman Prasad in the presence of
one independent witness namely Shamsheer Ali
Ahmed.
274. He has further deposed that the present case was
registered subsequent to the preliminary enquiry
and hence the matter of surprise was lost. He has
deposed that this had given ample time to the
accused persons to replace the original with the
photocopies.
275. He has further deposed that the proceedings of the
specimen signatures/writings pertaining to accused
Uttam Chand Surena, from S-1 to S-4, already
exhibited Ex. PW31/A (colly) were recorded by
him in the presence of witness Sh. Pradeep Kumar
Singh in the office of CBI.
276. He has further deposed that proceedings Ex.
PW34/A7 (colly.) of the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to accused Naveen
Kaushik, from S-5 to S-23, S-100 to S-137 were
recorded by him in the presence of independent
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 124 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
witnesses but inadvertently they were not made
the witness to such proceedings and that is why
there is no signatures of such witnesses on the said
proceedings.
277. He has further deposed that proceedings, Ex.
PW34/A8 (colly.) of the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to accused Ashutosh
Pant, from S-24 to S-29 and S-37 to S-69 then
S-97 to S-99 were recorded by him in the presence
of independent witnesses but inadvertently they
were not made the witness to such proceedings
and that is why there is no signatures of such
witnesses on the said proceedings.
278. He has deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW33/A
(colly.)the specimen signatures/writings pertaining
to accused Ashwani Sharma, from S-30 to S-36,
S-70 to S-96, were recorded by him in the
presence of independent witness Sh. A.K. Yadav.
279. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW23/F (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma, from
S-138 to S-144, were recorded by him. He has
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 125 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW34/A9
(colly.) of the specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to Sh. S.N. Chaurasiya, from S-145 to
S-148 were recorded by him.
280. He has further deposed that proceedings, Ex.
PW1/C (colly.) the specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to Sh. Tej Pal Sharma, from S-149 to
S-151,were recorded by him. He has further
deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW14/N
(colly.). The specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to Sh. Ajay Suri, from S-152 to S-158
were recorded by him in the presence of
independent witness Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singh. It
bears his signatures at points ‘B’ at page S-152,
S-155, S-156 and S-157.
281. He has further deposed that the proceedings, Ex.
PW34/A10 (colly.), the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Murari Lal
Lodha, from S-159 to S-160. were recorded by
him. He has further deposed that the
proceedings,Ex. PW34/A11 (colly.), the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Rajeev
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 126 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Gupta, from S-161 to S-164 were recorded by
him.
282. He has further deposed that the proceedings, Ex.
PW34/A12 (colly.), the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Ashish Goel,
from S-165 to S-169 were recorded by him. He
has further deposed that the proceedings, Ex.
PW15/F (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to Smt. Smita H. Kokne, from S-170 to
S-171, were recorded by him.
283. He has further deposed that the proceeding Ex
PW9/E, specimen signatures/writings pertaining to
Sh. Sudesh Kumar, from S-172 to S-173, were
recorded by him. He has deposed that the
proceedings,Ex. PW12/F (colly.), the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Prem Singh,
from S-174 to S-175, were recorded by him.
284. He has further deposed that the proceedings, Ex.
PW34/A13 (colly.), the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Hari Shankar
Sharma, from S-176 to S-177 were recorded by
him. He has further deposed that the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 127 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
proceedings,Ex. PW34/A14 (colly.) the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Ram Kumar
Sharma, from S-178 to S-179 were recorded by
him.
285. He has further deposed that the proceedings, Ex
PW10/F (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to Sh. Girwar Sharma, from S-180 to
S-181,were recorded by him. He has deposed that
the proceedings,Ex. PW34/A15 (colly.), the
specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh.
Ram Prakash, from S-182 to S-183 were recorded
by him.
286. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW34/A16 (colly.), the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Brahm Singh,
from S-184 to S-185 were recorded by him. He
has deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW13/E
(colly.), the specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to Sh. Om Prakash Jain, from S-186 to
S-187, were recorded by him.
287. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW7/M (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 128 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
pertaining to Sh. Abhay Jain, from S-188 to
S-190, were recorded by him. He has deposed that
the proceedings, Ex. PW8/H pertaining to Smt.
Dev Keshar Devi, from S-191 to S-192, were
recorded by him.
288. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW34/A17 (colly.), the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Shailesh
Kumar, from S-193 to S-194 were recorded by
him. He has further deposed that the
proceedings,Ex. PW34/A18 (colly.), the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Har Narayan,
from S-195 to S-196 were recorded by him.
289. He has deposed that the proceedings,Ex. PW17/H
(colly.), the specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to Sh. Keshari Chand Bhansali, from
S-197 to S-200, were recorded by him. He has
further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW34/A19 (colly.), the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Alok Lodha,
from S-201 to S-203 were recorded by him.
290. He has deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW4/F
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 129 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
(colly.), the specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to Sh. Bhisham Thakkar, from S-204 to
S-208, were recorded by him. He has further
deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW16/H
(colly.), the specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to Sh. Gaurav Goel, from S-209 to
S-213, were recorded by him.
291. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW31/B (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to the accused Vipin Kumar Jain, from
S-214 to S-221, were recorded by him in the
presence of independent witness Sh. Pradeep
Kumar Singh.
292. He has further deposed that that the
proceedings,Ex. PW31/C (colly.) the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to accused S.P.
Saxena, from S-222 to S-223 were recorded by
him in the presence of independent witness Sh.
Pradeep Kumar Singh.
293. He has further deposed that the proceedings Ex.
PW31/D (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to Sh. Chander Bhan Arya, from S-224
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 130 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
to S-226, were also recorded by him in the
presence of independent witness Sh. Pradeep
Kumar Singh.
294. He has deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW31/E
(colly.), the specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to the accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal,
from S-227 to S-238, were recorded by him in the
presence of independent witness Sh. Pradeep
Kumar Singh.
295. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW34/A20 (colly.), the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to the Mohit
Saxena, from S-239 to S-252,were recorded by
him in the presence of independent witness
namely Sh. Jagdish Kinger.
296. He has deposed that the proceedings,Ex. PW31/F
(colly.), the specimen signatures/writings
pertaining to the Sh. P.T. Paul, from S-253 to
S-256,were recorded by him in the presence of
independent witness Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singh.
297. He has deposed that the proceedings,Ex. PW20/K
(colly.), the specimen signatures/writings
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 131 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
pertaining to the Sh. Vinay Kumar Setia, from
S-257 to S-262, were recorded by him in the
presence of independent witness Sh. Pradeep
Kumar Singh.
298. He has deposed that after recording the statement
u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and after obtaining requisite
sanction orders against the public servants and
also after obtaining the opinion from the GEQD,
he had filed the charge-sheet against the accused
persons
299. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of the accused Satyavir Singh Malik, Shakuntla
Joshi, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen
Kaushik, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, P.K.
Thirwani, Gokul Chand Aggarwal and Vipin
Kumar Jain.
300. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.11.2023,
prosecution evidence were closed on the
submission of Ld Sr PP for CBI.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER
SECTION 313 Cr PC
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 132 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
301. After completion of prosecution evidence. The
statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC were
recorded on 08.12.2023, by the Court.
302. During the statement, recorded u/s 313 Cr P.C, to
accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal, has given
answers to most of the question. ” I do not know ”
However he answers differently to few questions.
He has given the statement that ” PW23 Ramesh
Chand Sharma has deposed falsely . On 02.05.2006 he was
in judicial custody”
303. When the accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal was
asked as to why this case is against him, he replied
that “A wrong chargesheet containing manipulated and
false facts was filed. I have been falsely implicated in the
present case”. Accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal
opted to lead evidence in his defence, but he has
not examined any witness in his defence.
304. Similarly, the answers given by accused Satyavir
Singh Malik, during the statement recorded u/s
313 Cr PC, to most of the questions put to him,
were either “I have no knowledge” or ” it is a
matter of record.” However he has answers to
few questions.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 133 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
305. When the accused Satyavir Singh Malik was
asked as to why this case is against him, he replied
that “This is a false case against me.”
306. Accused Satyavir Singh Malik opted to lead
evidence in his defence but he has not examined
any witness in his defence.
307. In reply to the question whether he wants to say
anything else , he replied:
” I remained posted in RCS office during
June, 1998 to 2002. I acted bona-fide in the
performance of my duties as a public
servant in the present matter. I committed
no wrong. There is absolutely no
incriminating and legally admissible
evidence against me. None of the
prosecution witnesses has deposed anything
incriminating against me. There is
absolutely no evidence
(oral/documentary/circumstantial)
indicating my involvement in the criminal
conspiracy, if any. The sanction for my
prosecution was granted mechanically
without application of mind. The sanction
for my prosecution is invalid. There is no
sanction for my prosecution for IPC
offences as required mandatorily u/s 197
Cr.P.C., thus vitiating my trial ab initio. I
have been falsely implicated without there
being any incriminating evidence against
me. I am innocent.”
308. The answers given by accused P.K. Thirwani,
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 134 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
during the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, to
most of the questions put to him, were either ” I
have no knowledge or “It is a matter of record. I had
conducted the Audit of the Society in good faith, as per the
documents/ records produced by the society”.
309. When the accused accused P.K. Thirwani was
asked as to why this case is against him , he
replied that ” This is a false case. I have not committed
any crime under the IPC or PC Act. In addition to the bald
allegation, there is nothing incriminating against me which
connects me to the case. I have been wrongly prosecuted
without being an iota of evidence against me.”
310. In reply to the question whether he wants to say
anything else , he replied:
“I had been working as departmental auditor in the
audit branch of the RCS office since 13th May 2000 to
29th September 2004 as auditor and my duty was to
conduct the audit of various societies like CGHS. Thrift
and Credit society, Transport society and Store (Co-
operative) etc. The audit of present society was
assigned to me by the then AR (Audit) Sh. J S Sharma
after he obtained the approval of RCS for the period
from 1989-1990 to 1999- 2000 & 2000-2001 to 2001-
2002. I conducted the audit for the above said period in
good faith on the basis of records produced by the
society. I as an auditor was responsible for conducting
the audit of the society and as per my knowledge and
wisdom if any deficiency was found in the audit report.
I used to mention the same in my Audit report. It was
the duty of the concern zone to take necessary steps forCBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 135 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
getting necessary compliance from the society or to get
the objections raised in the audit report removed,
before sending the list to Policy Branch of the office of
Registrar co-operative Society for onward transmission
to DDA. In the present case also, I had raised serious
objections in my Audit Report pertaining to RPF
CGHS. It shows that I was not in collusion with any
person of the society and question of any conspiracy
didn’t arise.
This is a false case based on wrong interpretation of
laws/ evidences amounting to abuse of process of law
by the prosecution. There is no complaint of any
aggrieved person nor there is any loss to any
individuals or the Government. There is no violation of
DCS Act / Rules /Directives by which any favour has
been shown to any person or corporate body. Auditor
has no role in the revival of the society, nor the list was
sent to the DDA for land offer on the basis of Audit
Report.
I was not in picture till revival of the society as the
Audit of the society was conducted after the Revival of
the society and forwarding of the approved freezed list
of members to DDA and had not dealt with the file at
all during this process and as such there was no
question of my being part of criminal conspiracy for
revival of the society, in any, on the basis of
false/forged documents. It is the admitted case of CBI
that I did not have any role till revival of the society
and sending of the approved freezed list of members to
DDA for allotment of land. As such my audit report
had no effect at all on the revival of the society by
RCS. In this case no land was allotted to the society
and therefore no loss has occurred to the government
any person.
There is no evidence against me for having cheated any
person or that I had used any forged documents for the
purpose or cheating or that I had knowledge of any
forgery. There is no evidence for PC Act offences
against me as there is no evidence of demand /CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 136 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
obtainment of any pecuniary advantage. Nothing was
recovered from me or from my house search by CBI.
Nothing was found from my bank A/c. The allegation
against me in the charge sheet were wild and
unsubstantiated. That there is no Provision in the DCS
Act/Rules to make investigation by the Auditor from
the bank of the society.
I did my duties in good faith and while performing my
official duties audit was conducted by me as per
records produced by the society after revival, in this
way, no offence committed by me in the present case. I
acted bona- fide. I committed no wrong. There is
absolutely no incriminating and admissible evidence
against me. None of the prosecution witnesses has
deposed against incriminating against me. I have been
falsely implicated in the charge-sheet without there
being any incriminating evidence against me. The
sanction for my prosecution was granted mechanically
without application of mind by an incompetent
authority. No sanction for my prosecution has been
obtained u/s 197 Cr. P.C. for the IPC offence. I am
innocent.”
311. Accused P.K. Thirwani has produced DW1 Sh
Yatin Thapor in his defence evidence.
312. Accused Vipin Kumar Jain, during the statement
recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, has answered to most of
the questions that “The witness has not stated about
any incriminating evidence against me” .
313. When the accused Vipin Kumar Jain was asked as
to why this case is against him ,he replied that ”
None of the PW has deposed against me nor there is any
illegality on my part. I did no illegal act. There is no iota ofCBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 137 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
evidence against me. I have been falsely implicated by the
prosecution and I am entitled to be acquitted by the
Hon’ble Court.”.
314. In reply to the question whether he wants to say
anything else , he replied as under:
1) It is submitted that on 23.11.2023, the
prosecution evidence was concluded and
this Hon’ble Court was pleased to provide
soft copy of 559 questions on 30.11.2023
for replying the same on 06.12.2023 to be
taken on record as statement of accused
(SA) under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
2) In the circumstances of the case, I crave
leave of the Hon’ble Court to make my
submission that I was appointed as ‘Election
Officer’ vide order No.
F-47/1205/NGH/Coop/248 dated
08.05.2001 (Part of D-37), under Clause 21
of Schedule-II of Rule 58(1) of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Rules 1973. It is
submitted that the Delhi Cooperative
Societies Act and the Delhi Cooperative
Societies Rules are complete code in itself.
3) It is worth to note that I was not
appointed as Returning Officer U/Section
31(1) of the DCS Act, 1972, who should not
be below the rank of Gazetted Officer as
may be appointed by the Lt. Governor in
this behalf.
4) Schedule-II of Rule 58 of the DCS Rules
1973 provides mode of Election of members
of the Committee. As per Clause-2, I issued
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 138 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
agenda notice dated 01.06.2001 with
election programme as under:-
(1) Issue of nominations on 19.06.2001 at
10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. at the office of
RCS in Room No. 10, Old Court Building,
Parliament Street, New Delhi.
(ii) Filing of nominations on 20.06.2001 at
10:00 A.M. to 05:00 P.M. at the same
venue.
(iii) Scrutiny of nominations on 21.06.2001
at 11:00 Α.Μ. to 2:00 P.M. at same venue.
(iv) Display of list of valid nominations on
21.06.2001 at 4:00 PM at same venue.
(v) Withdrawal of nominations on
22.06.2001 at 10:00 A.M. to 03:00 P.M. at
same venue.
(vi) Display of Final list on 22.06.2001 at
4:00 P.M. at same venue.
(vii) Voting if necessary on 08.07.2001 at
10:00 A.M. to 4:00 Ρ.Μ.
6. Since there were equal number of
nominations for the post of one President,
One Vice-President, Three Executive
Members and Two Women Members and as
such final list was prepared and displayed
on 22.06.2001 at 4:00P.M.
7. However, in view of the aforesaid, Clause
-9 of Schedule-II of Rule 58 of the DCS
Rules 1973, only announcement of names of
all such candidates whose nominations were
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 139 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
found valid was to be declared to have been
duly elected to the Committee, in the
General Meeting.
8. As such, no polling was required and only
after announcement, the result of election
was required to be recorded in the minutes
book of the society and the result was to be
notified on the notice board of the society,
which was duly done by me under Sub-
Cluase-19 of Schedule -II of Rule 58 of the
DCS Rules 1973.
9. In the facts and circumstances above,
who so ever attended the General Body
meeting of the society or not on 08.07.2001,
who signed the proceeding Register was not
in my domain to identify each and every
member of the society on the day when no
polling was to take place.
10.
The 1.0. of the case who appeared as PW-34
Sh. Satish Chandra Jha in his cross-
examination on 23.11.2023 has admitted
that I have not forged any document and
that I never got nor tried in any manner any
pecuniary or monetary benefit in any
manner. In the facts and circumstances,
none of the provisions of I.P.C. or of the PC
Act are attracted against me and I am
entitled to be acquitted by the Hon’ble
Court.
11. As per revival order dated 29.01.2001,
which is part of D-27, it is specially
mentioned that the elections to the
managing committee will be conducted by
appointing a departmental election officer in
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 140 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
due course of time and as such it was not a
pre-condition for Revival of the society,
which was wound-up way back on
22.09.1992. There is no complaint against
my report.
12. PW-34 Sh. Satish Chand Jha also
admitted that I was not connected or
involved in the present matter till the society
was revived and as aforesaid election was
not a pre-condition for the revival of the
society.
13. I am unable to find the copy of order of
winding up of the society dated 22.09.1992
in the records. It was falsely stated by
PW-34 that election of the society was must
for actual revival of the society when order
of revival dated 29.01.2001 states that the
election of the committee will be held in due
course.
14. PW-34 also admitted and it is on record
that revival order is dated 29.01.2001, list of
members was sent to DDA on 16.04.2001
and I was appointed as Election Officer
after that i.e. on 08.05.2001.
15. I submit that the election result has no
connectivity with the revival of the society
for allotment of land by DDA, which (the
revival) had already taken place with
observation that the election will be
conducted in due course.
16. Moreover, no land was allotted to the
society by the DDA nor DDA asked for any
fresh list of members after 16.04.2001. The
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 141 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
DDA never asked for report of the Election
Officer.
17. It is submitted that the prosecution has
filed sanction to prosecute against me under
Section 19 of the PC Act from an
unauthorized person for alleged offence of
the year 2001.
18. The prosecution did not have sanction
under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and in the
recent judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court dated 22.11.2023 in the case of
‘Rakesh Bhatnagar vs CBI‘, it is held that in
the absence of appropriate sanction
U/Section 197 Cr.P.C., the
prosecution/proceedings are vitiated and the
prosecution is not tenable. As such the
present proceedings cannot to be allowed to
continue by this Hon’ble Court and I entitled
to be acquitted of the charges.
19. In the entire charge-sheet the
prosecution has not assigned any role, no
election material/documents were collected
and filed before the Hon’ble Court by the
I.O., which could suffice my statement that
all I did was within the ambit and scope of
the provisions of Schedule-II of Rule 58 of
the DCS Rules 1973.
20. There is no iota of any incriminating
evidence against me. I never obtained or
attempted to obtain any pecuniary or
monetary or any other benefit in any manner
and there is no conspiracy or complicity in
any manner what so ever.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 142 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
21. It is the case of the prosecution itself
that there are missing documents, however,
the same were never filed and as such it is a
fit case for my acquittal.
22. The alleged report of DW22 Dr. S.
Ahmad cannot be relied as he did not have
requisite experience, knowledge, skill or
education and did not adopt the laid
scientific procedure for comparison of
questioned documents/signatures with
specimen signatures nor he compared the
same with the admitted signatures for the
contemporary period. As per his own
admission he started examination of
documents independently in the year 2004,
as such he had experience of hardly 1½ to 2
years’.
23. There appears clear falsification on the
part of the prosecution in respect of D-17
and other documents which were never filed
before the Hon’ble Court.
24. It is submitted that I have not done
anything wrong or illegal nor there is any
complicity or conspiracy, I did not abuse my
official position nor obtained or attempted
to obtain pecuniary advantage. I have not
committed any offence either under Section
15 r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act. It is a false case
against me and there is no violation of any
Act, Rule or Bye-law or under DCS Act
1972 or DCS Rules 1973.
In this case there is no incriminating
evidence against me, hence Hon’ble Court
may kindly consider my acquittal under
Section 232 of Cr.P.C.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 143 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
315. He has opted to lead evidence in his defence and
has examined DW 2 Sh Dilip Bhattacharya.
316. The answers given by accused Ashwani Sharma ,
during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, were
“I do not know” .
317. To the questions, with regard to taking specimen
signatures /writing from S-30 to S-36 and S-70 to
S-96 dated 26.05.2006, Ex PW33/A which
allegedly bears his signatures at point A, he
replied that ” It is incorrect. No alleged specimen
handwriting and signatures Ex PW33/A ( Colly)
from S-30 to S-36 and S-70 to S-96 ever taken
from him in this case during investigation.”
318. When accused Ashwani Sharma was asked as to
why this case is against him , he replied that ” This
is a false case filed by the IO against me with malafide
intention. He has not conducted fair and proper
investigation. Further, he has made me scapegoat in this
case with vested interest. The investigation conducted by
IO (PW-34) was arbitrary, unfair and was not in
accordance with law. It is evident from his testimony that
the investigation done by him is a sham exercise.”
319. In reply to the question whether he wants to say
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 144 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
anything else , he replied:
“I am innocent. Investigation conducted by
the investigating officer in this case is
perfunctory, partial, improper and shoddy.
Further, the investigating officer has not
taken my specimen handwriting / signatures,
nor I have given any specimen handwriting /
signatures in this case. I will file my written
submission u/s 313(5) Cr.P.C.”
320. Accused Ashwani Sharma has not led any
evidence in his defence.
321. The accused Ashutosh Pant , during the statement
recorded u/s 313 CrPC, stated to the most of
questions put to him that ” I do not know ” He
answers differently to few questions.
322. When the accused Ashutosh Pant was asked as to
why this case is against him , he replied that ” This
is a false case filed by the IO against me with malafide
intention. He has not conducted fair and proper
investigation. Further, he has made me scapegoat in this
case with vested interest. The investigation conducted by
IO (PW-34) was arbitrary, unfair and was not in
accordance with law. It is evident from his testimony that
the investigation done by him is a sham exercise.”
323. In reply to the question whether he wants to say
anything else , he replied that :
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 145 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
“I am innocent. Investigation conducted by the
investigating officer in this case is perfunctory,
partial, improper and shoddy. Further, the investigating
officer has not taken my specimen handwriting /
signatures, nor I have given any specimen
handwriting / signatures in this case. I will file my
written submission u/s 313(5) Cr.P.C.”
324. Accused Ashutosh Pant has not led evidence in
his defence.
325. Answers given by accused Naveen Kaushik ,
during the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, to
most of the questions put to him were ” I do not
know ” He has answers differently to few
questions.
326. When accused Naveen Kaushik was asked about
the GEQD report Ex PW22/D ( Colly) and
reasoning Ex PW22/E ( Colly), he replied :
” The reason Ex.PW22/E(colly) purported to be the basis
of his opinion Ex.PW22/D(colly) given by PW22 are short
of the legal requirements of being called as reasons. The
reason Ex.PW22/E(colly) does not mentioned as to what
were the general characteristic like type of movement
whether it is finger, wrist, whole-arm or fore-arm
movement, speed, whether it is fast, slow or medium, pen
pressure, whether it is light, medium or graduated, slant,
whether it is fore-hand, back-hand or vertical, alignment,
whether it is horizontal, ascending or descending, size,
whether they are big, medium or small, presence of any
line quality defects and their description, presence of any
pen pause etc., in the questioned documents and what wereCBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 146 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
the finding in respect of the same in the standard writings.
As far as individual characteristic are concerns there is no
mention as to what are the individual characteristic
mentioned in the question writing & which specimen
signature/ handwriting contain the same characteristic
features. It is also not mentioned about as to what extend
magnification of documents was done. He has not
specifically enumerated the use of scientific instruments in
his reasons Ex.PW22/E(colly) or in his opinion
Ex.PW22/D(colly) during examination. There is nothing
on record to demonstrate / illustrate in support of the
reason given by him (PW22). The reason given by the
expert PW22 is incomplete / inadequate to enable the
Court to form its opinion for proper analyzing the same.
While examination of the so called questioned as well as
specimen signature/handwriting, he has neither taken
enlarge photographs, nor prepared any comparative charts
which specifically mentioned as to which specimen
signatures was compared with which specific questioned
document neither he can tell the same after going through
his reasons that which specimen signatures was compared
with which specific questioned document. He has also not
annexed his rough notes alongwith his report and reason
Ex.PW22/D(colly), Ex.PW22/E(colly) respectively and in
the absence of the above features the report Ex.PW22/D
and the reason Ex.PW22/E(colly) of the expert PW22 does
not inspire any confidence to be relied upon as the same
does not come within the purview of section 45 and section
51 of the Indian Evidence Act.”
327. When he was asked as to why this case is against
him , he replied:
” This is a false case filed by the IO against me with
malafide intention. He has not conducted fair and proper
investigation. Further, he has made me scapegoat in this
case with vested interest. The investigation conducted by
IO (PW-34) was arbitrary, unfair and was not inCBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 147 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
accordance with law. It is evident from his testimony that
the investigation done by him is a sham exercise.”
328. In reply to the question whether he wants to say
anything else , he replied:
” I am innocent. Investigation conducted by the
investigating officer in this case is perfunctory, partial,
improper and shoddy. Further, the investigating officer has
not taken my specimen handwriting / signatures, nor I have
given any specimen handwriting / signatures in this case. I
will file my written submission u/s 313(5) Cr.P.C.”
329. Accused Naveen Kaushik opted not to lead any
evidence in his defence.
330. Similarly, the answers given by accused R.K.
Srivastava , during the statement recorded u/s 313
Cr.PC, were ” I do not know ” except answers given
differently to a few questions.
331. When the accused accused R.K. Srivastava was
asked as to why this case is against him , he
replied that ” It is a false case against me. The present
case has been filed against me because of wrong
appreciation of the provisions of DCS Act 1972 and Rules
1973 & wrong analysis of facts and circumstances of the
case. Accused R.K. Srivastava (A-6) opted not to
lead evidence in his defence.
332. In reply to the question whether he wants to say
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 148 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
anything else , he replied: “I have been wrongly and
falsely implicated in this case by the CBI. Charge sheet has
been filed without proper understanding of the provisions
of the DCS Act, 1972 and DCS Rules, 1973. I have passed
Order for Revival of the Society by exercising statutory
powers vested in the Registrar of Cooperative Societies u/s
63(3) of the aforesaid DCS Act. There is no evidence
against me. The matter relating to my membership in Shiv
Shankar CGHS has been unnecessarily linked with the
decision taken in this case. The membership has been
taken after my transfer from the office of the RCS and the
flat in question has been financed through Loan from
DCHFC, Personal savings and Advance taken from GPF.
Moreover, the Sanctioning Authority has not been
examined to prove whether sanction had been accorded
after the due application of mind and after a proper
appreciation of the provisions of DCS Act, 1972 and DCS
Rules, 1973. I will file my written submission u/s 313(5) of
Cr.P.C.”
333. Accused R.K. Srivastava opted not to lead any
evidence in his defence.
334. The answers given by accused Shakuntla Joshi ,
during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr PC, were
to most of the questions put to her as either ” I have
no knowledge ” or ” it is a matter of record” However
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 149 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
she has answers to few questions.
335. To answer the questions regarding issuance of
sanction order Ex 30/A against her. She has
replied that ” It is a matter of record. It is an invalid
sanction order granted mechanically without application of
mind.”
336. When the accused Shakuntla Joshi was asked as to
why this case is against her. She has replied that ”
This is a false against me.”
337. Accused Shakuntla Joshi opted to lead evidence
in her defence and has also examined Sh Yatin
Malik as DW1.
338. In reply to the question whether she wants to say
anything else , she replied:
339. ” I remained posted as Assistant Registrar in office of
Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi during
29.09.2000 to 28.09.2003. I acted bona-fide in the
performance of my duties as a public servant in the
present matter. I committed no wrong. There is
absolutely no incriminating and legally admissible
evidence against me. None of the prosecution witnesses
has deposed anything incriminating against me. There
is absolutely (oral/documentary/circumstantial) no
evidence indicating my involvement in the criminal
conspiracy, if any. The sanction for my prosecution
was granted mechanically without application of mind.
The sanction for my prosecution is invalid. There is no
sanction for my prosecution for IPC offences as
required mandatorily u/s 197 Cr.P.C., thus vitiating my
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 150 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
trial ab initio. I have been falsely implicated without
there being any incriminating evidence against me. I
am innocent.”
My prosecution is void-ab-initio for want of
mandatory prosecution sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. I am
innocent.”
Defence on behalf of accused P.K. Thirwani and
Shakuntl Joshi.
340. DW 1 Sh Yatin Thapar, Assistant Section Officer,
office of Directorate of Vigilance, GNCT Delhi
who has produced file/record Ex DW1/A ( Colly)
pertaining to the sanctions which were granted to
prosecute accused P.K.Thirwani, Satyavir Singh
and Shakuntla Joshi.
Defence on behalf of accused Vipin Kumar Jain.
341. DW2 Sh Dilip Bhattacharya, who has deposed that
he had worked for about 10 to 12 years in the
office of RCS at the post of UDC and dealt with
the file pertaining to the CGHSs. He has further
deposed that he had also dealt with the process of
election pertaining to such group housing societies
also number of times. He had been appointed as
Election Officer also.
342. He has further deposed that as and when the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 151 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
nomination for the election of a particular group
housing society is equivalent to the posts in the
Managing Committee of the society then they are
elected un-opposed and there is no voting. The
results in such a situation is declared in the general
body meeting of the society fixed for this purpose.
He has further deposed that the list of members
attending the general body meeting is provided by
the society. He has deposed that there is no
provision in the rules which says that
identification of the member to ensure the
presence is must in the general body meeting of
any Group Housing society, where the results is to
be announced by the Election Officer.
343. This witness has been cross examined by Ld
Senior PP for CBI.
344. I have heard Ld Counsel for the accused persons
as well as Ld Senior PP for CBI and have gone
through the file also. I also considered the same.
345. Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that the sanction
in the present case has been accorded by the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 152 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
competent authority against the public servants /
accused persons qua offences under Prevention of
Corruption Act. And so far as sanction U/S 197 Cr
P C is concerned. There is no need to obtain the
same as the act being done by the public servants/
accused persons was not within the ambit of being
done by them in discharge of their official duty.
346. It is argued that the sanction order against the
public servant has been accorded by the
sanctioning by applying its minds being based
upon the material before it. The draft of the
sanction order may be sent to the sanctioning
authority by the investigating agency and merely
sending the draft sanction is not fatal to the
prosecution case. It further argued that the
evidence of the handwriting expert is a vital
evidence which has been proved by the
prosecution against the accused persons. It can be
safely relied upon by the Court. It is submitted that
mens rea is not necessary to be proved for the
charges being framed U/S 13 (1) (d) of P.C Act
against the accused persons charge with. It is
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 153 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
further argued that if a fact has been deposed by a
witness in his /her examination in chief and no
question is put to the witness in cross examination
on that fact, it amounts to admission of that fact.
Learned Senior PP argued that the evidence
brought on record against the accused are proved
beyond reasonable doubt against them.
347. Learned Senior PP for CBI has relied upon the
following case law:
I) Hema Vs State of Madrass Crl. Appeal
No.31 of 2013 State of Appeal.
ii) Murari Lal Vs State of MP AIR 531
iii) K. Satwant Singh Vs The State of Punjab,
1960 AIR 266, 1960 SCR (2)89
iv)Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State Crl. Appeal
No.19/2007.
v) L. Narayan Swami Vs State of Karnataka
Crl. Appeal No.721 of 2016
vi) Harihar Prasad etc Vs State of Bihar 1972
CRIL J707, (1972) 3 SCC 89
vii) Sahabuddin & Anr Vs State of Assam
(Criminal Appeal)
viii) Munna Lal Vs State of Uttar Pradesh
criminal Appeal no-490 of 2017
ix)Shambhoo Nath Mishra Vs State of UP AIR
1997 Supreme Court
xi)Umesh Kumar Vs State of A.P. decided on
06/09/2013, criminal Appeal No-1305 of 2013.
xii) Darshan Lal Vs State decided on
31/07/2009, criminal Appeal No-73/2001.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 154 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
xiii) State of Maharastra Tr. CBI Vs Mahesh G
Jain 28/05/2013, criminal Appeal
No-2345/2009
xiv) Prem Chand Vs State of Maharashtra 2023
Live Law (SC-168)
xv) Mahavir Singh Vs State of Haryana
decided on 23/05/2024. SC
xvi) Iqbal Mussa Patel Vs State of Gujrat 2011
2011 SCC (Cri.) 654
xvii) Kehar Singh Vs Stater of Delhi 1988 3
SCC
xviii) State of Tamilnadu through S.P. Vs Nalini
decided on 11th May 1999.
xix) Renu Gosh Vs CBI decided on 2111 SCC
OnLine Del 5501
348. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for accused
persons have vehemently argued that prosecution
has failed to prove charges being framed against
the accused persons.
349. Considered. Perused.
350. This is an admitted fact that the said society was
registered on 30.12.1983 vide Regn. No.
1205(GH) having its registered office at DCM
Tent Factory, Ganesh Line, Kishanganj, New
Delhi-6. The winding order dated 22.09.1992 was
passed by the RCS office due non compliance of
the statutory requirements by the said society.
351. As per the allegations in the charge sheet the said
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 155 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
society was allegedly got revived on 24.01.2001
on the basis of forged documents. The allegations
are that the accused persons hatched the
conspiracy for revival of the said society and also
forged the document for that purpose. The
evidence of PW 14 Ajay Suri, brought on record
that proceedings of the said society qua initiating
proceeding for revival of the said society does not
bear his signatures Ex PW14/K ( Colly) (D-12),
proves the fact that there was forgery in that
proceedings.
352. The question which has to be answered by the
Court is as to whether accused persons charge
with have committed forgery in the record of the
said society for getting revival of it.
353. Before giving any observation whether the
accused persons have committed the offence or
not . I would like to discuss, firstly the evidence of
GEQD qua disputed handwriting . And whether
the prosecution has able to prove the opinion of
handwriting expert to the extent that it were the
accused persons who have committed the forgery.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 156 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Because the prosecution is vehemently relying
upon the evidence of handwriting expert.
354. The admissibility of evidence of handwriting
expert report is based upon certain facts because it
is corroborated in nature and not a substantial
evidence. Before giving any observation upon the
admissibility of evidence of handwriting expert. I
would like to mention here certain judgments
being rendered by the Hon,ble High Courts as
well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with
respect to evidential value of hand writing expert.
355. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ramesh
Chandra Aggarwal Vs Regency Hospital Ltd
(2009) 9 SCC 709 has held that ” Relevancy of
Expert’s Opinion rest on the facts on which it is
based and his competency for forming a reliable
opinion. The validity of the process by which the
conclusion is reached by the expert is also
relevant”.
356. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled State of
H.P. Vs Jai Lal & Ors (1999) 7 SCC 280 has
observed that “credibility of expert witness
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 157 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
depends on the reasons stated in support of his
conclusions and the data and materials furnished
which form the basis of his conclusions. The
report submitted by an expert does not go in
evidence automatically. He is to be examined as a
witness in Court and has to face cross
examination”.
357. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled
Sandeep Dixit Vs State Crl Rev 260/2011 decided
on 27th April 2012 has observed ” that the opinion
of an expert under section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act is merely an opinion and not a
conclusive proof of the validity of the handwriting
in question and the learned ASJ exceeded its
jurisdiction by ordering the framing of charge
against the petitioner merely on the report of the
GEQD without corroboration.”
358. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
Murari Lal S/O Ram Singh Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh 1980 AIR 531 has observed that “We are
firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law,
nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 158 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a
handwriting expert must never be acted upon,
unless substantially corroborated. But, having due
regard to the imperfect nature of the science of
identification of handwriting, the approach, as we
indicated earlier, should be one of caution.
Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed
and examined. All other relevant evidence must be
considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration
may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the
opinion are convincing and there is no reliable
evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated
testimony of an handwriting expert may be
accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a
matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is more
than a question of testimonial weight. We have
said so much because this is an argument
frequently met with in subordinate courts and
sentences torn out of context from the judgments
of this Court are often flaunted.”
359. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled State of
Maharashtra Vs Damu S/O Gopinath Shinde &
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 159 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Others (2000) 6 SCC 269 has observed that ”
without examining the expert as a witness in court,
no reliance can be placed”.
360. I would also like to mention here certain basic
principle to be considered before relying upon the
report/opinion of hand writing expert. The entire
process of examination of documents by an expert
can be looked at three stages i.e i) taking over of
specimen signatures/handwriting pertaining to the
accused persons (ii) sending the same to the
GEQD alongwith questioned documents and
(iii) the report of the GEQD given after
examination, on the basis of material sent to them.
361. In order to bring home the guilt against the
accused persons, prosecution is under obligation
to establish beyond all doubt that all the above
mentioned processes at different stages were done
and executed in accordance with law and there is
no doubt in either of the said processes. In case it
is found that there is a serious doubt in the story of
the prosecution at any stage of the process, then
obviously benefit would go to the accused
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 160 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
persons.
362. So in view of the law propounded by the Hon’ble
Superior Courts on the admissibility of evidence
of handwriting expert. I will consider the same
while appreciating the evidence qua accused
persons while dealing the evidence against
accused persons in particular. And while
considering their specific role being alleged
against them in committing forgery.
Settled proposition of law while considering
sanctions for prosecution against the public
servants.
363. One another issue in this case is whether the
sanction accorded U/S 19 of the P.C Act against
the public servants, who are charged in the
present case for the offences U/S 15 r/w 13(2) r/w
13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 and substantive
offences u/s 13(1)(d) punishable u/s13 (2) r/w sec.
15 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, is
accorded by the competent authority after
considering the necessary material before them.
There are law being interpreted by the Hon’ble
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 161 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Superior Courts on the issues how the sanctioning
authority has to considered the material placed
before it, before according sanction against the
public servant as well as its admissibility if same
is not accorded as per law.
364. The sanction for prosecution of a public servant
for the offence under P.C. Act is required U/S 19
(1) of P.C Act . Before further proceeding I would
like to reproduce Sub Section (1) of Section 19 of
the PC Act.
“19. Previous sanction necessary for
prosecution.– (1) No court shall take
cognizance of an offence punishable
under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15
alleged to have been committed by a
public servant, except with the previous
sanction, save as otherwise provided in
the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013—
a) in the case of a person who is
employed in connection with the affairs
of the Union and is not removable from
his office save by or with the sanction ofCBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 162 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
the Central Government, of that
Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is
employed in connection with the affairs
of a State and is not removable from his
office save by or with the sanction of the
State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of
the authority competent to remove him
from his office.”
365. On bare perusal of language of the section 19 (1)
of P.C Act, the court is precluded from taking
cognizance of an offence under certain sections
mentioned in this provision if prosecution wants to
prosecute a public servant. The sanction must be
from competent Government, it may be Central
Government or State Government, as the case may
be. Even otherwise, if the cognizance is taken, this
issue can be raised subsequently and prosecution/
proceeding can be dropped if there is no valid
sanction on record. The provision deals the
intention of the legislature to protect a public
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 163 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
servant against harassment and malicious
prosecution.
366. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd.
Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979 Cai
LJ 633) has observed as under:
“The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an
acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act
which affords protection to Government servants against
frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly
complied with before any prosecution can be launched
against the public servant concerned.”
367. The Privy Council in the case of Gokul-chand
Dwarkadas Momrka v. The King (AIR 1948 PC
82) has observed as under:
“The sanction to prosecute is an important matter, it
constitutes a condition precedent to the Institution of the
prosecution and the Government has an absolute
discretion to grant or withhold their sanction. They are
not, as the High Court seem to have thought, concerned
merely to see that the evidence discloses a prima facie
case against the person sought to be prosecuted. They
can refuse sanction on any ground which commends
itself to them, for example, that on political or economic
grounds they regard a prosecution as inexpedient.”
368. In the case of Bhagwan Mahadeo Sathe Versus
State and Another, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 2350,
it was held that:-
“12. In the present case, the record indicates that the
draft sanction letter was forwarded to the sanctioning
authority along with the other papers. The actual
sanction which is granted is verbatim reproduction of the
draft sanction. This also clearly discloses that there was
a non-application of mind while granting sanction toCBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 164 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
prosecute. Under all these circumstances, in my view,
the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The judgment and order passed by the
Sessions Court is set aside and the Appellant is acquitted
for the offences of which he is charged. The Appellant is
on bail. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. Appeal is,
accordingly, allowed and disposed of.”
369. In the case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Crl.
Appeal No. 1838/2013 date of decision
22.11.2013. it was held that:
13. The prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the
time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by the
competent authority, adequate material for such grant
was made available to the said authority. This may also
be evident from the sanction order, in case it is
extremely comprehensive, as all the facts and
circumstances of the case may be spelt out in the
sanction order. However, in every individual case, the
court has to find out whether there has been an
application of mind on the part of the sanctioning
authority concerned on the material placed before it. It is
so necessary for the reason that there is an obligation on
the sanctioning authority to discharge its duty to give or
withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of
the material facts of the case. Grant of sanction is not a
mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in regard to
the sanction must be observed with complete strictness
keeping in mind the public interest and the protection
available to the accused against whom the sanction is
sought.
14. It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts the bar for
prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise
but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection
to the government servant against frivolous prosecution.
Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious
prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, though
not a shield for the guilty.
15. Consideration of the material implies application of
mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie
disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered
the evidence and other material placed before it. In every
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 165 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
individual case, the prosecution has to establish and
satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts
were placed before the sanctioning authority and the
authority had applied its mind on the same. If the
sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant
material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery
memos, draft charge-sheet and other materials on record
were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is
further discernible from the recital of the sanction order
that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an
inference may be drawn that the sanction had been
granted in accordance with law. This becomes necessary
in case the court is to examine the validity of the order
of sanction inter alia on the ground that the order suffers
from the vice of total non- application of mind.
16. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be
summarised as under:
16.1. The prosecution must send the entire relevant
record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR,
disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery
memos, draft charge-sheet and all other relevant
material. The record so sent should also contain the
material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in
favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the
competent authority may refuse sanction.
16.2. The authority itself has to do complete and
conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by
the prosecution independently applying its mind and
taking into consideration all the relevant facts before
grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or
withhold the sanction.
16.3. The power to grant sanction is to be exercised
strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the
protection available to the accused against whom the
sanction is sought.
16.4. The order of sanction should make it evident that
the authority had been aware of all relevant
facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the
relevant material.
16.5. In every individual case, the prosecution has to
establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that
the entire relevant facts had been placed before the
sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its
mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted
in accordance with law.”
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 166 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
370. In the case of the State of T.N. v. M.M. Rajendran,
(1998) 9 SCC 268, Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt
with a case under the provisions of the 1988 Act,
wherein the prosecuting agency had submitted a
very detailed report before the sanctioning
authority and on consideration of the same, the
competent authority had accorded the sanction.
Hon’ble Supreme Court found that though the
report was a detailed one, however, such report
could not be held to be the complete records
required to be considered for sanction on
application of mind to the relevant material on
record and thereby quashed the sanction.
371. In the backdrop of propounded law as discussed
above. I will give my observations on the
admissibility of the report of handwriting expert as
well as whether sanction has been accorded as per
law, while discussing the case of each accused
separately.
Finding qua accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal.
372. The allegation against accused Gokul Chand
Aggarwal are that in the last quarter of year 2000
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 167 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
he got hold of the documents relating to the said
society from Ramesh Chand Sharma ( Founder
Secretary of the said society). Allegedly accused
Gokul Chand Aggarwal has prepared receipt
acknowledging the receiving of those documents
and gave the receipt to Ramesh Chand Sharma, at
a much later date. The documents which were
handed over to Gokul Chand Aggarwal had been
passed over by him to S.P. Saxena. Who further
passed over the documents to Ashwani Sharma
for completion of documentary work.
373. The first fact which has to be proved against
accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal is whether the
documents of the said society were handed over to
him by Ramesh Chand Sharma or not. To prove
this fact the testimony of PW 23, Ramesh Chand
Sharma is important who is stated to be the direct
witness of handing over of these documents. The
alleged documents were handed over vide Ex
PW22/C-111. On perusal, it reveals that the
document ( Ex PW22/C-111) was executed on
30.04.2001. The document in itself contradict the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 168 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
conclusion arrived at by the IO qua handing over
of documents in the last quarter of year 2000.
Moreover the witness PW 23 says that he has met
accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal either in the year
2005 or 2006. Once the direct evidence ie PW23
deposed that he made accused Gokul Chand
Aggarwal in the year 2005 or 2006. Then how the
documents as mentioned in Ex PW22/C-111 could
be handed over to accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal
in the year 2005 or 2006. This witness has not
been declared either hostile on the fact of his
meeting with Gokul Chand Aggarwal in the year
2005 or 2006 nor this fact has been clarified from
the witness. The witness PW 23 is the only person
who could have clarified this fact of his meeting
with Gokul Chand Aggarwal. If he had met with
accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal in the year 2005
or 2006 then it was not possible for him to
handover the documents of the said society to
Gokul Chand Aggarwal in the year 2001.
Moreover, as per the allegations the documents
were handed over to Gokul Chand Aggarwal for
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 169 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
completion of proceedings for revival of the said
society. Admittedly, the said society was revived
on 24.01.2001, then no circumstances could have
arise for execution of receipt Ex PW22/C-111 by
accused because the society had already been
revived.
374. It is also a fact that there is no witness on record
who can prove the fact that Gokul Chand
Aggarwal has further pass over the documents to
S.P.Saxena. No document was ever recovered
from the possession of accused Gokul Chand
Aggarwal. Accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal has
denied his signature and execution of document
PW22/C-111. The prosecution has also not proved
on record the exact date or time or month when
the documents were handed over to Gokul Chand
Aggarwal by Ramesh Chand Sharma. So the
prosecution has unable to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the handing over of the
documents of the said society to Gokul Chand
Aggarwal.
375. Moreover, the prosecution has also relied upon
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 170 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
the testimony of PW22 and asserted that
handwriting expert has given an opinion against
accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal qua document Ex
PW22/C111. In this regard it is established
principle of law that evidence of an handwriting
expert is only a corroborative evidence and it is
not a substantial evidence. Here in the present
case, the prosecution has failed beyond reasonable
doubt that the documents of the said society were
handed over to accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal.
The evidence of PW23 is full of doubt qua
handing over the documents to accused Gokul
Chand Aggarwal. In that circumstances, the
evidence of handwriting expert cannot be relied
upon. Moreover, it is also relevant here to discuss
the manner in which documents were received in
the office of GEQD and subsequently preparation
of handwriting report by the handwriting expert.
376. The PW 22 has admitted in his examination that
he do not remember whether the documents in the
present case were received in a sealed condition or
not. He has admitted that he has not taken the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 171 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
enlarged photographs of any specimen and
questioned document. He has admitted that he has
not specifically enumerated the use of scientific
instrument in his reasoning or opinion. He has
further admitted that neither in his report nor in his
reasoning he has mentioned about as to what
extent magnification of documents were done. He
has further admitted that he had not given the
details of general writing, characteristic in his
reasons like the type of movement, speed whether
is fast, slow or medium. Pen pressure whether it
light, medium, graduated, slants whether is
forehand, backhand or vertical, alignment whether
is horizontal, ascending or descending, the size
whether the big, medium or small, presence of any
line quality defects and description, presence of
any pen pause etc. He has further admitted that he
has not specifically mentioned in his reasons as to
which specimen signatures were compared with
which specific questioned document. He deposed
that even today he cannot tell the same as to which
specimen signatures was compared with which
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 172 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
specific question document.
377. He (PW22) has admitted when confronted with
his reasons for opinion Ex PW22/E ( Colly) and
his attention were drawn to para-11 from point ‘A’
to ‘A1’ where it is so mentioned. ” habit of putting
two dots below the underscoring as observed in
question signatures is also similarly observed in
specimen signatures at one place or other with
similar variations.”
378. Confronted with para No.10 relevant part from
‘A2’ to ‘A3’ wherein so mentioned. ” nature of
two doors below the underscoring and there
locations as observed in the questioned signature
is also nowhere observed in the specimen
signatures.
379. By putting these contradiction to the witness Ld
Counsel for accused during arguments wants to
demonstrate that report of handwring expert is not
trustworthy. It is submitted that the contradicted
portions belongs to the same persons being opined
by the expert on the basis of specimen
handwriting/signatures S-152 to S-158. And
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 173 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
argued that opinion is contrary which should not
be there without any explanation. It is further
argued that as per admitted standard operating
procedure by (PW22), the like should be
compared with like but the expert has not followed
that as reveals. On considering the examination of
PW 22 and the shortcomings brought to the notice
of the Court, his report cannot be considered.
380. The argument of Ld Counsel for accused Gokul
Chand Aggarwal that Ramesh Chand Sharma has
signed the document on 02.05.2006 and same may
considered to be signed on the same date of
execution of document. This submission is not
acceptable because the IO had clarified that on
02.05.2006 the receipt was seized only.
381. Moreover, one another fact is there when PW23
had handed over the documents to Gokul Chand
Aggarwal for revival of the said society. In that
circumstances he could have been indulged in
conspiracy also. Then question arises why he had
not been made an accused in the present case by
the investigating agency. This fact has not been
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 174 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
answered.
382. The argument of Ld. Senior PP for CBI that
accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal has earlier
pleaded guilty and it amounts to his culpability in
the commission of offence alleged against him.
This argument of Ld Senior PP for CBI cannot be
acceptable because my Ld Predecessor has
discarded the plea of accused to plead guilty on
the basis of evidence/material on record agaisnt
accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal. Non giving of
detailed reason for not accepting the plead of
guilty of accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal could
not have been made considering its legal
consequence. To give final observation at that
stage when application of accused Gokul Chand
Aggarwal was considered, could have prejudice
the parties vice versa. It could have also amount
to write judgment before pronouncement of final
judgment.
383. So in view of the above discussion, the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt against accused Gokul Chand
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 175 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Aggarwal.
Finding qua accused Satyavir Singh Malik
384. The allegations against accused Satyavir Singh
Malik, are that he in furtherance of the criminal
conspiracy with co-accused persons, being
dealing Assistant in the office of RCS Delhi has
abused his official position as a public servant. As
per allegations, he on receipt of documents from
the said society, he was supposed to obtain the
verification report through some Inspector of RCS
office. He deliberately and dishonestly did not
choose to follow the same and he himself recorded
a detailed note in the file without actual
verification of the records. He did not scrutinize
the records put before him. He dishonestly and
deliberately accepted the same as true without
factually verifying the documents.
385. Ld Counsel for the accused Satyavir Singh Malik
has submitted that prosecution has failed to prove
the notings Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B
(Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D
(Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly),
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 176 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Ex.PW-34/H(Colly),Ex.PW-34/I(Colly),Ex.PW-3
4/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and
Ex.PW-34/L(Colly). It is submitted that two
witnesses being examined on behalf of
prosecution namely PW11 Azad Singh and PW25
Mahendra Singh from the office of RCS to prove
these documents . But both the witnesses have
not confirm or deposed that the alleged notings on
documents Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B
(Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D
(Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly),
Ex.PW-34/H(Colly), Ex.PW-34/I (Colly),
Ex.PW-34/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and
Ex.PW-34/L (Colly) were made by accused
Satyaver Singh Malik.
386. In the absence of proving the notings in the
handwriting of accused, inference cannot be taken
that the official notings on Ex.PW-34/A (Colly),
Ex.PW-34/B (Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly),
Ex.PW-34/D (Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly),
Ex.PW-34/G (Colly), Ex.PW-34/H(Colly),
Ex.PW-34/I(Colly), Ex.PW-34/J(Colly),
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 177 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and Ex.PW-34/L(Colly) are
of accused Satyaver Singh Malik.
387. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has
argued that the notings file Ex.34/D ( Colly) was
maintained in the office of RCS and same was
seized by the IO. The notings have been put in file
Ex.34/D ( Colly) in official capacity by the
accused persons and same may be presumed that
the same has been attributed to accused Satyavir
Singh Malik.
388. I have considered the rival contention of Ld
Counsel for the accused as well as Ld Senior PP
for CBI. The fact that file was seized during the
investigation and was maintained in RCS office is
proved. But no evidence is on record vide which it
can be inferred that particular official notings was
made by accused Satyavir Singh Malik. No
witness has been examined by the prosecution
who can identify the signature of accused Satyavir
Singh Malik on the notings Ex.PW-34/A (Colly),
Ex.PW-34/B (Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly),
Ex.PW-34/D (Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly),
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 178 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Ex.PW-34/G (Colly), Ex.PW-34/H(Colly),
Ex.PW-34/I(Colly), Ex.PW-34/J(Colly),
Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and Ex.PW-34/L(Colly).
Even PW 11 and PW25 have not identified the
alleged notings and signature are of accused
Satyavir Singh Malik on the particular notings
allegedly appended by the accused. There is no
witness being examined by the prosecution who
can depose that on which particular date the
alleged notings were made or the accused was
posted on that seat on that date on which noting
was made. Technically there is flaw in the
evidence on this point being adduced on record
against the accused.
389. Moreover, on considering the allegations against
the accused that he has not mentioned the reasons
for winding up of the said society cannot be
considered towards the complicity of the accused
in the conspiracy to commit either forgery or
cheating. This allegations is also negates by the
deposition of IO himself, who has deposed in his
cross examination that during the investigation he
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 179 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
did not come across any section, rules or
circular/guidelines issued thereunder which made
it obligatory for accused Satyavir Singh Malik to
personally verify the genuineness of the members
of CGHS or genuineness of the documents
produced by the society. Moreover there is no
evidence that accused Satyavir Singh Malik got
any pecuniary benefit in any form from any person
while writing the alleged notings Ex.PW-34/A
(Colly), Ex.PW-34/B (Colly), Ex.PW-34/C
(Colly), Ex.PW-34/D (Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly),
Ex.PW-34/G (Colly), Ex.PW-34/H(Colly),
Ex.PW-34/I(Colly), Ex.PW-34/J(Colly),
Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and Ex.PW-34/L(Colly).
( though technically not proved). It is also clear
that there is no evidence at all on record which
suggest to this Court that accused has any dealing
or was in contact with any other accused persons.
For the sake of argument if it is presumed that it
was the duty of the accused to verify the
documents from the record being maintained in
the RCS office and he has not done the same, it
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 180 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
may be negligence only but that negligence cannot
be considered as complicity of the accused in
commission of alleged offence.
390. Moreover, to prosecute accused Satyavir Singh
Malik for the offences under Prevention of
Corruption Act, sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act is
essential. In order to prove the sanction for
prosecution against accused Satyavir Singh
Malik. The prosecution has examined PW 28 Sh
Ramesh Narayanaswami. PW28 after going
through the report of the CBI accorded his
satisfaction for sanction of prosecution vide
sanction order dated 07.12.2006 Ex. PW28/A in
respect of accused Satyavir Singh Malik.
391. However, PW 28 in the cross examination has
deposed as to how he has accorded sanction
against accused Satyavir Singh Malik. The
relevant portion of his cross examination is as
follows:
“It is correct that I was never posted in the office of RCS
at any point of time. It is correct that at the alleged
period of offence, I was not the competent authority to
accord sanction against accused P.K. Thirwani and
accused S.S. Malik. I am not in a position to tell theCBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 181 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
date, month or year, when requisition for grant of
sanction was received from CBI. Similarly, I am not in a
position to tell the name of the CВІ official from whom
requisition was received. It is correct that sanction orders
that are Ex. PW28/A and Ex. PW28/B, I have not
mentioned the name of specific documents or witnesses
in the sanction order. It is correct that no requisition or
list of documents are attached with aforesaid sanction
orders. ….I do not remember at this stage whether any
draft sanction order was received from CBI or not. …. I
had not issued any directions for initiation of
departmental inquiry against accused P.K. Thirwani and
S.S. Malik.I had not sought any clarification or
representation from accused P.K. Thirwani and S.S.
Malik prior to issue of sanction.”
392. On perusal, the witness is unable to disclose
clearly the material which he has perused before
granting sanction for prosecution against accused
Satyavir Singh Malik. As per DW1/A the brief
statement of accused persons. List of name of
witnesses. The list of particular of document and
draft sanction orders were sent for obtaining
sanction for prosecution of accused. The complete
set of documents and evidence were not sent to
the sanctioning authority. So the testimony of PW
28 is dubious regarding perusing the material
/evidence by him before according sanction. On
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 182 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
the other hand, IO has admitted in this cross
examination that he had not placed on record the
copy of letter vide which request was made to the
sanctioning authority for according sanction. So
in view of the law as discussed in the preceding
paragraph coupled with the testimonies of PW28
and DW.1 the prosecution has failed to prove the
sanction order against accused Satyavir Singh
Malik being accorded by applying its mind by the
sanctioning authority.
Finding qua accused P.K. Thirwani
393. The allegations against accused P.K. Thirwani is
that in pursuance of revival order dated
24.01.2001 he was appointed as Senior Auditor to
conduct audit of the said society. And he has
prepared false audit reports for the year 1989-
1990 to 1999-2000, 2000-2001 to 2001-2002
without visiting the office of the said society.
394. In the backdrop of these allegations as accused
P.K. Thirwani has admitted the filing of Audit
Report Ex 34/X( Colly). But it is argued on behalf
of accused P.K.Thirwani that he has filed the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 183 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
correct Audit reports on the basis of documents.
There is no discrepancies in the Audit report Ex
PW34/X ( Colly).
395. On the other hand, it is vehemently by Ld Sr PP
for CBI that the acts of accused P.K. Thirwani in
itself proves his involvement to the extent that he
was involved in conspiracy with other co-accused.
As he has submitted the report without visiting
the office of Society which is in violation of Rule
84 (5) of the D.C.S Rules, as audit has to be
conducted in the office of the society itself. And
PW11 has proved on record that society was not
exits on the address at DCM, Tent Factory
Building, Ganeshpuri, Kishan Ganj, Delhi.
396. On considering the rival arguments and perusing
the record. It is evident that P.K. Thirwani has
conducted the Audit ( , Ex PW34/X (Colly). of
the said society in pursuance of the order of R.C.S
dated 24.01.2001( revival order of the said
society)
397. The first questions arises whether the society was
being operated from at DCM, Tent Factory
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 184 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Building, Ganeshpuri, Kishan Ganj, Delhi or not,
when accused has filed the audit report. To prove
this fact the prosecution has solely relied upon the
testimony of PW 11 Azad Singh. Who has
deposed in his examination in chief that he has
visited at the address of the said society on
23.07.1992 and prepared the report Ex PW11/B,
dated 24.07.1992. But when he was cross
examined before the Court, he has deposed that he
do not remember the reason for visiting the office
of the society in July, 1992. He do not remember
the particular of adjoining property at the address
he has visited. He has further deposed that he has
made inquiries from some neighbor but he did not
recorded their statements. He has further deposed
that he did not enquire about the time since when
the society was not functioning from its said
address. He has deposed that he did not verify
whether the society was temporarily not
functioning from there or whether it never
functioned from there. He has deposed in this
cross examination that he has worked in the office
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 185 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
of AR ( Audit ) from January, 1990 for about one
and half year. Suggestion has been given to the
witness that he has never visited the address of the
society and has prepared the report without
making any reason. Suggestion has also been
given that the society was exists on the given
address.
398. On analyzing the examination of PW 11, it
reveals that he has not recorded the statement of
neighborers from whom he has inquired about the
functioning the said society at DCM, Tent Factory
Building, Ganeshpuri, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. Even
he has deposed in the cross examination that he
does remember the purpose of his visit at the
address of the said society. He has deposed in his
examination in chief that he has worked in the
office of RCS from May, 1990 to September,
1994. But in his cross examination he has deposed
that he had worked from January,1990 which is
contradictory. During the IO has not taken
burden to visit the address of the said society to
ascertain whether the society was functioning at
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 186 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
the given address at the time of investigation was
carried out. The cross examination of the witness
has create doubt about his visit at the address of
the said society ie at DCM, Tent Factory
Building, Ganeshpuri, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. It may
possible he could not have visited the address of
the said society and this probability cannot be
ruled out. When there are two probabilities about
a fact, the fact favouring the accused must be
considered in favour of accused. As it is the
settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence.
Even otherwise, the report Ex PW34/X ( Colly)
was prepared in the year 2001. The fact whether
the said society was exist in the year 2001 or not
at the address DCM, Tent Factory Building,
Ganeshpuri, Kishan Ganj, Delhi cannot be proved
by the fact which is allegedly otherwise collected
in the year 1992. There is no evidence being
collected by investigating agency whether the said
society was functioning in the year 2001 at the
address DCM, Tent Factory Building,
Ganeshpuri, Kishan Ganj, Delhi.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 187 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
399. There is no allegations against accused P.K.
Thirwani that he has manipulated in the accounts
of the society to hide the irregularities. There is
no evidence at all on record that any demand for
pecuniary gain was made by accused P.K.
Thirwanik. The mens rea is one of the essential
ingredient for proving the guilty of a person.
Here in the present case mens rea is also missing.
400. So the evidence adduced by the prosecution
against accused P.K. Thirwani is not sufficient to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the
offence Under section 120 B r/w 420/468/471
IPC.
401. So far as the allegation against accused
P.K.Thirwani for the offence U/S Sec. 15 r/w 13
(1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act,1988 is concerned. In
this regard Section 19 of the P.C Act, 1988
prescribes that no court shall take cognizance of
an offence punishable under Prevention of
Corruption Act. The issue of cognizance can be
raised at any stage. And if the cognizance is
against the law then to built up a case against the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 188 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
accused for the offences under Prevention of
Corruption Act also not triable.
402. Ld Counsel for P.K. Thirwani has vehemently
argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the
sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act 1988. It is submitted
that even for the sake of argument if it is assume
that sanction U/S 19 of the P.C. Act 1988 is
presumed to be proved on record but the same
was not a valid sanction being accorded without
application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
403. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has
argued that the prosecution has successfully
proved the sanction order against the P.K.
Thiwani by leading cogent evidence.
404. In order to prove sanction for prosecution against
P.K. Thirwani the prosecution has examined PW
28 Sh Ramesh Narayanaswami. He has deposed
that he received a report from CBI and after going
through the report of CBI and documents he
accorded sanction vide Ex PW28/B for
prosecution of P.K. Thirwani.
405. However, the cross examination of PW 28, is to
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 189 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
be considered whether the sanction has been
accorded by the sanctioning authority on perusal
of material before it. The relevant portion of his
cross examination is as follows:
“It is correct that I was never posted in the office of RCS
at any point of time. It is correct that at the alleged
period of offence, I was not the competent authority to
accord sanction against accused P.K. Thirwani and
accused S.S. Malik. I am not in a position to tell the
date, month or year, when requisition for grant of
sanction was received from CBI. Similarly, I am not in a
position to tell the name of the CВІ official from whom
requisition was received. It is correct that sanction orders
that are Ex. PW28/A and Ex. PW28/B, I have not
mentioned the name of specific documents or witnesses
in the sanction order. It is correct that no requisition or
list of documents are attached with aforesaid sanction
orders. ….I do not remember at this stage whether any
draft sanction order was received from CBI or not. …. I
had not issued any directions for initiation of
departmental inquiry against accused P.K. Thirwani and
S.S. Malik.I had not sought any clarification or
representation from accused P.K. Thirwani and S.S.
Malik prior to issue of sanction.”
406. On perusal, the witness is unable to disclose
clearly the material which he has perused before
granting sanction for prosecution against accused
P.K. Thirwani. On perusal of documents Ex
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 190 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
DW1/A ( Colly). ( The file sent to the sanctioning
authority for according sanction) It reveals that
list of documents alongwith S.P report, calander of
evidence (oral), calandar of evidence
( documentary) and draft sanction orders were
sent only. The complete statement of witnesses
were not sent to the sanctioning authority for its
perusal. So the testimony of PW 28 is dubious
regarding perusing the material /evidence by him
before according sanction. So in view of the law
as discussed in the preceding paragraph coupled
with the testimonies of PW28 and DW.1 the
prosecution has failed to prove the sanction order
against accused P.K. Thirwani being accorded by
applying its mind by the sanctioning authority.
Because complete evidence was not with the
sanctioning authority.
Finding qua accused Vipin Kumar Jain.
407. The allegations against accused Vipin Kumar Jain
are that in pursuance of revival order dated
24.01.2001, accused Vipin Kumar Jain while
working as Election Officer in the office of
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 191 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Registrar Cooperative Society, Delhi during the
year 2000-2002 submitted a false election report
without visiting the office address of the society
and ascertaining the genuineness of the members
of the society.
408. To adjudicate the complicity of accused in the
present case, the perusal of revival order is
important. The RCS while passed the revival
order has also given directions to the society
which are six in number. The condition No.6 of
revival order is important to fastened the
complicity of accused namely Vipin Kumar Jain.
The condition No.6 of revival order is reproduced
as follow:
” That the elections to the Managing
Committee will be conducted by
appointing a departmental Election
officer in due course of time”.
409. On perusal of this condition the election of the
said society was not condition precedent for
revival of the society or to recall revival order.
There was no time fixed for conducting election.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 192 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Further election of the said society was directed
to be conducted in due course. The election does
not have any bearing upon the revival of the said
society being done on 24.01.2001. Moreover
formal election was not conducted as only
member as equivalent to the post of Management
committee have applied for contesting election. It
was that reasons accused Vipin Kumar Jain may
have not visited the office of the said society. But
non visiting the office of said society by the
accused is not sufficient to implicate him as
conspirator of offence. I.O has also admitted that
accused has not obtained any pecuniary benefit
and he himself has not forged any document. It is
also admitted by the IO that accused Vipin Kumar
Jain was not connected or involved in the present
case till the society was revived. There is no
evidence that accused was in contact with any
accused persons to hatch a conspiracy for revival
of the said society. The evidence adduced on
record by the prosecution against the accused are
not sufficient to hold him guilty.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 193 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
410. Moreover, sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act is necessary
to prosecute the accused for the offences under
P.C Act. In order to prove sanction for
prosecution against Vipin Kumar Jain the
prosecution has examined PW 29 Dr S.S. Saha.
He has deposed that after going through the
material placed before him he has accorded
sanction to prosecute accused Vipin Kumar Jain.
411. However, PW 29 in the cross examination has
deposed as to how he has accorded sanction
against accused Vipin Kumar Jain. The relevant
portion of his cross examination is as follows:
“I do not remember as to after how many from the
receipt of the request from CBI, I had accorded the
sanction. I even cannot say whether I took a week or
fortnight or more than that. I even cannot say if after
giving the sanction, the material sent by the CBI was
kept in our office or not because my subordinate
staff/Joint Director was dealing with it after giving the
sanction. The entire file was maintained by my Joint
Director and the Administration. I cannot say since Sh.
Vipin Kumar was appointed as a Election Officer in the
month of May, 2001 and the election took place in July,
2001 much after the date of revival i.e. 29.01.2001, how
accused Vipin Kumar Jain was involved in the
conspiracy in getting the society revived”.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 194 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
412. On perusal, the witness is unable to disclose
clearly the material which he has perused before
granting sanction for prosecution against accused
Vipin Kumar Jain. On perusal of Sanction file Ex
DW1/A ( Colly). It reveals that the file/record
which was sent to office of Lt Governor contains
only S.P report in brief containing only allegation.
The brief statement of accused persons. List of
name of witnesses. The list of particular of
document and draft sanction orders for obtaining
sanction for prosecution of accused Vipin Kumar
Jain. The complete set of documents or complete
statement of witnesses were not sent to the
sanctioning authority. The IO has admitted that he
has not placed on record the letter vide which
request was made to the sanctioning authority and
the description of documents sent. The testimony
of PW 29 is dubious regarding perusing the
material /evidence by him for according sanction.
The witness is unable to apprised the Court what
material was perused by him while according
sanction. So in view of the law as discussed in the
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 195 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
preceding paragraph coupled with the testimonies
of PW29 and Ex DW1/A ( Colly) the prosecution
has failed to prove the sanction order against
accused Vipin Kumar Jain being accorded by
applying the mind by the sanctioning authority.
Finding qua accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh
Pant and Naveen Kaushik.
413. The case of the prosecution against aforesaid
accused namely Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant
and Naveen Kaushik are based on the report of
handwriting expert. There is no other direct
evidence on record against these accused persons
who could have deposed that they seen these
accused persons to forged the signatures of any of
the persons. The only evidence on record is the
testimony of PW22 ie GEQD expert on which the
prosecution is relying upon. To consider the
testimony of handwriting expert the first most
important fact has to be proved by the prosecution
that the specimen signatures/handwriting of
above said accused persons were obtained and
same is without any encumbrances. To prove
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 196 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
this fact the deposition of PW 33 A.K. Yadav is
importand as specimen signatures of accused
Aswhani Sharma was obtained in his presence.
PW 33 has deposed that specimen signature of
accused Ashwnai Sharma from S-30 to S-36 and
S-70 to S-96, (Ex. PW33/A (colly.) were taken by
the IO in his presence. But in his cross
examination PW 33 has deposed that he do not
remember the exact day or the period for which
he was attached with the CBI. He has deposed
that he has not brought the letter or directions
from his department vide which he was deputed
to witness the proceedings being conducted by the
IO. He has deposed that he had not made any
entry while visiting the office of CBI. He has
further stated that he do not remember as to in
how many cases he had been a witness to such
proceedings on that particular day. The
examination of PW33 shows that his presence is
doubtful while obtaining specimen
handwriting/signatures of accused Ashwani
Sharma. So far as identification of accused
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 197 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Ashwani Sharma by PW 33 is concerned. He has
deposed in his deposition that he has identified
accused Ashwani Sharma as he had seen
Ashwani Sharma in number of cases while
deposing before the Court and can identify him
accordingly. This identification of accused
Ashwani Sharma before the Court loose its
importance and it cannot be read against accused
Ashwani Sharma to the extent that specimen
signatures of accused Ashwani Sharma were
taken in the presence of PW 33. Because
otherwise his deposition is doubtful that he has
witnessed the taking of specimen in his presence.
414. So far as obtaining the specimen
signatures/handwriting of accused Naveen
Kaushik is concerned. The specimen
handwriting/signatures are obtained vide
proceedings Ex PW34/7A. The specimen
signature/handwriting sheets are S-5 to S-23 and
S-100 to S-137. The aforesaid sheets neither
having any date, any token signatures of accused
Naveen Kaushik and any signature of independent
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 198 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
witness. Though S-19 to S-23 bears token
signatures of accused Naveen Kaushik but not
bears the signatures of any independent witness.
415. So far as the proceedings, Ex. PW34/A8 (colly.)
qua specimen signatures/handwritings of accused
Ashutosh Pant, from S-24 to S-29 and S-37 to
S-69 then S-97 to S-99 are concerned. As per the
specimen signatures/handwritings of accused
Ashutosh Pant, the same were shown to be taken
in Tihar Jail. The question arises how PW34 had
visited Tihar Jail, when there is no such
permission from the concerned court on the
record that he (PW34 ) was permitted to visit
Tihar Jail. If any proceedings were conducted in
jail premises, then seal and signatures of jail
authority should be there to authenticate such
proceedings being recorded in jail premises. But
the aforesaid specimen signatures/handwritings
sheets neither bears any seal, nor any signatures
of jail official/authority. The alleged specimen
signatures/handwritings sheets are also not
bearing any signature of independent witness.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 199 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
416. On the other hand, PW34 has deposed that the
proceedings of specimen signatures/handwritings
sheets qua Naveen Kaushik and Ashutosh Pant
were recorded by him in the presence of
independent witnesses but inadvertently they were
not made the witness to such proceedings. And
that is why there is no signatures of such
witnesses on the said proceedings. The deposition
of IO, as above, does not inspire any confidence
and creates suspicion qua taking the specimen
signatures/handwriting of aforesaid accused
persons namely Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant
and Naveen Kaushik. So the prosecution has
failed to clear the first condition for considering
the handwriting expert opinion. Once first
condition of obtaining specimen signatures of
above named accused persons is doubtful that fact
goes in favour of accused persons. Moreover,
since this Court has discarded the evidence of
handwriting expert while considering its
evidential value qua giving observations against
accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal. So in view of
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 200 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
the above, the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt against accused
Ashwani Sharma, Naveen Kaushik and Ashutosh
Pant.
Finding qua accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava .
417. The allegations against accused Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava are that while he was working as
Registrar of Co-operative, without getting
inspection of the records of the society under
section 54 of the DCS Act 1972 and revived the
said society on 24.01.2001, on the basis of the
false and forged documents. There are also
allegations that he had approved the list which was
forwarded to DDA for allotment of land. He had
developed close proximity with S.P. Saxena and
the said order of revival was passed as quid-pro-
quo for which he had obtained the membership for
himself as well as for his sister in law Smt. Vijay
Srivastav in a society namely Shiv Shankar CGHS
controlled by SP Saxena.
418. Ld Counsel for Rajesh Kumar Srivastava has
vehemently argued that, firstly there is no sanction
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 201 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
U/S 197 Cr P.C against accused Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava (A-5) and consequent upon that the
accused (A-5) cannot be prosecuted for the
offence Under section 120 B r/w 420/468/471
IPC.
419. It is further argued by Ld Counsel for accused
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava that sanction U/S 19 of
P.C Act for prosecution of the offences charged
against him under Prevention of Corruption Act
has not been proved by PW 27 Vijay Kumar. It is
submitted PW 27 was not the sanctioning
authority but was an authenticating officer who
had forwarded the grant of sanction only. It is
argued that Rajesh Kumar Srivastava has not
committed any offence and acted on the basis of
record. It is also argued that becoming member of
society cannot be considered that he has become
member in lieu of reviving the said society.
420. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has
argued that the prosecution has successfully
proved the allegations against the Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava by leading cogent evidence.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 202 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
421. It is further argued by the Ld Senior PP for CBI
that since the act done by accused Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava was not a part of his official duty rather
he was indulged in conspiracy with other public
servants and private persons who have been
charged in the present case. In that way no
sanction is required against accused Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava U/S 197 of Cr.P.C.
422. After considering the arguments of Ld Counsel for
the Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Ld Senior PP for
CBI. As accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava has
been charged for the offence Under section 120 B
r/w 420/468/471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of
PC Act,1988 and substantive offences Section 15
r/w 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13 (2) of Prevention
of Corruption Act 1988. It has to be considered
whether sanction U/S 197 Cr. P.C is required or
not for prosecuting accused.
423. On perusal, it is admitted position of the
prosecution that there is no sanction being
obtained U/S 197 of Cr.P.C to prosecute accused
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and same is also not
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 203 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
there on record.
424. Before adverting to the facts of the case and
whether sanction U/S 197 Cr P C is required or
not, I would like to reproduce Section 197 Cr.
P.C.
425. Section 197 of the CrPC reads as under:
“197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or
Magistrate or a public servant not removable from
his office save by or with the sanction of the
Government is accused of any offence alleged to
have been committed by him while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty,
no Court shall take cognizance of such offence
except with the previous sanction save as otherwise
provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1
of 2014)–
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as
the case may be, was at the time of commission of
the alleged offence employed, in connection with
the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as
the case may be, was at the time of commission of
the alleged offence employed, in connection with
the affairs of a State, of the State Government:
Provided that where the alleged offence was
committed by a person referred to in clause (b)
during the period while a Proclamation issued under
clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was inCBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 204 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the
expression “State Government” occurring therein,
the expression “Central Government” were
substituted.
Explanation.–For the removal of doubts it is hereby
declared that no sanction shall be required in case of
a public servant accused of any offence alleged to
have been committed under section 166A, section
166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B,
section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section
375, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C,
section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or
section 509 of the Penal Code, 1860.
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence
alleged to have been committed by any member of
the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty,
except with the previous sanction of the Central
Government.
(3) The State Government may, by notification,
direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall
apply to such class or category of the members of
the Forces charged with the maintenance of public
order as may be specified therein, wherever they
may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that
sub-section will apply as if for the expression
“Central Government” occurring
therein,the expression “State Government” were
substituted.
(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 205 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
offence, alleged to have been committed by any
member of the Forces charged with the maintenance
of public order in a State while acting or purporting
to act in the discharge of his official duty during the
period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1)
of article 356 of the Constitution was in force
therein, except with the previous sanction of the
Central Government.
(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby
declared that any sanction accorded by the State
Government or any cognizance taken by a court
upon such sanction, during the period commencing
on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the
date immediately preceding the date on which the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act,
1991 (43 of 1991), receives the assent of the
President, with respect to an offence alleged to have
been committed during the period while a
Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356
of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be
invalid and it shall be competent for the Central
Government in such matter to accord sanction and
for the court to take cognizance thereon.
(4) The Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be, may determine the
person by whom, the manner in which, and the
offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such
Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be
conducted, and may specify the Court before which
the trial is to be held.”
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 206 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
426. On perusal of Section 197 of the Cr PC, it
provides that when any person who is or was a
public servant, not removable from his office save
by or with the sanction of the Central Government
or State Government is accused of any offence
alleged to have been committed by him while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his
official duties, no Court shall take cognizance of
such offence, except with the previous sanction of
the appropriate Government. The law pertaining to
the grant of sanction under Section 197 is no
longer res integra. The essential requirements of
Section 197 Cr. P.C. is that an accused should be
alleged of having committed an offence while
acting or purporting to act in discharge of his
official duty. There must be a reasonable
connection between the act and the discharge of
official duty. The act must bear such relation to
the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable,
but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it
in the course of the performance of his duty.
427. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Rakesh Bhatnagar Vs
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 207 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Central Bureau of Investigation , 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 7440 has held that :-
“62. According to the ratio laid down in A.
Srinivasa Reddy (supra), the individual against
whom the allegations are made, ought to be a
‘Public Servant’ whose appointing authority is the
Central Government or the State Government to
entitle him to the protection under section 197
Cr.P.C. and not to every public servant. In the
present case, undoubtedly, the petitioner is a
DANICS officer and his appointing authority is the
Central/State Government. There is equally no
doubt in the mind of this Court that the allegations
against the petitioner are of offences in the discharge
of his official duties and as such the rigors of N.K
Ganguly (supra) shall apply on all fours and it
would be imperative for the prosecution to have
obtained the sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. As
such, it is apparent that the prosecution of the
petitioner for the aforesaid offences in the absence
of the appropriate sanction under section 197
Cr.P.C. would be untenable.
63. Mr. Goel did not dispute the fact that there is no
sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. obtained from
the Competent Authority against the petitioner.
Having regard to the said admission, and also
considering the ratio laid down by the aforesaid
authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court, this
Court quashes the charges framed against the
petitioner under sections 420, 468 and 471 read with
120B IPC.”
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 208 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
428. In the case of A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh
Sharma, (2023) 8 SCC 711 , it was held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court that:-
“41. Sub-section (1) of Section 197CrPC shows that
sanction for prosecution is required where any
person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a
public servant not removable from his office save by
or with the sanction of the Government is accused of
any offence alleged to have been committed by him
while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his
official duty. Article 311 of the Constitution lays
down that no person, who is a member of a civil
service of the Union or State or holds a civil post
under the Union or State, shall be removed by an
authority subordinate to that by which he was
appointed. It, therefore, follows that protection of
sub-section (1) of Section 197CrPC is available only
to such public servants whose appointing authority
is the Central Government or the State Government
and not to every public servant.
59. From the aforesaid, it can be said that there can
be no thumb rule that in a prosecution before the
court of Special Judge, the previous sanction under
Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 would invariably be
the only pre- requisite. If the offences on the charge
of which, the public servant is expected to be put on
trial include the offences other than those punishable
under the PC Act, 1988 that is to say under the
general law (i.e. IPC), the court is bound to
examine, at the time of cognizance and also, ifCBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 209 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
necessary, at subsequent stages (as the case
progresses) as to whether there is a necessity of
sanction under Section 197 of the Cr P.C There is a
material difference between the statutory
requirements of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 on
one hand, and Section 197 of the Cr P.C, on the
other. In the prosecution for the offences exclusively
under the PC Act, 1988, sanction is mandatory qua
the public servant. In cases under the general penal
law against the public servant, the necessity (or
otherwise) of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr
P.C depends on the factual aspects. The test in the
latter case is of the “nexus” between the act of
commission or omission and the official duty of the
public servant. To commit an offence punishable
under law can never be a part of the official duty of
a public servant. It is too simplistic an approach to
adopt and to reject the necessity of sanction under
Section 197 of the Cr PC on such reasoning. The
“safe and sure test”, is to ascertain if the omission or
neglect to commit the act complained of would have
made the public servant answerable for the charge of
dereliction of his official duty. He may have acted
“in excess of his duty”, but if there is a “reasonable
connection” between the impugned act and the
performance of the official duty, the protective
umbrella of Section 197 of the Cr PC cannot be
denied, so long as the discharge of official duty is
not used as a cloak for illicit acts.”
429. On perusal of above referred judgments of
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 210 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Hon’ble Superior Courts, it is clear that to commit
an offence punishable under law can never be a
part of the official duty of a public servant. It is
too simplistic an approach to adopt and to reject
the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the
Cr PC on such reasoning. The safe and sure test is
to ascertain if the omission or neglect to commit
the act complained of would have made the public
servant answerable for the charge of dereliction of
his official duty.
430. Here in the present case, the allegations against
accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava are that he had
revived the said society on the basis of forged
documents. The act of revival of the said society
is official duty and if he could have not done act to
revive the said Society then it could have been
considered as dereliction of his official duty. So in
the given circumstances, the sanction U/S 197 Cr
P C is essential for his prosecution for the offences
under IPC charge against him.
431. Admittedly accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava was
an I.A.S and his appointing authority was either
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 211 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Central Government or State Government,
therefore, the protection as available U/S 197 Cr P
C is to be granted to him for the prosecution U/S
Under section 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC.
432. So far as the allegations of conspiracy against
accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava in reviving of
the society is concerned. There is no direct
evidence being brought on record by the
investigating agency. There is also no evidence
that he was hand in glove with any of the accused
persons. There is no evidence at all that he has got
any monetary benefit from any of the co-accused
in the process of revival of the said society.
433. Moreover accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava has
passed the order of revival of the said society on
24.01.2001 and also given directions to the society
as under:
1. That the society will obtain and submit fresh
affidavits from all the members of the society.
2. That the society will obtain and furnish
necessary proof of the present residence of the
members.
3. That the President and Secretary of the
society will also file an affidavit stating that the
documents furnished by them are in order andCBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 212 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
the enrolments made by the society were in
order and in accordance with the provisions of
DCS Act and Rules.
4. That all the documents will be submitted by
the society within next 30 days before A.R(W)
for verification and no extension of time will be
allowed.
5. The pending Audit shall be got conducted
within two months time.
6. That the elections to the Managing
Committee will be conducted by appointing a
departmental Election officer in due course of
time.
434. Accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava has passed the
order on the basis of material being produced
before him. PW 19 B.S Arora has deposed that
society members were present in the office when
he has presented the application for revival of the
said society. His testimony that he has put
signatures on the noting file (D-6) on note sheet
18/N, was blank is not acceptable because he is an
Advocate and he could not have signed in a blank
sheet. Even otherwise, the accused Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava precautionary directed the society to
complete subsequently curtains act which were six
in number, as mentioned in the reviving order. It
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 213 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
shows his bonafide while passing the revival
order. So the evidence produced on record by the
prosecution is not of such magnitude which can be
considered as sufficient to hold Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava guilty for the conspiracy. In that
circumstances, according of sanction U/S 19 of
P.C Act against accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastave
has no relevance at all.
435. One another argument of Ld Senior PP for CBI is
that a membership was allotted to the accused as
well as to his sister-in-law in the society named
Shiv Shankar CGHS. This fact has not been
denied by the accused. The question is whether
becoming a member of Shiv Shankar CGHS
being managed by its Management committee and
any members of the Management committee, was
to be considered indulgence of accused Rajesh
Kumar Srivastava in the commission of offence in
the present case.
436. In the present case, the evidence as adduced on
record does not prove that any rebate was given to
accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava for allotment of
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 214 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
membership in society Shiv Shanker CGHS. It is
not there on record that accused had paid less
amount towards the membership of the society.
Moreover the accused become member of the
society much later from his transfer from the post
of RCS. So the prosecution has failed to prove
charges against accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
for offences charged with.
Finding qua accused Shakuntla Joshi
437. The allegations against accused Shakuntla Joshi,
are that she in furtherance of the criminal
conspiracy with co-accused persons, being
Assistant Registrar in the office of RCS, Delhi,
abused her official position as a public servant. She
has forwarded the file to RCS for orders. She was
also supposed to exercise proper care before
forwarding the file to the RCS.
438. Ld Counsel for the accused Shakuntla Joshi has
submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the
notings Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B (Colly),
Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D (Colly),
Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly),
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 215 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Ex.PW-34/H(Colly), Ex.PW-34/I(Colly),
Ex.PW-34/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and
Ex.PW-34/L(Colly). To prove the notings of
accused, prosecution has examined two witnesses
namely PW11 Azad Singh and PW25 Mahendra
Singh from the office of RCS. But both the
witnesses have not confirm or deposed that the
alleged notings Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B
(Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D
(Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly),
Ex.PW-34/H(Colly), Ex.PW-34/I(Colly),
Ex.PW-34/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and
Ex.PW-34/L (Colly) were appended by accused
Shakuntla Joshi.
439. It is argued that in the absence of proving the
notings in the handwriting of accused Shakuntla
Johshi, inference cannot be taken that the official
notings on Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B
(Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D
(Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly),
Ex.PW-34/H(Colly), Ex.PW-34/I(Colly),
Ex.PW-34/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 216 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Ex.PW-34/L(Colly) are of accused or signed by
her.
440. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has
argued that the notings file Ex.34/D ( Colly) was
maintained in the office of RCS and same was
seized by the IO. The notings have been put in file
Ex.34/D ( Colly) in official capacity by the
accused and same may be presumed that the same
has been attributed to accused Shakuntla Joshi,
and being made by her.
441. I have considered the rival contention of Ld
Counsel for the accused as well as Ld Senior PP
for CBI. The fact that file was seized during the
investigation and was maintained in RCS office is
proved. But no evidence is on record which can
suggest that the official notings belongs to accused
Shakuntla Joshi. No witness has been examined by
the prosecution who can identify the signature of
accused Shakuntla Joshi on the notings
Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B (Colly),
Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D (Colly),
Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly),
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 217 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Ex.PW-34/H(Colly), Ex.PW-34/I(Colly),
Ex.PW-34/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and
Ex.PW-34/L(Colly). Even PW 11 and PW25 have
not identified the official notings and signature of
accused Shakuntla Joshi. There is no witness
being examined by the prosecution who can
depose that on which particular date the alleged
notings were made or signed, the accused was
posted on that seat. Technically there is flaw in the
evidence on this fact against the accused.
442. It is also clear that there is no evidence at all on
record which suggest to this Court that accused
has any dealing or was in contact with any other
accused persons. For the sake of argument if it is
presumed that it was the duty of the accused to
verify the documents from the record being
maintained in the RCS office and she has not done
the same,it may be negligence but that negligence
cannot considered as complicity of the accused in
commission of alleged offence.
443. The prosecution has not proved the minimum
required fact which has to be proved on record. In
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 218 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
the absence of any evidence connecting the
accused Shakuntla Joshi with alleged notings, she
cannot be connected with offence charge against
her. The prosecution has unable to brought any
evidence on record which shows that accused
Shakuntala Joshi has obtained any monetary gain
in the revival of the said society. There is no
evidence which shows that forged signatures were
appended on the documents by any person in her
presence. The evidence are short to hold her guilty
for the offences charged with.
444. Moreover, to prosecute accused Shakuntla Joshi,
for the offences under Prevention of Corruption
Act, sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act is essential.
445. Admittedly, the person ( D.K. Mishra) who had
accorded sanction for prosecution U/S 19 of P.C
Act has not been examined by the prosecution as
he has expired. The document Ex PW30/A cannot
be considered because mere exhibiting of this
document by identifying the signatures of Sh D.K.
Misha by PW30 will seriously prejudice the right
of the accused. As per law, the sanction has to be
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 219 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
granted by the sanctioning authority after
satisfying itself and that satisfaction must be based
upon the application of mind on perusing the
material evidence being provided to it by the
investigating agency. Non availability of D.K.
Mishra will prejudice the rights of the accused as
opportunity to cross examination is not being
accorded to the accused to extract the fact whether
the material has been perused by the sanctioning
authority for according sanction. And to arrived at
a conclusion that the mind has been applied by the
sanctioning authority on that material. The
accused could not have asked the question to
PW30 whether the material being placed before
Sh D.K. Mishra was examined by him ( Sh
D.K.Misha ) before according sanction. But in the
absence of those right being exercised by the
accused by putting questions to sanctioning
authority, accused’s rights are prejudiced. In that
circumstances, the sanction being accorded by
D.K.Mishra cannot be the basis to presume that
sanction was accorded after perusing the entire
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 220 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
material by the sanctioning authority and
sanctioning authority has applied its mind. The
PW30 is not competent person who can explained
the fact which were exclusively in the knowledge
of D.K. Mishra and same were considered by him
being sanctioning authority.
446. Moreover, on perusal of Sanction file Ex DW1/A
( Colly). It reveals that the file/record which was
sent to office of Lt Governor contains only S.P
report in brief containing only allegation. The
brief statement of accused persons. List of name
of witnesses. The list of particular of document
and draft sanction orders for obtaining sanction for
prosecution of accused Shakuntla Joshi. The
complete set of documents or complete statement
of witnesses were not sent to the sanctioning
authority. It shows that complete evidence were
not sent to the sanctioning authority for its perusal.
So in view of the law of sanction, as discussed in
the preceding paragraphs coupled with the
testimonies of PW30 and DW.1, the prosecution
has failed to prove the sanction order against
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 221 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
accused Shakuntla Joshi being accorded by
applying the mind by the sanctioning authority.
CONCLUSION:
447. Since the evidence as brought on record is not
sufficient beyond reasonable doubt to hold
accused persons namely Gokul Chand Aggarwal,
Satyaveer Singh Malik, P.K. Thirwani, Vipin
Kumar Jain, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant,
Naveen Kaushik, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and
Shakuntla Joshi as guilty of offences charge with.
The prosecution has also failed to prove on record
the sanction against accused P.K. Thirwani,
Satyaveer Singh Malik, Vipin Kumar Jain, and
Shakuntla Joshi. To prosecute these four accused
persons the sanction is foundation stone. So in
view of the above discussion, accused persons
namely Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Satyaveer Singh
Malik, P.K. Thirwani, Vipin Kumar Jain, Ashwani
Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen Kaushik, Rajesh
Kumar Srivastava and Shakuntla Joshi are
acquitted. Bail bonds of accused Gokul Chand
Aggarwal, Satyaveer Singh Malik, P.K. Thirwani,
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 222 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
Vipin Kumar Jain, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh
Pant, Naveen Kaushik, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
and Shakuntla Joshi stand cancelled and their
sureties also stands discharged.
448. Let digitally signed copy of the judgment be
uploaded on the Court’s official website,
Digitally signed
JAGDISH
accordingly.
by JAGDISH
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.04.28
15:41:21 +0530
(Jagdish Kumar )
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) 16
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New Delhi
Announced in the Open Court
today :28.04.2025
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 223 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 224 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019