Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Vishwanath Agrawal Etc (9) (Shri … on 3 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-16,ROUSE
AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS)
U/S 120-B r/w 420,467,468 and 471 of IPC &
Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) & Sec.15 of PC Act1988
RC 23(E)/2005/EOW-II/CBI/ND
CBI No. 243/2019
CNR No. DL CT11-000940-2019
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus.
1.Vishwanath Agarwal,
S/O Sh. Jagdish Prasad Agarwal,
R/O RZ-227B, Gali No. 6A, Sadh Nagar, Palam
Colony, New Delhi-45
2.Shri Chand,
S/O Late Sh. Hari Singh,
R/O 274-A, Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II,
Delhi ( Proceedings stands abated vide order
dated 5.12.2024)
3.Balam Singh Aswal,
S/O Sh. Mayan Singh,
R/O T-3/34, Kalyan Vas, Delhi Admn. Flats,
Near Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi-91
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 1 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
4.Faiz Mohd.
S/O Late Sh. Gulam Mohd.
R/O 4794, Ahata Kidara, Pahagi Dhiraj
Delhi-110006
5.Ramesh Chandra,
S/O Late Sh. Agya Ram,
R/O CD-52F, DDA Flats LIG Hari Nagar, New
Delhi-64 ( Proceedings stands abated vide order
05.10.2021)
6.Narayan Diwakar,
S/0 Late Sh. Chatti Lal,
R/O G-30 Masjid Moth, New Delhi-110048
7.Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj,
S/OLate Sh. Vidya Bhushan Bhardwaj,
R/O 256, Sector-7, RK Puram, New Delhi-22,
8.Prahlad Kumar Thirwani,
S/O Late Sh. Moti Ram Thirwani
R/O 348-E , Pocket-2, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi-91
9.Mohan Lal, S/o Late Sh. Ajmeri Lal
R/O F-228/3 , Andrews Ganj New Delhi- 49
Date of Institution : 10.07.2007
Date of Arguments: 27.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 03.06.2025
JUDGMENT:
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 2 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. The brief facts of the case are that vide order
dated 02.08.2005 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
has directed the CBI to investigate into the
matter relating to the 135 Cooperative Group
Housing Societies. In compliance to the orders
of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, a PE
4(E)/2005-EOW-II was registered in respect of
six societies including Shri Narayan
Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. On
the basis of the enquiries conducted, a prima
facie criminal case was made out and,
therefore, the instant case RC 23(E)/2005-
EOW-II/DLI was registered on 29.11.2005
against the RCS officials and private persons.
2. It was alleged that during 1970-80 or thereafter,
a large number of Group Housing Societies
were registered. However, later, some of the
societies became defunct and were ordered to
be wound up due to various reasons like non-
operation, non-conduction of audit & elections,
non-submission of membership list and other
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 3 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
documents to the RCS for verification, which
were mandatory under the provisions of Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 under which
the said societies had been registered and
regulated.
3. As per investigation technically qualified and
Section Officers of Delhi Water Supply &
Sewage Disposal Undertaking formed a society
under the provisions of Bombay Cooperative
Societies Act, 1925 which had been extended
to the Union Territory of Delhi. The society
was registered vide Regn. No. 107 (H) dated
14.2.1972, having its registered office at E-27,
Kamla Nagar, Delhi with 105 promoter
members. As per Clause 5 (H) of the bye-laws
of the society, the membership of the society
had been restricted to the Section Officers or
technically qualified (Civil Engineers)
employees of the said Undertaking.
4. It is alleged that the society had stopped
functioning and was lying defunct as the
members were no more interested in continuing
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 4 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
with the society, therefore, the society was put
under liquidation. The society was shown to
have been put under liquidation vide order
dated 26.12.1978 issued by Shri R.L. Khanna,
the then Jt. Registrar and one Shri B.P. Singh,
Inspector (Housing) had been appointed as a
Liquidator. It has further come to light that Shri
R.L. Khanna had functioned as Jt. Registrar,
RCS during the period 12.1.1976 to 2.4.1978
And, therefore, winding up order and the
appointment of the Liquidator vide order dated
26.12.1978 is a forged document. In addition,
Shri B.P. Singh has confirmed that he never
worked as an Inspector (Housing) in the office
of RCS and had not been appointed as a
Liquidator vide order dated 26.12.1978.
5. It is alleged that after 24 years of winding up of
the society, one Vishwa Nath Agarwal, a self-
styled Secretary of the society submitted an
application dated 17.9.2003 to A.R. (East)
requesting for the withdrawal of liquidation
order passed u/s. 63 of the DCS Act, revival of
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 5 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
the society u/s. 63 (3) of the DCS Act, 1972
and also for the approval of final list of 165
members for allotment of land. GEQD has
confirmed the signatures on the first page of the
application but could not give any opinion on
second & third pages. Vishwa Nath Agarwal
had also enclosed the Xerox copies of the
proceedings of General Body Meeting dated
17.6.1975 alongwith a letter dated 18.6.1975
written by Srichand, copy of the General Body
Meeting proceedings dated 14.9.2003 written
by Srichand and Anna Wankhede, list of 165
members, copies of application forms of 165
members and share money receipts as well as
original affidavits of 165 members. Vishwa
Nath Agarwal attested all the aforesaid
documents except original affidavits of 165
members. GEQD has given a positive opinion
on the signatures of Vishwa Nath Agarwal on
all these documents. GEQD has further opined
that the particulars of 165 members written on
the back of the original affidavits are in the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 6 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
hand of Mohan Lal.
6. It is further alleged that Vinod Kumar
Bhardwaj, Dealing Assistant processed the
request made by Vishwa Nath Agarwal vide his
note dated 22.9.2003 and suggested the name
of Faiz Mohd. to be appointed as an Inspecting
Officer u/s. 54 of DCS Act to ascertain the
factual position of the society. The said
proposal was put up by Ramesh Chandra, the
then A.R. (East) to Narayan Diwakar, the then
RCS, who approved the proposal on
16.10.2003. Accordingly, Faiz Mohd., Grade-ll
was appointed as an Inspecting Officer vide its
order dated 20.10.2003 issued by Ramesh
Chandra, the then A.R. (East) with instructions
to submit a report within 10 days. A copy of
the said letter had also been endorsed to the
President/Secretary of Delhi Water Supply &
Sewage Disposal Undertaking Section Officers
CGHS Ltd., B-1299, Gharoli Diary Farms.
Delhi. However, during investigation it
revealed that no such letter was received at the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 7 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
said address, as the society never existed at the
said premises. Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, owner
of the said property, has stated that he
purchased the said property from Srichand in
2003. The society had never intimated about
the change of address to the office of RCS.
However, Vishwa Nath Agarwal submitted a
photocopy of letter dated 21.10.1990. Prior to
that, a letter dated 18.6.1975 had been shown
as sent to Asstt. Registrar (Housing) intimating
him about the shifting of the address of the said
society from E-27, Kamla Nagar, Delhi to
499/D, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. Vishwa Nath
Agarwal had submitted the photocopy of the
said letter alongwith the proceedings of the
Management Committee meeting, claimed to
have been held on 17.6.1975 and 20.10.1990,
duly attested by him. The investigation has
conclusively established that premises No.
499/D, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi is a fake/non-
existent address. GEQD has given a positive
opinion about the signatures of Vishwa Nath
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 8 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Agarwal on all the aforesaid documents, except
the letter dated 21.10.1990 and proceedings of
Management Committee dated 20.10.1990.
7. It is alleged that the investigation revealed that
Faiz Mohd. submitted a false inspection report
dated 26.10.2003 in which he had reported to
have visited the office of the society at B-1299,
Gharoli Diary Farms, Delhi and met Vishwa
Nath Agarwal, Secretary of the society.Who
produced all the records and informed him that
there were 165 members but the list was yet to
be approved by the RCS for allotment of land
by the DDA. In his report, he has also stated
about the shifting of the office address of the
society from E-27, Kamla Nagar, Delhi to
499/D, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and again to
B-1299, Gharoli Diary Farms, Delhi, in the
light of a resolution passed on 17.6.1975 and
20.10.1990 respectively. He has further
reported that Membership Register was
complete in all respects, proceedings register
completed, but the audit of the society was
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 9 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
pending from 14.2.1972 onwards, for which the
accounts were ready for the said period for
audit. He also reported that the last election of
the society was held on 14.9.2003 as per DCS
Rules and that all the records were in the safe
custody of Vishwa Nath Agarwal, Secretary of
the society. Faiz Mohd. also submitted that the
society had been liquidated vide order dated
13.11.1976 whereas as per records of the RCS,
the society had been wound up/liquidated vide
order dated 26.12.1978 issued by Shri R.L.
Khanna, the then Joint Registrar. During the
course of investigation, a list of the society
under liquidation had been seized, during
investigation of another case RC 21(E)/2005-
EOW.II/DLI in which the date of liquidation of
this society had been mentioned as 27.12.1979.
8. It is further alleged that investigation has
further revealed that the society was not in
existence at B-1299, Gharoli Diary Farms,
Delhi-96, which is established from the
evidence of Shri Jagat Singh, Chotta Pradhan,
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 10 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
residing at B-1291/92, Gharoli Diary Farms,
Delhi-96. Further, General Body Meeting of
the society was stated to have been held on
14.9.2003 under the Chairmanship of Shri
Trilochan Singh Kapoor, r/o 230/9, Kishan
Ganj, New Delhi, is bogus as Shri Trilochan
Singh Kapoor could not be traced as his
address itself has been found to be bogus. In
addition, S/Shri Satya Prakash Vohra, Laxmi
Narain Kapoor, S.R. Khanna, D.N. Salwan and
D.K. Jain have denied to have attended any
such meeting on 14.9.2003. All of them have
denied their signatures on the proceedings
dated 14.9.2003 in respect of the alleged
meeting held on B-1299, Gharoli Diary Farms.
Delhi-96. Sh. Radhey Shyam also denied to
have attended the meeting.
9. It is alleged that on receipt of the inspection
report of Faiz Mohd., Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj,
Dealing Assistant put up a note dated
30.10.2003 to Ramesh Chandra, the then A.R.
(East), who forwarded the file to P.A to RCS.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 11 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Sanjeev Bharti, P.A. to RCS, in the absence of
the Reader, who was on leave, put up a note to
RCS on 3.11.2003 and suggested the matter to
be taken up for initial hearing on 11.11.2003.
Which was approved by Narayan Diwakar, the
then RCS on 3.11.2003. Sanjeev Bharti issued
a notice vide letter dated 3.11.2003 to
President/Secretary of the society directing
them to appear in the court of RCS on
11.11.2003 and produce the original records of
the society for verification. However, Shri Anil
Kumar Gupta, owner of B-1299, Gharoli Diary
Farms, Delhi has denied to have received any
such letter, as no office of the society was ever
in existence at the said address.
10. It is alleged that on 11.11.2003, Smt. Rashmi
Gulati, Advocate represented the society before
Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS, who directed
the Reader to send the file to concerned Zone
for verification of membership and to ascertain
the audit/election position and the matter was
posted to 27.11.2003. N.S. Khatri, Reader to
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 12 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
RCS forwarded the file to A.R. (East) vide his
note dated 14.11.2003. Sh Ramesh Chandra,
the then A.R. (East) ordered for the
verifications of membership etc, and sent the
file to Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, Dealing
Assistant. Smt. Rashmi Gulati, Advocate has
stated that she had been authorized by Vishwa
Nath Agarwal to represent the society. GEQD
has confirmed the signature of Vishwa Nath
Agarwal on the Vakalatnama submitted by
Smt. Rashmi Gulati, Advocate.
11. It is alleged that Radhey Shyam, President &
Vishwa Nath Agarwal, Secretary of the society
submitted affidavits dated 22.9.2003 to the
effect that the society shall complete all the
statutory obligations in future as laid down in
DCS Act, 1972 & DCS Rules, 1973. The
GEQD has confirmed the signatures of Vishwa
Nath Agarwal on the affidavit dated 22.9.2003.
A list of 165 members in triplicate had also
been submitted to the RCS which was signed
by Radhey Shyam as President, Vishwa Nath
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 13 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Agarwal, as Secretary and Ashok Kumar as
Treasurer, alongwith the proceedings in which
the enrollment of 60 new members had been
shown as accepted by the Management
Committee in its meetings held on 15.5.1973 &
15.5.1974, which are in the hand-writings of
Sri Chand. Sh. Radhey Shyam denied to have
signed in the said list of 165 members and
affidavit. Moreover, Ashok Kumar was found
to be a fictitious and non-existent person. On
the basis of these documents, Vinod Kumar
Bhardwaj, Dealing Assistant, prepared a
detailed note running into 08 pages on
19.11.2003. The report showing the
scrutiny/inspection of the documents submitted
by Vishwa Nath Agarwal vide his letter dated
17.9.2003. Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, Dealing
Assistant also mentioned in his note that the
society had submitted a photocopy of
membership application, photocopy of the
share money receipts. The proceedings of the
Management Committee in which the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 14 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
enrollments of new members had been
approved and also the original affidavits of 165
existing members were submitted. Vinod
Kumar Bhardwaj, dealing Assistant further
recorded in his note that the Secretary of the
society produced original records and
documents for verification and the same were
found to be in order. He further recorded, in his
note, that the society had submitted a list of 165
members for approval and onward transmission
to DDA for allotment of land. And the society
had enrolled 60 members prior to the freeze
date i.e. 30.4.1986. Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj,
Dealing Assistant suggested to request the
competent authority for withdrawal of
liquidation order dated 26.12.1978 for revival
of the society and approval of final list of 165
members. It is alleged that all the photocopies
of the application forms had been attested by
Vishwa Nath Agarwal and GEQD has
confirmed the same. Further, out of the 60 new
members enrolled by the society, 25 persons
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 15 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
have been traced & examined but they have
denied to have applied for the membership of
the society. Rest of the members could not be
traced during investigation.
12. It is alleged that investigation conducted into
the share money receipts, copies of which had
been submitted to the RCS, Delhi by Vishwa
Nath Agarwal in respect of 165 members
revealed that Anna Wankhede had prepared the
same. However. GEQD has not expressed any
opinion on the said receipts. Five promoter
members, namely, Shri D.N. Salwan, D.K.
Jain, Satya Prakash Vohra, Siraj Hussain and
Suresh Chand Gupta produced their original
receipts which, on comparison, show that the
attested copies of the share money receipts
submitted by Vishwa Nath Agarwal to the
office of RCS were false/forged documents.
13. It is alleged that 14 promoter members have
denied to have attended the General Body
Meeting dated 14.1.1972 and further denied
their signatures on the Proceedings Register. It
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 16 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
has further come to light that 60 new members
enrolled in the society, were not the employees
of Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal
Undertaking Section Officers CGHS Ltd.,
which was one of the basic requirements, as per
Clause 5 (h) of the bye-laws of the society
which have never been amended. As regards
the affidavits of 165 members of the society
submitted by Vishwa Nath Agarwal, which
were shown to have sworn on 22.9.2003 were
found to be false/forged documents. GEQD has
opined that the addresses of the members
written on the reverse of all the 165 affidavits
are in the handwriting of Mohan Lal. Further,
14 promoter members denied to have executed
any such affidavits, in addition to 25 newly
enrolled members, who have also denied to
have executed/submitted any such affidavits.
GEQD has confirmed signatures appearing on
30 affidavits are not that of the respective
members but has not offered any opinion on the
remaining 9 affidavits.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 17 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
14. It is alleged that Vishwa Nath Agarwal
submitted a list of members of current
Managing Committee which was typed on the
computer of Srichand by Sushil Kumar Sharma
in which, Radhey Shyam, President, Smt.
Sangeeta Devi, Vice President, Vishwa Nath
Agarwal, Secretary, Ashok Kumar, Treasurer
and Smt. Indira Agarwal, MC Member were
shown as members. During the course of
investigation, it has come on record that
Radhey Shyam was neither President nor
member of the society. Similarly, Smt.
Sangeeta Devi denied that she was neither Vice
President nor member of the society. Ashok
Kumar is a fictitious and non-existent person.
Smt. Indira Agarwal could not be traced at the
given address.
15. It is alleged that Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj,
Dealing Assant had also mentioned in his note
that the society had submitted minutes of the
MC meeting dated 5.8.2003, copy of Agenda
Notice dated 6.8.2003 for the General Body
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 18 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Meeting to be held on 14.9.2003, service proof
of Agenda Notice on all the members,
photocopy of the nomination forms of the
candidates. All these documents were attested
by Vishwa Nath Agarwal. GEQD has
confirmed the same. However, GEQD has not
expressed any opinion on the writings of Sushil
Kumar Sharma and Anna Wankhede, who had
filled in the nomination forms.
16. It is alleged that Ramesh Chandra, the then
A.R. (East) mentioned in his note dated
19.11.2003 that the records produced by the
President of the society were verified in Zone
and recommended for the withdrawal of the
liquidation order dated 26.12.1978, revival of
the society and approval of final list of 165
members. He also reported that unaudited
accounts of the society had been completed
upto 31.3.2003 and that the last election of the
society was held on 14.3.2003. Sh. Radhey
Shyam denied to have attended the office of
RCS, Delhi and produced record there. He also
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 19 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
denied that he was President or member of the
society. The file was then marked to the RCS
and a hearing took place on 27.11.2003 before
Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS in which the
society was represented by Smt. Rashmi Gulati,
Advocate. After hearing, the case was reserved
for orders.
17. It is alleged that Narayan Diwakar, the then
RCS passed an order dated 2.12.2003 for the
revival of the society and appointed Balam
Singh Aswal as an Election Officer to conduct
the election of the Managing Committee of the
society. Balam Singh Aswal submitted his
report dated 31.12.2003 about the proceedings
of the Special General Body Meeting held on
27.12.2003. In that meeting Radhey Shyam,
Smt. Sangeeta Devi, Vishwa Nath Agarwal,
Ashok Kumar and Smt. Indira Agarwal has
been shown as MC Members and the list was
submitted to A.R. (East). The promoter
members, namely, Shri Ram Khanna, Satya
Prakash Vohra Laxmi Narain Kapoor,
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 20 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Devender Kumar Jain & Dwarka Nath Salwan,
had been shown as present in the said meeting,
but they have denied to attend any such
meeting and signed the proceedings.
18. It is alleged that Balam Singh Aswal submitted
a false election report dated 31.12.2003.
According to which, the meeting of the society
had taken place on 27.12.2003 in the office of
RCS and the elections fo the said society were
held. Balam Singh Aswal also submitted a list
of elected candidates, namely, Radhey Shyam,
Smt. Sangeeta Devi, Ashok Kumar, Smt. Indira
Agarwal & Vishwa Nath Agarwal, as MC
Members during the election held on
27.12.2003. Smt. Sangeeta Devi denied her
membership as well as her signature in the
proceeding register dt 27.12.2003. Sh. Radhey
Shyam also denied to have become the member
of Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal
Undertaking Section Officers CGHS Ltd. Sh.
Radhey Shyam also denied his membership as
well as his signature in the said proceeding
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 21 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
register. Ashok Kumar was found to be a
fictitious and non-existent person. GEQD has
also opined that Smt. Sangeeta Devi did not
sign on the affidavit, purported to have been
submitted in her name. GEQD has given a
positive opinion on the signatures of Balam
Singh Aswal on the said letter as well as on the
list of elected candidates.
19. It is alleged that Prahlad Kumar Thirwani was
appointed, by Shri J.S. Sharma, A.R. (Audit)
vide letter dated 3.12.2003, to conduct the audit
of the said society. Prahlad Kumar Thirwani
submitted an audit report showing the audit of
the society for the period 1971-72 to 2002-03.
Wherein there were forged signatures of
President, Secretary & Treasurer of the society.
GEQD has confirmed the writings & signatures
of Prahlad Kumar Thirwani as well as that of
Vishwa Nath Agarwal on the said audit reports.
GEQD has further confirmed that Srichand had
written the body of the appointment letter dated
3.12.2003 and also acknowledged the receipt of
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 22 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
audit report on 9.12.2003. Prahlad Kumar
Thirwani conducted the audit of the said
society for a period of 32 years at a stretch in
violation of DCS Rules. Shri Neeraj Kumar,
Partners of M/s AKN & Associates has
confirmed that the account statements
submitted to the RCS were prepared by their
firm on the basis of the records provided by
Sushil Kumar Sharma, an employee of
Srichand, on payment of Rs. 6500/-. Shri Anil
Kumar Gupta, owner of B-1299, Gharoli Diary
Farms, Delhi has stated that Prahlad Kumar
Thirwani never visited his residence to conduct
the audit of the said society as the said society
was never in existence at the said address.
20. It is further alleged that Vishwa Nath Agarwal,
Secretary of the society vide his letter dated
27.1.2004 requested the A.R. (East) for change
in the name of the society and also for approval
of new model bye-laws. He further suggested
03 new names, such as, Shri Narayan CGHS
Ltd., Shri Ram CGHS Ltd. & Shri Bhagwan
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 23 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
CGHS Ltd. and submitted a copy of the
proceedings of the purported Management
Committee meeting held on 28.12.2003,
Agenda Notice dated 1.1.2004, service proof of
Agenda addressed to all the members dated
1.1.2004 and copy of the proceedings of
Special General Body Meeting dated
18.1.2004. Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, Dealing
Assistant processed the said request and
submitted a note on 28.1.2004 suggesting to
call for the President/ Secretary of the society
for verification of records.
21. It is alleged that Ramesh Chandra, the then
A.R. (East) sent a letter dated 3.2.2004 to
President/Secretary of the society requesting
them to attend the office on or before 10.2.2004
alongwith original records. However, Shri Anil
Kumar Gupta, residing at B-1299, Gharoli
Diary Farms, Delhi, has denied to have
received any such letter. The records further
show that on 12.2.2004, Radhey Shyam,
President had been shown as present and Vinod
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 24 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Kumar Bhardwaj, Dealing Assistant had
recorded a note to the effect that Radhey
Shyam, produced the original records for
verification. Sh. Radhey Shyam denied to have
attended and produced record in the office of
RCS, Delhi. He also denied that he was neither
President nor member of the society. Vinod
Kumar Bhardwaj. Dealing Assistant further
mentioned in his note that no society in the
name of Shri Narayan CGHS Ltd. was in
existence in the computer. And, therefore, he
recommended the change of the name of Delhi
Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking
Section Officers CGHS Ltd. to Shri Narayan
CGHS Ltd. and also recommended for the
approval of new model bye-laws of the society.
Ramesh Chandra, the then A.R. (East)
forwarded the file to JR (East) on 12.2.2004.
Sh. Jasvir Singh Sindhu endorsed the
recommendations and forwarded the file on
13.2.2004 to the RCS. Narayan Diwakar, the
then RCS approved the change in name of the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 25 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
society on 16.2.2004 to Shri Narayan CGHS
Ltd. as well as the amended bye-laws of the
society.
22. It is alleged that proceedings of the
Management Committee dated 28.12.2003 and
General Body Meeting dated 18.1.2004 were
written by Anna Wankhede. However, GEQD
has not given any opinion on his writings.
During the course of investigation, it is found
that in the Management Committee meeting
held on 28.12.2003, Smt. Sangeeta Devi and
Sh. Radhey Shyam were shown to have
attended the same, which has been denied by
them. Sh. Radhey Shyam also denied to have
attended General Body Meeting dated
18.1.2004 and denied his signature. Smt. Indira
Agarwal, MC Member could not be located at
the available address. GEQD has confirmed
that Vishwa Nath Agarwal had signed on the
amended bye-laws in the name of Shri Narayan
CGHS Ltd. The amended bye-laws were signed
by 165 members including 14 promoter
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 26 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
members. GEQD has confirmed that the
amended bye-laws of the society do not contain
the signatures of the 14 promoter members. It
may be mentioned here that 105 promoter
members and 60 new members enrolled in the
society. Out of 60 new members, 25 members
could be located, but they have denied to have
become the members of the society and further
denied to have attended any such meeting.
GEQD has opined that out of 25 members, 16
newly enrolled members did not sign the
amended bye-laws, which established the
forgery of the documents. Sh. Radhey Shyam
also denied his signatures in the amended bye-
laws.
23. It is further alleged that Ramesh Chandra, the
then A.R. (East) sent a letter dated 19.3.2004 to
the President/Secretary of Shri Narayan CGHS
Ltd. at B-1299, Gharoli Diary Farms, Delhi
intimating about the change of name of society
and also about the approval of the amended
bye-laws of the society. However, Shri Anil
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 27 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Kumar Gupta, owner of the said premises, has
confirmed that no such letter was received by
them as the society was not in existence at the
said address, which happens to be his
residence. A copy of the said letter was also
endorsed by Ramesh Chandra, the then A.R.
(East) to A.R. (Policy). Thereafter, Yogi Raj,
A.R. (Policy) forwarded a consolidated list of
35 societies including Shri Narayan CGHS Ltd.
vide letter dated 25.3.2005 to Dy. Director
(GH) DDA for allotment of land.
24. It is alleged that the aforesaid facts constitute
offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC
r/w Sec 420, 471 IPC and sec 13(2) r/w sec
13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against Vishwa Nath
Agarwal, Shri Chand, Balam Singh Aswal,
Faiz Mohd.. Ramesh Chandra, Narayan
Diwakar, Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, Prahlad
Kumar Thirwani and Mohan Lal. And
substantive offences against Vishwa Nath
Agarwal U/s 420/511. 471 IPC. And also
substantive offences against Balam Singh
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 28 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Aswal, Faiz Mohd., Ramesh Chandra, Narayan
Diwakar, Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, Prahlad
Kumar Thirwani for U/s 15 r/w sec 13(1)(d) of
PC Act, 1988.
25. It is stated in the charge sheet that Anna
Wankhede and Sushil Kumar Sharma were
arrested but they are not being prosecuted due
to lack of evidence. Hence, their names have
been shown in Column No.2. They have not
been summoned by the Ld Predecessor of this
Court.
26. The sanction for prosecution U/s 19(1) (c) of
P.C. Act, 1988 against the serving public
servants Balam Singh Aswal and Prahlad
Kumar Thirwani and Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj
have been obtained from the competent
authority. The charge sheet has been filed
accordingly.
FRAMING OF CHARGES
27. After considering the material on record, vide
detailed order dated 21.07.2012, Ld. Predecessor
of this Court decided the charges against the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 29 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
accused persons. On 25.07.2012, accused persons
were charged as under:
1 Vishwanath Agarwal 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
511 and 471 IPC.
2 Shri Chand Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec.
13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC
Act,1988
3 Balam Singh Aswal 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 Faiz Mohd 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
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 30 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Act,1988
5 Ramesh Chandra 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 Narayan Diwakar 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
7 Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj 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
8 Prahlad Kumar Under section 120-B r/w
Thirwani 420/468/471 IPC and Sec.
13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC
Act,1988
AND
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 31 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Substantive offences U/S
Sec. 15 r/w 13 (1) (d) r/w 13
(2) of PC Act,1988 and U/S
468 IPC
9 Mohan Lal Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec.
13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) 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 SHRI CHAND
(A-2) AND RAMESH CHANDRA (A-5)
29. Here it is pertinent to mention that during
the pendency of the present case, accused Shri
Chand (A-2) and Ramesh Chandra (A-5) have
expired and Proceedings against them were abated
vide order dated 05.12.2024 and 05.10.2021.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
30. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
has examined 78 ( Seventy Eight ) witnesses. For
the sake of convenience, the witnesses have been
categorized in different groups. Although, the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 32 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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. And the
witnesses who have not become member
of the said society.
31. As per the case of the prosecution, accused
Vishwa Nath Agarwal, Shri Chand, Balam Singh
Aswal, Faiz Mohd, Ramesh Chandra, Narayan
Diwakar, Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, Prahlad Kumar
Thirwani and Mohan Lal, in furtherance of
criminal conspiracy, dishonestly and fraudulently
got revived the society on the basis of the forged
and false documents. Some of the members of
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 33 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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. PW2 Sh Raj Kanwar Jain, has deposed that that
he became a member of Delhi Water Supply and
Sewage Disposal Undertaking Section Officers
CGHS, at the initial stages. He has deposed that
the handwriting in the application for membership
Ex PW2/A is his handwriting, but, the signatures
shown at point X may or may not be his signatures
as he had taken the membership of the society
long back. He has deposed in the bye laws
ExPW2/C; affidavit ExPW2/D and on the
minutes of meeting dated 14.01.1972 Ex PW2/E,
signatures appearing at point X are not his
signatures. He has identified his signatures on the
specimen signatures/writing marked Ex PW2/F.
33. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 34 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal and Balam Singh
Aswal, but not by rest of the accused persons
despite the opportunity being given to them.
34. PW11 is Sh Sunil Jain, he has deposed that he
never became a member of Delhi Water Supply &
Sewage Disposal CGHS or Shree Narayan at any
point of time. He has deposed that accused
Vishwanath Agarwal was residing in the same
locality and known to him.
35. He has further deposed that the signatures
appearing at point X on the application of
membership dated 05.05.1973 ExPW11/A are not
of him. He never deposited Rs 110/- for obtaining
the membership of the society as shown in receipt
dated 20.05.1975 of Rs 110/- ExPW11/B. He had
never executed any affidavit, as shown, on
22.09.2003, ExPW11/C and the signatures shown
at point X on the affidavit are not his signatures.
He has deposed that in the bye laws of the society
ExPW2/C, his name has been shown against
serial no.127, but, the signatures appearing
against serial no.127 at point X are not his
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 35 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
signatures He deposed that he has given his
specimen writings from S-2381 to S-2383,
collectively ExPW11/D voluntarily to the CBI and
he has also put his signatures below the specimen
writings at points X.
36. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, but not by rest of
the accused persons despite the opportunity being
given to them.
37. PW 12 is Sh Mahesh Kumar Verma, he has
deposed that he has been working in Power
Finance Corporation as Sr. Manager at Connaught
Place, New Delhi. He never worked in the Delhi
Water Supply & Sewage Disposal at any point of
time and he never became its member of Shree
Narayan CGHS member at any point of time.
38. He has deposed that the signatures shown at point
X on the attested copy of the application of
membership dated 5.5.1973 ExPW12/A are not
his signatures. He has never deposited Rs 110/- for
obtaining the membership of the society as shown
vide receipt dated 25.05.1975 of Rs 110/-,
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 36 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
ExPW12/B. He has deposed that the signatures
shown at point X on the affidavit dated
22.09.2003, ExPW12/C are not his signatures and
he never executed any such affidavit. He has
further deposed that in the bye laws of the society
ExPW2/C, his name has been shown against
serial no.122 but the signatures shown at point X
are not his signatures. He has deposed that his
specimen writings from S-2857 to S-2862,
collectively ExPW12/D were given by him
voluntarily to the CBI and bear his signatures
below the specimen writings at point X.
39. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused persons despite the
opportunity being given to them.
40. PW 13 is Sh Kapil Dev Diwan, he has deposed
that he became a member of the present society at
the initial stage and he was the promoter member.
He has deposed that he had paid Rs 110/- for
obtaining the membership of the society and had
never resigned from the membership of the
society.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 37 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
41. He has deposed that Sh. P.N Saang was the
President, Sh B.S Rana was the Vice President and
Sh.S.S. Bhalla was the cashier of the society. He
has depsoed that his handwriting is appearing on
the application for membership ExPW13/A and it
bears his signatures at point X. He has also
identified the signatures of Sh. S. S Bhalla, the
then Secretary of the society at point Y, as he
(PW13) has seen him signing and writing.He has
deposed that affidavit dated 01.11.1971,
ExPW13/B, bear his signatures at point X.
However he has deposed that in the copy of
amended Bye Laws of the society, ExPW2/C,
signatures shown against serial No. 32 in the list
of promoter members at Q 2960, are not of his
signatures. He has deposed that the signatures
appearing at point X on the affidavit dated
22.09.2003 ExPW13/C, are not his signatures.
The signatures appearing against serial no.35 at
point X on the attested copy of minutes of
meeting dated 14.01.1972 ExPW2/E, are not his
signatures. He has deposed that the list of
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 38 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
members, ExPW13/D, his name has been shown
at serial no.50 and it bear his signatures at point X.
He has further deposed that the specimen
signatures from S 2272 to S 2281 ExPW13/E
( collectively), were given by him voluntarily to
the CBI.
42. He has identified his signatures at point in the bye
laws Ex.PW13/F. He has identified signatures of
Sh.S.S Bhalla on the application for registration
of a cooperative society, Ex.PW 13/G,at point X .
43. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh
Aswal, Sri Chand, Narayan Diwkar and Mohan
Lal, but not by remaining accused persons despite
the opportunity being given to them.
44. PW 14 is Sh Basheshar Lal Singhal, he has
deposed that he became a member of Delhi Water
Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking CGHS
at the initial stage and he was one of the promoter
members. He had never resigned from the
membership of the society. He has deposed that
affidavit dated 11.11.1971, ExPW14/B, bear his
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 39 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
signatures at point X.. But he has deposed that in
the copy of amended Bye Laws of the society,
ExPW2/C, signatures shown against serial No. 29
in the list of promoter members at Q 2955, are not
his signatures. He has deposed that signatures
appearing at point X Q 581 & Q 583 on the
affidavit dated 22.09.2003 ExPW14/C, are not his
signatures. He has further deposed that signatures
appearing against serial no.29 at point X on the
attested copy of minutes of meeting dated
14.01.1972 Ex PW2/E, are not his signatures. He
has deposed that in the list of members
ExPW13/D, his name has been shown at serial
no.46 and bear his signatures at point X. He has
deposed that his specimen signatures from S-2255
to S 2262 ExPW14/D ( collectively), were given
by him voluntarily to the CBI. He has further
deposed that in the list of 165 members of the
society sent to DDA ExPW14/E, his name
appears against serial no.29 .
45. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 40 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Aswal, Sri Chand, Narayan Diwkar and Mohan
Lal, but not by remaining accused persons despite
the opportunity being given to them.
46. PW15 is Sh Devendra Kumar Jain, he has
deposed that he became a member of Delhi Water
Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking CGHS
at the initial stage and was one of the promoter
members. He had never resigned from the said
society.
47. He has deposed that in the copy of amended Bye
Laws of the society, ExPW2/C signatures shown
against serial No. 56 in the list of promoter
members at Q 2989, are not his signatures. He has
further deposed that the signatures appearing at
point X Q-689 & Q- 691 on the affidavit dated
22.09.2003 ExPW15/C, at serial no.56 at point X
on the attested copy of minutes of meeting dated
14.01.1972 ExPW2/E and on the list of members
ExPW13/D, his name has been shown at serial
no.67 but signatures shown at point X on the
aforesaid documents are not his signatures.
48. He has further deposed that vide registration
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 41 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
certificate ExPW15/D, the registration no.107 (H)
was allotted to Delhi Water Supply Sewage
Disposal Undertaking CGHS by the RCS on
14.02.1972. He has identified signatures of Sh. S.S
Bhalla at point on the said certificate. He has
deposed that in the original copy of Bye Laws of
Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal
Undertaking CGHS ExPW13/F his name has
been shown against serial no. 39.
49. He has deposed that his specimen signatures from
S-2289 to S 2295 ExPW15/E ( collectively),
were given by him voluntarily to the CBI. He has
further deposed that in the list of 165 members of
the society sent to DDA ExPW14/E, his name
appears against serial no. 56
50. He has deposed that he had never attended any
meeting dated 14.9.2003, Ex PW15/F wherein his
name has been shown against serial no.49. And
the signatures shown at point X are not his
signatures. He has further deposed that he had
never attended any election meeting, as shown in
the minutes of meeting dated 27.12.2003,
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 42 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
ExPW15/G, wherein his name has been shown
against serial no.33 and his signatures appearing at
point X Q 3486 are not his signatures.
51. He has further deposed that he had never attended
any meeting dated 18.01.2004, ExPW15/H
wherein his name has been shown against serial
no.20. And the signatures appearing at points X
Q-3194 are not his signatures. He has deposed
that attested photocopy of receipt no.56 of Rs
110/- dated 17.01.1972,ExPW15/J is a forged
receipt as the original receipt issued by the
society is having Sl no.100 dated 20.11.1971
ExPW15/K and the share certificate is ExPW15/L.
He has deposed that all these documents were
seized by Inspector L.Hanshing vide seizure
memo dated 23.03.2006 ExPW15/M and it bears
his signatures at points A.
52. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh, Sri
Chand and Narayan Diwakar, but not by rest of
the accused person, despite the opportunity being
given to them.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 43 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
53. PW18 is Sh Suresh Chand Gupta, he has deposed
that he became a member of Delhi Water Supply
and Sewage Disposal Undertaking at the initial
stage.He has deposed that he had paid Rs 110/-
for obtaining the membership of the society. He
has never resigned from the membership of the
society. He has deposed that the application for
enrollment as a member of society ExPW18/A
and affidavit Ex PW18/B bears his signatures at
point A.
54. He has further deposed that in the copy of
amended bye-laws of the said society ExPW2/C,
the signatures shown against serial no.69 in the list
of promoter members at point X at Q 3009, are
not his signatures. And the signatures at points X,
Q 741 and Q 743 on the affidavit dated
22.09.2003 ExPW18/C, are not his signatures. He
has further deposed that the signatures shown
against serial no.69 at point X on the minutes of
meeting dated 14.01.1972 ExPW2/E, are not his
signatures. He has admitted his signatures on the
original copy of the bye laws of Delhi Water
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 44 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking CGHS,
Ex PW13/F.
55. He has deposed that he has given his specimen
signatures from S-2308 to S-2314 ExPW18/D, to
the CBI. He has deposed that in the list of 165
members of the society sent to the
DDA,ExPW14/E, his name appears against serial
no.69.
56. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh, Sri
Chand, Narayan Diwakar and Mohan Lal but not
by rest of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
57. PW19 is Sh Laxmi Narain Kapoor, he has
deposed that he was one of the promoter members
of the said society and he has never resigned from
the membership of said society. He has deposed
that the application for enrollment as member of
society ExPW19/A and affidavit dated 01.11.1971
ExPW19/B, bear his signatures at point A and X
and is in his handwriting.
58. He has further deposed that in the copy of
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 45 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
amended bye-laws of the society ExPW2/C, the
signatures shown against serial no. 71 in the list of
promoter members at point X at Q 3011, are not
his signatures. He has deposed that the signatures
at points X, Q 749 and Q 751 on the affidavit
dated 22.09.2003 ExPW19/C, are not his
signatures.
59. He has further deposed that the signatures shown
against serial no.71 at point X on the minutes of
meeting dated 14.01.1972 ExPW2/E, are not his
signatures. He has deposed that he has given his
specimen signatures from S-2296 to S-2307
collectively ExPW19/D, to the CBI.
60. He has further deposed that in the list of 165
members of the society, ExPW14/E sent to the
DDA his name appears against serial no. 71. He
has deposed that in the minutes of meeting dated
14.09.2003 ExPW15/F, his name has been shown
against serial no.13 but the signatures shown at
point X are not his signatures. He never attended
any such meeting at B-1299, Gahrauli Dairy
Farms, Delhi on 14.09.2003 and he had never
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 46 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
attended any meeting dated 27.12.2003
ExPW15/G, at any point of time.
61. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh, Sri
Chand, Narayan Diwakar and Mohan Lal but not
by rest of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
62. PW20 is Sh Siraj Hussain, he has deposed that he
became a member of the said society at the initial
stage and has never resigned from the
membership of the society. He has deposed that
the application for enrollment as a member of said
society ExPW20/A and affidavit dated 01.11.1971
ExPW20/B, bear his signatures at point A and X.
63. He has deposed that in the copy of amended bye-
laws of the society ExPW2/C, the signatures
shown against serial no. 67 in the list of promoter
members at point X at Q 3007, are not his
signatures. He has further deposed that the
signatures at points X, Q 733 and Q 735 on the
affidavit dated 22.09.2003 ExPW20/C, are not his
signatures. He denied his signatures against serial
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 47 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
no.67 at point X on the minutes of meeting dated
14.01.1972 ExPW2/E, are not his signatures.
64. He has deposed that he has given his specimen
signatures from S-2315 to S-2319 collectively
ExPW20/D, to the CBI. He has deposed that in
the list of 165 members of the society sent to the
DDA, ExPW14/E his name appears against serial
no. 67. He has deposed that the society never
functioned at B 1299, Gehrauli Diary Farms,
Delhi.
65. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
66. PW21 is Sh Ramesh Chawla, he has deposed that
became a member of the said at the initial stage.
He has deposed that he had resigned from the
membership of the society on 20.04.1977. He has
identified his signatures on the application for
enrollment as a member of society ExPW21/A and
on the affidavit dated 01.11.1971 ExPW21/B,
bear his signatures at point A and X.
67. He has further deposed that the society was
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 48 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
registered at P-27, Kamla Nagar, Delhi and it was
allotted the registration no.107(H) by the office of
RCS, as per record and society never functioned at
B-1299, Gehrauli Diary Farm Delhi.
68. He has deposed that in the copy of amended bye-
laws of the society ExPW2/C, the signatures
shown against serial no. 102 in the list of promoter
members at point X at Q 3056, are not his
signatures. He has further deposed that the
signatures at points X, Q 875 and Q 877 on the
affidavit dated 22.09.2003 ExPW21/C, are not his
signatures.
69. He has deposed that signatures shown against
serial no.102 at point X on the minutes of meeting
dated 14.01.1972 ExPW2/E, are not his signatures.
He has deposed that in the list of members
enrolled since registration , his name has been
mentioned against serial no.102 on page 395. The
members mentioned from serial no.106 to 165
were not members of the said society when the
society was formed.
70. He has deposed that his specimen signatures from
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 49 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
S-2327 to S-2331 collectively ExPW21/D, were
given by him to the CBI He has deposed that in
the list of 165 members of the society sent to DDA
ExPW14/E, his name appears against serial
no.102. He has deposed that he has resigned in
the year 1977, as he was allotted plot no. AA-93,
at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi by the DDA. He has
submitted his resignation to the society on
20.04.1977. Sh.P.C Jain, the then Secretary had
accepted the resignation, as communicated to him
vide letter dated 21.04.1977 ExPW21/E.
71. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh, Sri
Chand, Narayan Diwakar and Mohan Lal but not
by rest of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
72. PW 22 is Sh Yudhisthar Raj Mehta, he has
deposed that he became a member of said society
at the initial stage. He has further deposed that in
the copy of amended bye-laws of the society
ExPW2/C, the signatures shown against serial no.
96 in the list of promoter members at point X at Q
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 50 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
3043, are not his signatures. He has further
deposed that the signatures at points X, Q 851 and
Q 853 on the affidavit dated 22.09.2003
ExPW22/C, are not his signatures and the address
mentioned in the affidavit is incorrect as there is
no number as E 125/5 in Krishna Nagar.
73. He has further deposed that the signatures shown
against serial no.96 at point X on the minutes of
meeting dated 14.01.1972 ExPW2/E, are not his
signatures. He has deposed that his specimen
signatures from S-2851 to S-2856 collectively
ExPW22/D, were taken by the CBI. He has
further deposed that in the list of 165 members of
the society sent to DDA ExPW14/E, his name
appears against serial no.96.
74. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh, Sri
Chand, Narayan Diwakar and Mohan Lal, but not
by rest of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
75. PW23 is Sh Om Prakash he has deposed that
neither he nor his family members had ever
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 51 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
become a member of Delhi Water Supply and
Sewage Disposal Undertaking Section Officers
CGHS or Sri Narayana CGHS at any point of
time.
76. He has deposed that the signatures shown at
points X on the application of membership
ExPW23/A; on the affidavit dated 22.09.2003
ExPW23/B and on the bye laws of the society
ExPW2/C are not of his signatures.
77. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
78. PW24 is Sh Apish Malhotra, he has deposed that
his father R. C Malhotra has become the member
of the said society, who had expired on
07.02.2001. He has identified signatures of his
father on the application for enrollment as member
of society ExPW24/A; on the affidavit dated
01.11.1971 ExPW24/B and on the intensive
Inquiry Proforma ExPW13/D.
79. He has deposed that on the copy of the amended
bye-laws of the society ExPW2/C, signature
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 52 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
appearing against serial no.9 in the list of
promoter members at point X at Q 2928 are not
that of his father R.C Malhotra as he had expired
in the year 2001. He has further deposed that the
signatures at points X, Q501 and Q 503 on the
affidavit dated 22.09.2003 ExPW24/C and on the
minutes of meeting dated 14.01.1972 ExPW2/E;
on the minutes of meeting dated 27.12.2003
ExPW15/G are not that of his father Late Sh.R.C
Malhotra.
80. He has deposed that vide seizure memo dated
13.01.2007 ExPW24/D, he had handed over the
death certificate of his father,ExPW24/E to
Inspector L. Hensing
81. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh, Sri
Chand, Narayan Diwakar and Mohan Lal but not
by rest of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
82. PW25 is Sh Ashok Kumar Kohli, who has
deposed that he never became member of any
group housing society including Shri Narayan
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 53 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
CGHS/Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal
CGHS and has not submitted any application in
this society or in any other CGHS for any other
purpose.
83. He has further deposed that although his
particulars mentioned in the application
ExPW25/A, are correct but the signatures shown
at point A are not his signatures. He has deposed
that he had never submitted any application for
membership in the said society. He had never
deposited an amount of Rs 110/- as shown vide
receipt of Rs 110/- in his name dated 25.05.1975
ExPW25/B.
84. He has further deposed that although his
particulars mentioned in the affidavit ExPW25/C
are correct but signatures shown at points A and
A-1 are not his signatures. He had never submitted
any such affidavit nor purchased any stamp paper
nor got this affidavit attested in the year 2003, as
mentioned therein.
85. He has further deposed that although in the bye
laws ExPW2/C, his name has been shown at serial
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 54 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
no.113 alongwith his father’s name, but he was
never a member of Shri Narayan CGHS and the
signatures shown at point A are not his signatures.
He has deposed that he never remained office
bearer of the society nor signed any documents in
such capacity or received any
communication/letter either from the said society
or from the RCS office. He has deposed that in the
UPC list ExPW25/D, his name has been shown at
serial no.113 alongwith his address but he never
received any communication from the society in
the year 2004 or at any point of time . He has
deposed that no RCS officer visited him for any
re verification.
86. He has deposed that on 03.05.2006 he has given
the specimen signatures/writings from S 2340 to S
2344 ExPW25/E, to the CBI .
87. He has deposed that Mr.Vijay Bhatia was his
friend and earlier he was a government employee
and later on he started building construction work.
He has deposed that Vijay Bhatia once invited
him for Bhumi Pujan in Dwarka Sector 6 and he
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 55 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
used to visit his house occasionally for functions
like marriage etc. Mr. Bhatia knew his particulars
such as name, father’s name and address etc.
88. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh, Sri
Chand, Narayan Diwakar and Mohan Lal but not
by rest of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
89. PW26 is Sh Naresh Kumar, he has deposed that
although his particulars mentioned in the application
ExPW26/A, are correct but the signatures shown at
point A are not his signatures. He had never
submitted any application for membership in said
society. His date of birth is 12.05.1973. He has
deposed that he had never deposited any amount of
Rs 110/- as shown vide receipt in his name dated
25.05.1975 (ExPW26/B), though his particulars
mentioned in the affidavit ExPW26/C are correct but
signatures shown at points A and A-1 are not his
signatures.
90. He has deposed that he had never submitted any such
affidavit nor purchased any stamp paper nor got any
affidavit attested in the year 2003. He has deposed that
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 56 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
although in the bye laws ExPW2/C, his name has been
shown at serial no.116 alongwith his father’s name,
but he was never a member of Shri Narayan CGHS
and the signatures shown at point A are not his
signatures.
91. He has deposed that he never remained office bearer
of the society nor signed any document in such
capacity and had not received any
communication/letter either from the said society or
from the RCS office. He has deposed that in the UPC
list ExPW25/D, his name has been shown at serial
no.116 alongwith his address but he never received
any communication from the society in the year 2004
or at any point of time. He has deposed that no RCS
officer visited him for any reverification…
92. He has further deposed that in the list for verification
of membership for sending the list of members to
DDA for allotment of land, (ExPW14/E) his name has
been shown at serial no.116 alongwith his particulars.
However, he was never a member of said society nor
any official visited him for any verification. He has
deposed that in the affidavit from page 14 to 19
alongwith the another copy of 165 members at serial
no.11 and in the list at serial no.116,Ex PW26/D his
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 57 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
name is mentioned but he never became member in
this society.
93. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh, Sri
Chand, Narayan Diwakar and Mohan Lal, but not by
rest of the accused person, despite the opportunity
being given to them.
94. PW27 is Ms. Santosh Sethi, she has deposed that
she was the member of Shiv Shakti CGHS. She
was allotted flat in Shiv Shakti CGHS in the year
1998. She has deposed that she never became
member of Shri Narayan CGHS/Delhi Water
Supply and Sewage disposal undertaking CGHS
and had not submitted any document in the said
society.
95. She has further deposed that although the
particulars mentioned in the application
ExPW27/A, belong to her but the signatures
shown at point A are not her signatures. Also the
address mentioned is 21/902 whereas her address
is 29/902. She had never submitted any
application for membership in said society and
had never deposited any amount of Rs 110/- as
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 58 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
shown vide receipt in her name dated
25.05.1975,ExPW27/B.
96. She has deposed that although her particulars
mentioned in the affidavit ExPW27/C are correct
except her address but the signatures shown at
points A and A-1 are not her signatures. She had
never submitted any such affidavit nor purchased
any stamp paper nor got this affidavit attested in
the year 2003. She has deposed that although in
the bye laws ExPW2/C, her name has been shown
at serial no.118 alongwith her husband’s name,
but she was never a member of Shri Narayan
CGHS and the signatures shown at point A are not
her signatures.
97. She has deposed that she never remained office
bearer of the said society nor signed any
document in such capacity and had not received
any communication/letter either from this society
or from the RCS office. She has deposed that in
the UPC list ExPW25/D, her name has been
shown at serial no.118 but she was never a
member of the society. She has further deposed
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 59 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
that no RCS officer visited her for any
reverification.
98. She has deposed that in the list for verification of
membership for sending the list of members to
DDA for allotment of land ExPW14/E, her name
has been shown at serial no.118 but she was never
a member of this society nor any official visited
her for any verification.
99. She has deposed that in the affidavit from page 14
to 19 alongwith the another copy of 165 members
at serial no.13 and in the list at serial no. 118,
ExPW25/D, her name is mentioned but she never
became a member in this society. She never
attended any meeting of the society and had
never received any notice from the RCS office.
100. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh and
Mohan Lal, but not by rest of the accused person,
despite the opportunity being given to them.
101. PW28 Dr. Satya Pal Singh, he has deposed that he
was the member of Adarsh Arya CGHS and a Flat
was allotted to him in that society, however, he
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 60 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
sold that flat in the year 2004. He has deposed that
he never became a member of the said society and
had not submitted any document in the said
society. He has deposed that the particulars
mentioned in the application dated 05.05.1973
ExPW28/A, are that of his sister Meena Mehla.
102. He had never submitted any application for
membership in the said society. The signatures
shown at point A on the application are not his
signatures. He has deposed that he had never
deposited any amount of Rs 110/- as shown vide
receipt in his name dated 25.05.1975 ExPW27/B.
He has deposed that the affidavit ExPW28/B was
never submitted by him. He had neither
purchased any stamp paper nor got the said
affidavit attested in the year, 2003. The signatures
at points A and A-1 on the affidavit are not his
signatures.
103. He has further deposed that although in the bye
laws ExPW2/C, his name has been shown at serial
no.120 alongwith his father’s name, but he was
never a member of the said society and the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 61 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
signatures shown at point X are not his signatures.
He has deposed that he never remained office
bearer of the society nor signed any document in
such capacity and had not received any
communication/letter either from this society or
from the RCS office.
104. He has deposed that in the UPC list ExPW25/D,
his name has been shown at serial no.120 but he
was never a member of this society. He has
deposed that no RCS officer visited him or at the
address of his sister for any re verification. He has
further deposed that in the list for verification of
membership for sending the list of members to
DDA for allotment of land ExPW14/E, his name
has been shown at serial no.120 alongwith his
particulars. However, he was never a member of
this society nor any official visited him for any
verification.
105. He has deposed that in the affidavit alongwith the
another copy of 165 members, ExPW26/D at
serial no.15 and in the list at serial no.120, his
name is mentioned but he never became
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 62 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
member in the said society. He has deposed that
he never attended any meeting of the society and
had never received any notice from the RCS
office.
106. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh and
Mohan Lal, but not by rest of the accused person,
despite the opportunity being given to them.
107. PW29 is Sh Rewat Ram Pokhrial, he has deposed
that he never became a member of the said
society. He has deposed that although the
particulars mentioned in the application dated
05.05.1973 ExPW29/A, belong to him but he had
never submitted any application for membership
the said society. And the signatures shown at point
A on the application are also not his signatures. He
has deposed that he had never deposited any
amount of Rs 110/- as shown vide receipt in his
name dated 25.05.1975 ExPW29/Band the
affidavit ExPW29/C was never submitted by him.
He had neither purchased any stamp paper nor got
the above affidavit attested in the year 2003 and
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 63 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
the signatures at points A and A-1 on the affidavit
are not his signatures.
108. He has further deposed that although in the bye
laws ExPW2/C, his name has been shown at serial
no.131 alongwith his father’s name, but he was
never a member of said society and the signatures
shown at point X are not his signatures. He has
deposed that he never remained office bearer of
the society nor signed any document in such
capacity and had not received any
communication/letter either from the said society
or from the RCS office.
109. He has deposed that in the UPC list ExPW25/D
his name has been shown at serial no.131
alongwith his address but he was never a member
of the said society. He has deposed that no RCS
officer visited him for any re verification.
110. He has deposed that in the list for verification of
membership for sending the list of members to
DDA for allotment of land ExPW14/E, his name
has been shown at serial no.131 alongwith his
particulars. However, he was never a member of
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 64 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
the said society nor any official visited him for
any verification. He has deposed that in the
affidavit, from page 14 to 19 alongwith the
another copy of 165 members Ex PW26/D at
serial no.26 and in the list at serial no.131, his
name is mentioned but he never became member
in this society.
111. He has deposed that he never attended any
meeting of the society and had never received
any notice from the RCS office and he never
signed in English and his date of birth is
05.09.1963.
112. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh and
Mohan Lal, but not by rest of the accused person,
despite the opportunity being given to them.
113. PW30 is Smt Uma Devi, she has deposed that she
never became member of the said society and had
not submitted any document. The application
dated 05.05.1973 ExPW30/A, does not bear her
signatures at point A as she had never submitted
any application for membership in the said
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 65 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
society.
114. She has deposed that she had never deposited any
amount of Rs 110/- as shown vide receipt in her
name dated 25.05.1975 ExPW30/B. She has
deposed that although the particulars mentioned
in the affidavit ExPW30/B (ExPW30/C ) belong
to her but the signatures shown at points A and
A-1 are not her signatures. She had never
submitted any such affidavit nor purchased any
stamp paper nor got this affidavit attested in the
year 2003.
115. She has further deposed that although in the bye
laws ExPW2/C, her name has been shown at serial
no.132 alongwith her husband’s name, but she
was never a member of the said society and the
signatures shown at point X are not her signatures.
She has deposed that she never remained office
bearer of the society nor signed any document in
such capacity and had not received any
communication/letter either from the said society
or from the RCS office. She has deposed that no
RCS officer visited her for any verification, she
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 66 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
had never attended any meeting of the society
and had never received any notice from the RCS
office.
116. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh and
Mohan Lal, but not by rest of the accused person,
despite the opportunity being given to them.
117. PW33 is Sh Mukesh Kumar, he has deposed that
he used to work as helper in the office of Sr.
Manager in Mail Motor Service, Ministry of
Communication, Department of Posts, Naraina,
Delhi in the year 1999. He has deposed that he
never became a member in any society including
the said society.
118. He has deposed that he had never filed any
document in the said society nor had attended any
meeting of the said society. He has deposed that
no person ever visited him for any verification
although his name alongwith particulars
mentioned in the application dated 05.05.1974
ExPW33/A, are correct.
119. He has deposed that he had never submitted any
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 67 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
application for membership in the said society.
The signatures shown at point A on the application
are also not his signatures. He had never
deposited any amount of Rs 110/- as shown vide
receipt no. 057 dated 25.05.1975 ExPW33/B. He
has deposed that the affidavit ExPW33/C bear his
name alongwith correct particulars except age.
However, he had never filed any such affidavit in
the said society. He has deposed that he had
neither purchased any stamp paper nor got the
above affidavit attested 22.09.2003, as mentioned
therein.
120. He has further deposed that although in the bye
laws ExPW2/B ( should have been ExPW2/C), his
name has been shown at serial no.157 alongwith
his father’s name, but he was never a member of
the said society and the signatures shown at point
A against his name at Q 3132 are not his
signatures. He has further deposed that in the
UPC list dated 06.08.2003, Ex PW33/D, his name
alongwith his address has been shown at serial
no.157 but he never received any
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 68 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
communications from the said society .
121. He has deposed that in form E-II Ex PW33/F, his
name is mentioned in a portion marked as Q 3268
but the signatures shown at point A in the said
portion are not his signatures. Since, he was never
a member of the said society, therefore, the
question of proposing the name of Sangeeta Devi
for the post of Vice President does not arise.
122. He has deposed that in the list for verification of
membership for sending the list of members to
DDA for allotment of land ExPW14/E, his name
and particulars has been shown at serial no.157.
However, information regarding his membership
etc. was wrong. He was never a member of the
said society and no person visited him for any
verification.
123. He has deposed that in the affidavit ExPW26/B at
serial no. 52 and in the list at serial no.157, his
name has been mentioned. Rest of the
information regarding his membership given in the
said affidavit is wrong as he never became a
member of the said society.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 69 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
124. He has deposed that in the list of 165 members, Ex
PW33/F for approval and onward submission to
DDA for allotment of land his name has been
shown at serial no.157 but he never became a
member of the said society. He has deposed that
he had never received any notice from the society
or RCS for verification of the membership.
125. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
126. PW34 is Rishikesh Dang, who has deposed that
his son Sandeep Dang was a member in Shiv
Shakti CGHS and he never became a member of
the said society. He has deposed that the
application dated 05.05.1973 ExPW34/A, bear
name of his son Sandeep Dang alongwith address
C-4 H/19, Janak Puri, New Delhi. But in the year
1973, his son was only 5 years old as his date of
birth is March, 1968. He has deposed that
signatures shown at point A are not that of his son
Sandeep Dang. He has deposed that the affidavit
ExPW34/B bear the name of his son Sandeep
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 70 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Dang alongwith his particular but his son had
never filled such affidavit in said society. He is
acquainted with the handwriting of his son. He has
deposed that his (PW34) name has wrongly been
mentioned as P.K Dang. There is no other person
by the name of P.K Dang in his house. He has
further depsoed that in the affidavit his age is also
wrongly mentioned as 60 years and the signatures
shown at points A and A-1 are not that of his son
Sandeep Dang.
127. He has deposed that in the bye laws ExPW2/B
( ExPW2/C), though name of his son has been
shown at serial no.119 but he was never a member
of the said society and the signatures shown at
point A against his name at Q 3074 are not the
signatures of his son Sandeep Dang.
128. He has further deposed that in the UPC list dated
06.08.2003, ExPW33/D, name of his son Sandeep
Dang alongwith the address has been shown at
serial no.119 but they never received any
communications from the said society in the year
2003. In the year 2003-2004, they had shifted
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 71 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
from the address, as shown in the list. He has
further deposed that in the list for verification of
membership for sending the list of members to
DDA for allotment of land Ex PW14/E, name of
his son Sandeep Dang and particulars has been
shown at serial no.119, however information
regarding his membership etc. is wrong.
129. He has further deposed that in the affidavit
ExPW26/D, name of his son Sandeep Dang has
been mentioned at serial no. 14 membership
no.119. But rest of the information regarding
membership given in the said affidavit is wrong.
He has further deposed that in the list of 165
members ExPW33/D for approval and onward
submission to DDA for allotment of land, name of
his son Sandeep Dang has been mentioned at
serial no.119.
130. He has deposed that in another list of promoter of
the said society Ex PW34/C, name of his son
Sandeep Dang, has been mentioned at serial
no.119 but his son never became member of the
said society. He has deposed that they had never
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 72 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
received any notice from the said society or RCS
office for verification of the membership.
131. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
132. PW51 is Sh Raj Kumar Mittal, he has deposed
that he was running a shop of hardware and was
never an employee of Delhi Water Supply and
Sewage Disposal Undertaking nor was a member
of the said society.
133. He has further deposed that he has been residing at
G-59 Mandir Marg, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi
since the year 2000. And he had never received
any letter/notice/ communication concerning the
said society or from the RCS office or from DDA
and had not attended any meeting of the said
society.
134. He has further deposed that although his name
alongwith particulars are mentioned in the
application dated 05.05.1973, ExPW51/A but he
had never applied for enrollment for membership
in the said society and the signatures shown at
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 73 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
point A are not his signatures. The date mentioned
in the said application is 05.05.1973 and during
that period, he was not residing in Delhi itself.
135. He has deposed that he had never deposited an
amount of Rs 110/- as shown to have been
deposited by him vide receipt of Rs 110/- in his
name dated 25.05.1975 ExPW51/B. He has
deposed that although his name and particulars
are mentioned in the affidavit ExPW51/C are
correct but signatures shown at points A and A-1
are not his signatures. He had never filed any
such affidavit in this society. He neither purchased
any stamp paper nor got this affidavit attested in
the year 2003, as mentioned therein.
136. He has deposed that although in the bye laws
ExPW2/C, his name has been shown at serial
no.128 alongwith his father’s name, but he was
never a member of Shri Narayan CGHS and the
signatures shown at point X against his name at Q
3090 are not his signatures
137. He has further deposed that the signatures shown
in the another copy of bye laws ExPW38/J at point
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 74 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
X are not his signatures. He has deposed that in
the UPC list dated 06.08.2003 ExPW33/D, his
name has been shown at serial no.128 alongwith
his address and in another UPC list ExPW25/D.
But he never received any communication from
the said society in the year 2003.
138. He has further deposed that the list for the
verification of members of the said society
ExPW14/E, his name and particulars have been
mentioned at serial no.128 but he was never a
member in the said society and further information
regarding his membership etc in the said list are
wrong. No person ever visited him for any
verification.
139. He has further deposed that accused Vishwanath
Agarwal is brother-in-law (jija) of his neighbor
Mukesh Kumar and in that capacity accused
Vishwanath Agarwal is known to him. He has
identified accused Vishwanath Agarwal in the
court.
140. He has further deposed that in the affidavit
ExPW26/B, his name is appearing at serial no.23
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 75 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
membership no.128 but the rest of the information
regarding his membership given in the said
affidavit is wrong as he never became member of
the said society. He has further deposed that in
the list of 165 members ExPW33/F for approval
and onward submission to DDA for allotment of
land his name has been shown at serial no.128 but
he never became a member of the said society. He
has deposed that accused Vishwanath Agarwal
might have included his (PW51) name in the said
society, as accused Vishwanath Agarwal was
known to him (PW51). He had no knowledge
regarding his membership in the said society nor
he signed any document.
141. He has deposed that he had given the specimen
signatures from S-2881 to S-2886 in the CBI
office. He has deposed that in the list for
verification of membership ExPW40/B for
sending the list of members to DDA for allotment
of land, his name has been shown at serial no.128
alongwith his particulars, however, he was never a
member of this society.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 76 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
142. He has further deposed that in the list
ExPW49/G-1 and Ex PW34/C his name is
appearing at serial no. 128 however, he never
became a member in the said society at any point
of time.
143. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, but not by any
other accused despite the opportunity being
granted to them.
144. PW57 is Ms Sarla Rana, she has deposed that she
came to Delhi only in the year 1982 after her
marriage and was working as Senior Pharmacist in
Palika Maternity Hospital, Lodhi Colony, Delhi.
She has deposed that she was never a member of
the said society and she had never received any
letter/notice/communication concerning the said
society or from the RCS office or from DDA and
she had never attended any meeting of the society.
145. She has deposed that although the application
dated 05.05.1974 ExPW57/A, bear her name
and correct particulars but the signatures shown at
point A are not her signatures. She used to sign in
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 77 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
English and not in Hindi. Handwriting appearing
in the application also does not belong to her. She
had never applied for enrollment for membership
in the said society. The date mentioned in the
said application is 05.05.1974 while during that
period she was not residing in Delhi
146. She has further deposed that she had never
deposited any amount whatsoever as shown vide
receipt bearing no.043 dated 25.5.1975
ExPW57/B. She has deposed that although her
particulars mentioned in the affidavit ExPW57/C
are correct but signatures shown at points A and
A-1 are not of her signatures. She had never
submitted any such affidavit nor purchased any
stamp paper nor got this affidavit attested from the
notary on 22.9.2003, as mentioned therein.
147. She has further deposed that in the proceedings
dated 15.05.1974, (ExPW57/D) her name has been
shown at serial no.8 in the list of members who
applied for the membership in the said society.
However, she never applied for any membership
in the said society. She has further deposed that
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 78 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
although in the bye laws ExPW2/C, her name has
been shown at serial no.143 alongwith her
husband’s name. But she was never a member of
the said society and the signatures shown at point
X against her name at Q 3112 are not her
signatures. Similarly, the signatures shown in the
another copy of bye laws ExPW38/J, at serial no.
143 at point ‘X’ are not her signatures.
148. She has deposed that in the UPC list dated
06.08.2003, ExPW33/D, her name has been
shown at serial no.143 alongwith her address and
in another list ExPW25/D also her name has been
mentioned, but she never received any
communication from the said society in the year
2003. She has deposed that in the list for
verification of membership ExPW14/E, her name
has been shown at serial no.143 alongwith her
particulars. However, she was never a member of
this society nor any official visited her for any
verification whatsoever.
149. She has further deposed that in the list of 165
members, ExPW33/F for approval and onward
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 79 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
submission to DDA for allotment of land, her
name has been mentioned at serial no.143. But
she never became member in this society. She
has deposed that in the affidavit ExPW28/B,
although her name has been shown at serial no.38
membership no.143 but the rest of the
information regarding her membership given in
the said affidavit is wrong as she never became
member of the society.
150. She has deposed that in the list for verification of
membership (ExPW40/B) for sending the list of
members to DDA for allotment of land, her name
has been shown at serial no.143 alongwith her
particulars. However, she was never a member of
this society. She has further deposed that in the
lists ExPW49/G-1 and Ex PW34/C her name is
appearing at serial no. 143 however, she never
became a member in the said society at any point
of time. She has deposed that in the lists of
members of the said society her name is
mentioned at serial no.143 and membership no.
143, in the file ExPW1/PX and the same is her
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 80 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
answer with respect to file ExPW49/F.
151. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Narayan Diwakar,
Mohan Lal, Balam Singh Aswal and not by rest of
the accused persons despite the opportunity being
given to them.
152. PW58 is Ms Saroj Taneja, she has deposed that
she was working in the Ministry of Commerce as
a P.S. She never became a member of the said
society and never received any
letter/notice/communication concerning the said
society or from the RCS office or from DDA. She
had never attended any meeting of the society.
153. She has deposed that although the application
dated 05.05.1973 ExPW58/A, bear her name
and correct particulars but the signatures shown at
point A are not her signatures. She had never
applied for enrollment for membership in the said
society. The date mentioned in the said
application is 05.05.1973 and during that period
she was a minor.
154. She has deposed that she had never deposited any
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 81 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
amount whatsoever as shown vide receipt
bearing no.021 dated 25.5.1975 ExPW58/B. She
has deposed that her particulars mentioned in the
affidavit ExPW58/C are correct except the name
of her husband which is wrongly mentioned as
‘J.K Taneja’. Her age mentioned is also wrong as
in the year 2003 she was 43 years old. The
signatures shown at points A and A-1 are not her
signatures. She had never filed any such affidavit
in the society nor purchased any stamp paper nor
got this affidavit attested from the notary on
22.9.2003, as mentioned therein.
155. She has further deposed that she had never
attended any meeting of the said society. In the
proceedings dated 15.05.1973, ExPW58/D his
name has been shown at serial no.16 in the list of
members who applied for the membership in said
society but she never applied for any membership
in the said society.
156. She has deposed that in the bye laws ExPW2/C,
her name has been shown in the list of members
at serial no.121, the signatures shown at Q 3083
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 82 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
are not her signatures. Similarly, the signatures
shown in the another copy of bye laws ExPW38/J,
at serial no. 121, at point X, are not her
signatures. She has further deposed that in the
UPC list dated 06.08.2003, ExPW33/D, her name
has been shown at serial no.121 alongwith her
address and in another list ExPW25/D also her
name has been mentioned. But she never received
any communication from the said society in the
year 2003.
157. She has further deposed that in the list for
verification of membership ExPW14/E, her name
has been shown at serial no.121 alongwith her
particulars. However, she was never a member of
this society nor any official visited her for any
verification whatsoever. She has deposed that in
the list of 165 members, ExPW33/F for approval
and onward submission to DDA for allotment of
land her name has been mentioned at serial
no.121. But she never became member in this
society. She has deposed that in the affidavit
ExPW26/D, her name has been shown at serial
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 83 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
no.16 membership no.121. The rest of the
information regarding her membership given in
the said affidavit is wrong as she never became a
member of the society. She has deposed that in the
list of verification of 165 members of the said
society (ExPW40/B) for approval and onward
submission to DDA for allotment of land, her
name has been shown at serial no.121 alongwith
her particulars. However, she was never a member
of this society. She has further deposed that in
another lists ExPW49/G-1 and Ex PW34/C, her
name is appearing at serial no. 121. However, she
never became a member in the said society at any
point of time.
158. She has deposed that she has given specimen
signatures from S-2352 to S2355 , ExPW52/A-10
( four sheets), to the CBI voluntarily and her
signatures are appearing at point B on all the four
sheets.
159. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Narayan Diwakar,
Mohan Lal, Balam Singh Aswal and not by rest of
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 84 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
the accused persons despite the opportunity being
given to them.
160. PW 60 is Sh. Jitender Soni @ Rakesh Soni, he has
deposed that he was never a member of said
society. He had never received any letter/ notice/
communication from the said society or from the
RCS office or from DDA and he had never
attended any meeting of the society.
161. He has further deposed that although the
application dated 05.05.1973 ExPW60/A, bears
his name and correct particulars. But the
signatures shown at point A are not his signatures.
He had never applied for enrollment for
membership in the society. He has deposed that
he had never deposited any amount whatsoever as
shown vide receipt bearing no.012 dated
25.5.1975 ExPW60/B.
162. He has deposed that although the affidavit
ExPW60/C bear his name alongwith his
particulars but signatures shown at points A and
A-1 are not of his signatures. He had never
submitted any such affidavit nor purchased any
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 85 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
stamp paper nor got this affidavit attested from the
notary on 22.9.2003, as mentioned therein.
163. He has deposed that he had never attended any
meeting of the said society. In the proceedings
dated 15.05.1973 ExPW58/D, his name has been
shown at serial no.8 in the list of members who
applied for the membership in the said society.
But he had never applied for any membership in
the said society. He has deposed that his date of
birth is 15.05.1985.
164. He has further deposed that although in the bye
laws ExPW2/C, his name has been shown at
serial no.112, but he was never a member of the
said society. And the signatures shown at point X
against his name at Q 3066 are not his signatures.
He has further deposed that the signatures shown
in the another copy of bye laws ExPW38/J, at
serial no. 112, at point X, are not his signatures.
165. He has deposed that in the UPC list dated
06.08.2003, ExPW33/D, his name has been
shown at serial no.112 alongwith his address. And
in another list placed at ExPW25/D also his name
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 86 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
has been mentioned. But he never received any
communication from the said society in the year
2003. He has further deposed that in the list for
verification of membership ExPW14/E, his name
has been shown at serial no.112 alongwith his
particulars. However, he was never a member of
this society nor any official visited him for any
verification whatsoever.
166. He has deposed that in the list of 165 members,
ExPW33/F for approval and onward submission to
DDA for allotment of land, his name has been
mentioned at serial no.112. But he never became
member in this society. He has further deposed
that in the affidavit ExPW26/D, although his
name has been shown at serial no.7 membership
no.112. But the rest of the information regarding
his membership given in the said affidavit is
wrong as he never became member of the society.
167. He has further deposed that in the list for
verification ExPW40/B, of 165 membership for
sending the list of members to DDA for approval
and onward submission to DDA for allotment of
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 87 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
land his name has been shown at serial no.112
alongwith his particulars,. However, he was never
a member of this society. He has further deposed
that in another lists ExPW49/G-1 and Ex
PW34/C, his name is appearing at serial no. 112
alongwith his particulars. However, he never
became a member in the said society at any point
of time.
168. He has deposed that specimen signatures from
S-2366 to S-2370 ExPW52/A-11, were given by
him in the CBI office and it also bear his
signatures at point B on all the five sheets. He has
further deposed that in the list of members
ExPW32/C, his name has been shown at serial
no.112 alongwith membership detail etc., but he
was never a member in the said society.
169. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Narayan Diwakar,
Mohan Lal, Balam Singh Aswal but not by any
other accused despite the opportunity being given
to them.
170. PW61 is Sh Bhagchand K. Banwari, he has
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 88 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
deposed that he retired as Executive Engineer
from Delhi Jal Board earlier known as Delhi
Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking
(MCD) on September. 2000. He became a
member of the said society at the initial stage. He
was one of the promoter members of the society
which was formed by the Section officers of Delhi
Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking.
The society was instituted somewhere in the year
1970. He had paid Rs 110/- for obtaining the
membership of the society.
171. He has further deposed that he had never resigned
from the membership of the society. He was
allotted DDA Plot in the year 1973, which he had
informed in his office also. Thereafter, he was not
associated with the said society and as no land was
allotted to the society, therefore, he stopped taking
interest.
172. He has further deposed that the application for
enrollment as member of society ExPW61/A and
affidavit dated 22.10.1971 ExPW61/B, bear his
signatures at point A and X respectively. He has
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 89 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
deposed that in the intensive inquiry proforma
ExPW13/D, his name appears against serial no.23
alongwith his signatures.
173. He has further deposed that form of application
ExPW 13/G, find mention the name of president
P.K Singhal, Vice President B.S Rana, Secretary
S.S Bhalla etc. They all were the employees of
Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal
Undertaking. They never filed any application for
revival of the society. He has further depoed that
during the period he was the member of the
society. They never got changed the name of the
said society.
174. He has deposed that in the copy of amended bye-
laws of the society ExPW2/C, the signatures
shown against serial no. 21 in the list of promoter
members at point X at Q 2947, are not his
signatures. He has further deposed that his father’s
name is ‘Khub Chand’ whereas the name
mentioned in the Bye-laws is ‘Khubehand’. He
had never sent any such Bye-Laws.
175. He has further deposed that the signatures at
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 90 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
points X, Q 549 and Q 551 on the affidavit dated
22.09.2003 ExPW61/C, are not his signatures.
Although, the particulars mentioned in the
affidavit pertains to him, however, in the year
2003, he had left the address which is mentioned
in the affidavit. He has not submitted or got
attested that affidavit in the year 2003, as
mentioned therein.
176. He has deposed that he had attended only one or
two initial meetings and has never attended any
meeting after the year 1973, when he was allotted
DDA Plot. He has deposed that his specimen
signatures from S-2248 to S-2254 collectively
(ExPW59/D), were given by him to the CBI. He
has further deposed that in the list of 165
members of the society sent to DDA ExPW14/E,
his name appears against serial no.21. However,
he was not aware about the fact that his name has
been sent in the list of the said society.
177. He has deposed that the application ExPW61/D is
photocopy of his original application and in the
bye laws ExPW38/J , signatures at serial no.21 at
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 91 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
point X, are not his signature. He has further
deposed that in the list for the verification of
members of the said society ExPW14/E, his name
and particulars are mentioned at serial no.21. He
remained in the said society only till the year
1973.
178. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Narayan Diwakar,
Mohan Lal, Balam Singh Aswal, Sri Chand and
Mohan Lal, but not by any other accused despite the
opportunity being given to them.
179. PW62 is Sh Sunil Kumar, he has deposed that he
has been residing at RZ-227 A, Gali No.6, Sadh
Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi-45 since
childhood. His date of birth is 01.07.1977. He has
deposed that in the year 2006, he was working as a
driver. He never took membership of the said
society at any point of time.
180. He has further deposed that he had never given an
application for enrollment as a member of the said
society. The signatures on the application dated
05.05.1974 qua membership in the society
ExPW62/A, are not his signatures. He had never
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 92 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
applied for enrollment for membership in the
society as shown vide ExPW62/A. He has deposed
that in the said application, his age has been
shown as 43 years as on 05.05.1974 which is
incorrect. The name of his wife is Anita Yadav
and not Asha as mentioned in the aforesaid
application form.
181. He has further deposed that the affidavit dated
22.09.2003 ExPW62/B, does not bear his
signatures at points A & B. He had not executed
any such affidavit and somebody has forged his
signatures. In the affidavit, his age has wrongly
been shown as 71 years as on 22.09.2003. He has
deposed that he had not paid any fee towards
membership of society nor received any receipt
qua the same and the purported receipt in the sum
of Rs 110 Mark PW62/C , is false.
182. He has deposed that in the bye laws ExPW2/C,
his name has been shown at serial no.139. The
signatures shown at point A against his name at
serial no.139 are not his signatures and the
relevant entry ExPW62/D. He has deposed that he
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 93 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
had never filled up any declaration form of
nomination for election and the signatures shown
at point A on the declaration form of nomination
for election ExPW62/E, are not his signatures
183. This witness has been cross examined only on
behalf of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, but not
by any other accused despite the opportunity being
given to them.
184. PW63 is Smt Sangeeta Devi, she has deposed that
she has been residing at G-59, Mandir Marg,
Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi-45 since 2000. She
never took membership of any housing society
and her date of birth is 14.6.1968. She has deposed
that the application dated 05.05.1974
(ExPW63/A) for enrollment as a member of the
said society, does not bear her signatures at point
A or at any other point.
185. She has deposed that in the application, her name
and husband name are correct but her age is
wrongly mentioned as 36 years as on 05.05.1974.
And that time she was only 6 years old. She has
further deposed that the affidavit dated
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 94 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
22.09.2003, ExPW63/B, does not bear her
signatures and it was not executed by her.
Somebody has forged her signatures. In the
affidavit her age has been shown as 64 years as on
22.09.2003, which is incorrect.
186. She has deposed that she had not paid any fee
towards membership of the said society nor
received any receipt qua the same as shown vide
receipt of Rs 110/- Mark PW63/C. She has
deposed that in the bye laws ExPW2/C, her name
and signatures at point B are shown at serial
no.146, (ExPW63/D) but signatures shown at
point B are not her signatures. Her husband’s
name has also wrongly been mentioned as Harish
Kumar.
187. She has further deposed that the signatures shown
at point A on the Declaration form E-11 of
Nomination for election Mark PW63/E, are not
her signatures and she had never filled up any
such form. She has deposed that in the
proceedings dated 27.12.2003, ExPW15/G, the
purported signatures shown at point A against her
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 95 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
name at serial no.46 does not belong to her and
same are forged. She had never attended the said
proceedings wherein she has wrongly been shown
to have been elected as Vice President of the
society
188. She has further deposed that the signatures shown
at point A on the Declaration form E-11 of
Nomination for election Mark PW63/F, are not
her signatures and she had never filled up any
such form. She has deposed that she had never
attended the General Body Meeting dated
14.09.2003 ExPW36/H3 and Managing
Committee meeting dated 15.09.2003. In the said
proceedings, the purported signatures shown at
point A against her name at serial no.2 are not her
signatures.
189. She has deposed that in the proceedings of Special
General Body Meeting ExPW38/H-1 dated
18.01.2004 , the purported signatures shown at
point A against her name at serial no.3 are not her
signatures as she had never attended any such
meeting She has deposed that her specimen
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 96 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
signatures from S2910 to S 2917 ExPW59/D-4
(colly), were obtained by the CBI during
investigation .
190. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Sri Chand and
Balam Singh Aswal, but not by any other accused
persons despite the opportunity being given to
them.
191. PW64 is Smt Saroj, She has deposed that she is a
housewife and married to Jitender Kumar in the
year 1996. She never took membership of any
society by the name of Delhi Water Supply &
Sewage Disposal Undertaking Section Officers
CGHS Ltd. (later on Shri Narayan CGHS Ltd.).
192. She has further deposed that the signatures shown
at point A on the purported application dated
05.05.1974 ExPW64/A qua her membership in the
said society, does not belong to her. She had never
given an application for enrollment as a member
in the said society. She has deposed that in the
application, her age has been shown as 36 years as
on 05/05/1974, whereas she was born after 1974.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 97 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
193. She has further deposed that the purported
affidavit dated 22.09.2003 ExPW64/B, does not
bear her signatures at points A & B and the same
are forged by somebody. She had not executed
any affidavit on 22.09.2003. In the said affidavit,
her age has been shown as 63 years as on
22.09.2003, which is incorrect. She has deposed
that the purported receipt in the sum of Rs.110/-
Mark PW64/C, is false and she had not paid any
fee towards membership of said society nor
received any receipt qua the same. She has
deposed that in the bye-laws of the society
Ex.PW2/C , signatures at point C, shown against
her name are not her signatures and the relevant
entry Ex. PW64/D.
194. She has further deposed that in the list of members
for verification of membership for sending the list
to DDA for allotment of land Ex.PW14/E her
name and other particulars have been shown at
serial no.150 . She has further deposed that in the
approved list of members for onward transmission
to DDA for allotment of land Ex.PW33/F , her
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 98 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
name and other particulars have been shown. She
has deposed that her specimen signatures S-2924
to S-2926 ) ExPW59/D5 (Colly), were obtained by
IO of CBI during the course of investigation.
195. This witness has been cross examined only on
behalf of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, but not by
any other accused persons despite the opportunity
being given to them.
196. PW65 is Sh Babu Lal, he has deposed that he
never became a member of the society. His date
of birth is 01.07.1954 and name of his wife is
Smt. Gayatri Devi. He has deposed that he had
never given an application for enrollment as a
member of the said society. The purported
application dated 05.05.1974 Mark 65/A qua his
membership in the said society was never
submitted by him and the purported signature at
point A are not his signatures. He has deposed that
in the said application the name of his wife is
wrongly mentioned as ‘Mrs. Renu’.
197. He has deposed that he had neither sworn nor
signed the affidavit dated 22/09/2003 Ex PW65/B
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 99 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
and the signatures shown at points A & B are not
his signatures. Somebody has forged his
signatures on the said affidavit. In the said
affidavit, his age has been shown as 66 years as
on 22/09/2003, which is incorrect.
198. He has deposed that vide purported receipt for
Rs.110/- Mark PW65/C., he has been shown to
have paid a sum of Rs.110/- towards membership
fee of the said society but he had not paid any
such fee nor had been issued any receipt qua the
same and the the said receipt is false. He has
deposed that in bye-laws of the society
Ex.PW2/C, his name and signatures are shown at
serial no. 151,Ex. PW65/D against his name are
not his signatures. He has deposed that in the
enrollment list of members Ex.PW34/C , his name
and other particulars have been shown at serial
no.151
199. He has deposed that in the approved list of
members for onward transmission to DDA for
allotment of land Ex.PW33/F, his name and other
particulars have been shown at serial no.151. He
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 100 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
has depsoed that in the list of members for
verification of membership for sending the list to
DDA for allotment of land Ex.PW14/E, his
name and other particulars has been shown at
serial no.151. He has deposed that his specimen
signatures from S-2927 to S-2932 Ex.PW32/E
were obtained by IO of CBI during course of
investigation and said sheets bear his signatures.
200. This witness has been cross examined by Ld Sr PP
for CBI and on behalf of accused Vishwanath
Agarwal, but not by any other accused persons
despite the opportunity being given to them.
201. PW66 is Sh Makhan Lal Sharma, he has deposed that
he never became a member of any society by the name
of Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal
Undertaking Section Officers CGHS Ltd. (later on
Shri Narayan CGHS Ltd.). His date of birth is
08.06.1955 and the name of his wife is Late Smt.
Prem Lata.
202. He has further deposed that he had never given an
application for enrollment as a member of the said
society. He had never submitted any application
dated 05.05.1974 Mark PW66/A qua his
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 101 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
membership in the said society and the purported
signature shown at point A are not his signatures.
In the said application, the name of his wife is
wrongly mentioned as ‘Mrs. Santosh’. He has
deposed that on the purported affidavit dated
22/09/2003 Ex. PW66/B, signatures shown at
points A & B are not his signatures. He had not
sworn and signed the said affidavit. Somebody has
forged his signatures on the said affidavit. He has
deposed that in the said affidavit, his age has been
shown as 69 years as on 22/09/2003, which is
incorrect.
203. He has further deposed that neither he had paid
any fee of Rs 110/- nor had been issued any
receipt qua the same as shown vide purported
receipt no. M-152 for Rs.110/- Mark PW66/C,
towards membership fee of the said society. He
has deposed that in the bye-laws of the society
Ex.PW2/C, his name and signatures are shown at
serial no. 152, Ex. PW66/D. The signature at
point D against his name are not his signatures.
204. He has further deposed that in the enrollment list
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 102 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
of members Ex.PW34/C, his name and other
particulars have been shown at serial no.152 and
the relevant entry. He has deposed that in the
approved list of members for onward transmission
to DDA for allotment of land Ex.PW33/F, his
name and other particulars has been shown at
serial no.152. He has deposed that in the list of
members for verification of membership for
sending the list to DDA for allotment of land
Ex.PW14/E his name and other particulars have
been shown at serial no.152.
205. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, but not by any
other accused persons despite the opportunity
being given to them.
206. PW70 is Smt Pushpa Devi, she has deposed that
she was never a member of any Group Housing
Society. She got married in 1974 and in 1973 she
was not doing anything and was used to stay at
home.
207. She has deposed that the signatures at point A on
the enrollment application form Mark PW70/X,
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 103 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
are not her signatures. She has further deposed
that the signatures at point A on the affidavit
dated 22.09.2003 ExPW70/A, are not her
signatures.
208. She has further deposed that the copy of receipt
bearing no. 030 dated 25.05.1975 Mark PW70/Y
was not issued to her. She had never deposited or
paid any money for procuring a membership of
any group housing society, not even the said
society. She has deposed that in the list of
members annexed with the bye laws of Sri
Narayan CGHS, signatures at point A next to the
entry no. 130 on page no. 24, Ex PW70/B are not
her signatures.
209. She has further deposed that in the list of
members sent by the said society to DDA, Ex.
PW33/F, bear her name, husband’s name and her
address. The said page 147 of the list is Ex.
PW70/C. She has deposed that her specimen
signatures Ex. PW 31/A, were taken by the CBI
when they had visited her house.
210. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 104 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Shri Chand, Balam
Singh Aswal, Narayan Diwakar and Mohan Lal
but not by any other accused persons despite the
opportunity being given to them.
211. PW72 is Sh Krishan Kumar Sharma, he has
deposed that he has never become a member of
the society namely Sri Narayan CGHS. His date
of birth is 10.02.1974 and his wife’s name is Ms.
Saroj Sharma.
212. He has deposed that he had never applied for the
membership of the society as shown vide
application for enrollment form dated
05.05.1973ExPW72/A. The purported signatures
at point A are not his signatures. He has deposed
that in the said application, his name and address
are correct. However, he was born on 10.02.1974
and the date of application form is 05.05.1973.
213. He has deposed that the signatures at points A and
B on the affidavit dated 22.09.2003 Ex PW72/B,
are not his signatures. He had not sworn and
signed the said affidavit. Somebody has forged his
signature on the said affidavit. He has deposed
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 105 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
that in the said affidavit his age has been shown as
57 years on 22.09.2003 which is incorrect.
214. He has deposed that he had never paid the sum of
Rs. 110/- towards the membership fee of the said
society and the receipt of Rs. 110/- dated
25.05.1975 ExPW72/C, is false. He has further
deposed that in the Bye-Laws of the society, Ex.
PW2/C his name and signatures are shown at
serial no. 124, Ex. PW72/D at point H are not his
signatures.
215. He has further deposed that in the list of
verification for membership for sending the list of
members to DDA for allotment of land Ex.
PW14/E, his name and particulars are mentioned
at serial no. 124. The relevant portion of the said
list is Ex. PW72/E. He has deposed that in the
approved list sent to DDA Ex. PW33/F, his name
and other particulars has been shown at serial no.
124 at page no. 12.
216. He has deposed that in the list of members
enrolled since registration Ex. PW34/C, his name
and other particulars has been shown at serial no.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 106 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
124. He has deposed that his specimen signatures
from S-2863 to S-2866 Ex. PW32/A, were given
by him on 19.01.2007 in the CBI office and his
signatures is at point B.
217. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Shri Chand, Balam
Singh Aswal, Narayan Diwakar and Mohan Lal
but not by any other accused persons despite the
opportunity being given to them.
218. PW73 is Hanuman Singh, he has deposed that he
has never been a member of any society including
the society namely Shri Narayan CGHS. He has
never submitted any application form to the said
society. Signatures shown at point A on the
application form dated 05.05.1973 Mark PW73/A,
are not his signatures as he sign by writing his full
name.
219. He has further deposed that the signature at points
A and B on affidavit dated 22.09.2003
ExPW73/B are not his signatures. In the said
affidavit, his age has been shown as 59 years. He
has deposed that in the Bye-Laws of the society
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 107 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Ex. PW2/C, his name and particulars has been
shown at serial no. 126 at page no. 73.In the said
serial number, signatures shown at point Y are
not his signatures.
220. He has further deposed that in the list of
verification of membership for sending the list of
members to DDA for allotment of land Ex.
PW14/E, his name and other particulars has
been shown at serial no. 126. However, the
address shown in the said serial number is
incorrect. He has deposed that in the list of
members for approval and onward transmission to
DDA for allotment of land Ex. PW33/F, his name
and other particulars has been shown at serial no.
126. However, the address shown in the said serial
number is incorrect.
221. He has deposed that he had never deposited any
fee of Rs 110/- towards the membership of the
society as shown vide receipt dated 25.05.1975 at
serial no. 106 dated 25.05.1975 Mark PW73/C. He
has deposed that in the list of members enrolled
since registration Ex. PW34/C, his name and
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 108 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
particulars are mentioned at serial no. 126.
222. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Shri Chand, Balam
Singh Aswal, Narayan Diwakar and Mohan Lal
but not by any other accused persons despite the
opportunity being given to them.
223. PW75 is Sh Dayanand Gupta, he has deposed that
in the year 1974-75, he was not doing any
business or work and at that time, he was around 5
years old only. He was born in the year 1970. He
has deposed that he has never been an employee
of Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal
undertaking. However, once he was approached
by accused Vishwananth and asked him to
become a member of the society but he did not
become a member of any society
224. He has deposed that the copy of application dated
05.05.1974 Mark PW75/A, does not bear his
signatures at point A and in the said application
his wrong age and wrong address has been
shown. He has deposed that he never deposited
any money as shown to have been deposited vide
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 109 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
receipt dated 25.7.1975 Mark PW75/B. He has
deposed that in the affidavit dated 22.09.2003
ExPW75/C, signatures at points A, are not his
signatures and address and the age, as shown in
the said affidavit, are not correct.
225. He has further deposed that in the bye-laws of the
society, his name has wrongly been shown at
serial no. 147 and does not bear his signatures
against his name. The bye-laws pertaining to entry
at serial no. 147 are Ex. PW75/D and signatures
at point A are not his signatures.
226. He has denied his signatures against his name in
the bye-laws pertaining to entry at serial no. 147
Ex. PW38/J. He has deposed that in the list for
verification of membership for sending the list of
members to DDA for allotment of land Ex.
PW14/E, his name at serial no. 147 has been
wrongly encircled in red. As he was never a
member of the society and even his address as
shown in the said list is wrong.
227. He has deposed that in the list of 165 members
ExPW33/F, placed for approval and onward
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 110 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
transmission to DDA for allotment of land, his
name at serial no. 147 has been wrongly encircled
in red. As he was never a member of the society
and even his address as shown in the said list is
wrong.
228. He has further deposed that in the list of members
enrolled since registration Ex. PW34/C, his name
at serial no. 147 has been wrongly encircled in red
as he was never a member of the society.
229. He has deposed that the his specimen writings
dated 14.02.2007 from S-2922 to S2923, Ex
PW39/D, were taken by the CBI during the
investigation and the aforesaid proceedings bear
his signatures at points ‘B’
230. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, but not by any
other accused persons despite the opportunity
being given to them.
231. PW76 is Smt Kavita, who has deposed that
during the year 2003 to 2005, she was a housewife
She has never been a member of any CGHS.
including the said society. She has never attended
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 111 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
any meeting or proceedings of any CGHS
including the said society. She has never received
any document from the said society or from RCS
or from DDA.
232. She has further deposed that the application form
dated 05.05.1973 Mark PW76/A, does not bear
her signatures at point ‘Y’ as she had never
submitted the said application. She has further
deposed that the affidavit dated 22.09.2003
ExPW76/B, does not bear her signatures at points
‘Y’. Although the particulars in the said affidavit
are correct, but she had never executed the said
affidavit.
233. She has further deposed that since she was never
a member of the present society therefore, the
question of depositing any money does not arise.
She had not received any receipt in the sum of Rs.
110/- .
234. She has further deposed that she does not know as
to how her name has been shown as a member
against serial no. 133, membership no. 133 in the
list of enrollment of members Ex. PW34/C.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 112 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
235. She has also denied her signatures appearing at
point ‘Y’ in the bye laws of the society along with
list of members Ex. PW38/J (colly.). She has
deposed that she does not know how her name
has been shown there. The said bye laws along
with the list of members is Ex. PW70/B and Ex.
PW72/D. She does not know as to how her name
has been shown against serial no. 133 in the list of
members for sending to DDA for verification
ExPW14/E.
236. She has deposed that she does not know how her
name has been shown against serial no. 133 in the
list of members for approval and onward
transmission to DDA for allotment of land Ex.
PW33/F (colly.). She has further deposed that the
proceedings of taking over of specimen signatures
and handwriting from S-2896 to S-2898,
ExPW59/D-2 (colly) were taken during the
investigation by the IO and the same bear her
signatures on each pages at point ‘Y’.
237. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Sri Chand, Balam
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 113 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Singh Aswal, Narayan Diwakar and Mohan Lal
but not by any other accused persons despite the
opportunity being given to them.
Witnesses from the office of Registrar
Cooperative Society.
238. 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.
239. 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
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 114 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Assistant Registrar, and finally all proposals were
approved by the Registrar, RCS.
240. The prosecution has examined the relevant
officials/officers posted in the office of RCS,
during the relevant time to prove the the fast qua
dealing of the file pertaining to the said 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.
241. PW 1 is Sh Satya Prakash Sharma, he has
deposed that he remained posted as LDC in the
office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies w.e.f
September 2005 to December 2010 and remained
posted in the Audit Section. He has further
deposed that he had handed over one audit report
file of Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal
Undertaking Section, Officers CGHS (now, Shree
Naryana CGHS) to CBI vide seizure memo
ExPW1/A and it bear his signature at points A.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 115 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
He has exhibited the Audit file is ExPW1/PX.
242. This witness has not been cross examined by any
of the accused persons despite the opportunity
being given to them.
243. PW49 is Sh Anjum Masood he has deposed that
during the period from 23rd December, 2003 till
13.3.2006, he remained posted in the RCS office
as Assistant Registrar. He has deposed that he also
remained posted as Assistant Registrar (East) from
24.8.2004 to 1.1.2006 and had handed over
documents of the said society to CBI vide
production-cum-receipt memo dated 12.08.2005
ExPW49/A, which bear his signatures at point A
and the files pertaining to present society is
mentioned at serial no.2.
244. He has further deposed that file ExPW49/B (colly)
bear initials of the then AR(E) Sh.C. P Kashyap, at
points A on all the pages. He (PW49) has
identified signatures of Sh. C.P Kashyap, as he
was his (PW49) colleague and had seen him
signing and writing during the official course of
duties.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 116 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
245. He has deposed that file ExPW49/C (Colly) bear
initials of the then AR(E) C.P Kashyap at points A
on all the pages. He has deposed that file D-5
Vol. 1 ( containing pages 1 to 84) Ex PW49/D
(colly) bear the initials of the then AR(E) C.P
Kashyap at points A on all the pages.He has
deposed that file ExPW49/E(colly), bear the
initials of the then AR(E) C.P Kashyap at points A
on all the pages.
246. He has deposed that file ExPW49/F (colly), bear
the initials of the then AR(E) Sh. C.P Kashyap at
points A on all the pages. He has deposed that the
list of members of the said society ExPW40/B,
bear the signatures of accused Ramesh Chander
( proceedings already stand abated) at points B on
all the pages. He (PW49) has identified signatures
of accused Ramesh Chander as he is conversant
with his signatures and has seen him signing.
247. He has further deposed that letter dated
03.12.2003 ExPW38/G, bear signatures of accused
Ramesh Chandra ( proceedings already stand
abated) at points B on all the pages. He has
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 117 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
deposed that order dated 02.12.2003 ExPW49/G
( revival order and vide this accused B.S Aswal
was appointed as Election Officer, bear signatures
of accused Ramesh Chandra at points C on all the
pages.
248. He has deposed that list of members of the said
society ExPW49/G-1 (colly), bear signatures of
accused Ramesh Chandra ( proceedings already
stand abated) at points B on all the pages. He has
deposed that letter dated 19.03.2004,
ExPW49/G-2, bear signatures of accused
Ramesh Chandra( proceedings already stand
abated) at point B. He has deposed that Bye Laws
of Shree Narayan CGHS ExPW38/J, bear
signatures of accused Ramesh Chandra
(proceedings already stand abated) at points B on
all the papers.
249. He has further deposed that letter dated
19.03.2004 ExPW49/D, bear signatures of accused
Ramesh Chandra (proceedings already stand
abated) at points B . He has deposed that Bye
Laws of Shree Narayan CGHS ExPW2/C, bear
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 118 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
signatures of accused Ramesh Chandra
(proceedings already stand abated) at points B on
all the pages.
250. He has deposed that vide general body meeting
dated 17.6.1975, ExPW49/X the address of the
said society was shown to be changed from E-27,
Kamla Nagar to 499/D, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. In
the proceedings, it is also written that proceedings
of this meeting were sent to the RCS. He has
deposed that the letter ExPW49/XA addressed to
AR(E) ExPW49/XA, was sent to the RCS Office
showing change of address alongwith the copy of
MC resolution dated 18.06.1975
251. He has further deposed that vide GBM dated
20.10.1990 ExPW49/X-1, the address of the
society was shown to be changed from 499/D,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi B-1299, Gharoli Dairy Farm,
Delhi 96 and in the proceedings, it has also been
mentioned that the proceedings of the meeting
were sent to the RCS. The letter addressed to
AR(E), sent to the RCS office showing change of
address alongwith the copy of MC resolution
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 119 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
dated 20.10.1990, is ExPW49/X-2.
252. He has deposed that after going through the RCS
record, that the M.C Resolutions dated
20.10.1990, were sent alongwith the letters only
at the time of revival only and had it been sent at
the relevant dates, as mentioned therein, then the
same would have been reflected in the note sheets.
He has deposed that the note sheet file ExPW49/E
does not reflect any such noting.
253. He has deposed that the file ExPW49/E contains
note sheets and last note at page 9/N is dated
21.12.1978, and thereafter note sheet lying on the
record is dated 22.09.2003. He has deposed that
note sheet dated 22.09.2003 Ex PW 49 /E-1 was
initiated on the PUC received from accused
Vishwanath Agarwal, Secretary of Delhi Water
Supply and Sewaage Disposal Undertaking
Section Officers CGHS
254. He has identified the initials of accused Vinod
Kumar Bhardwaj at point A at page 11/N,
ExPW49/E-1, and deposed that thereafter the file
was marked to accused Ramesh Chandra
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 120 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
( proceedings already stand abated), the then AR.
He (PW49) has also identified signatures of
accused Ramesh Chandra (A-5, proceedings
already stand abated) appearing at points B & B-1
and that of accused Narayan Diwakar , the then
RCS at point C, on the said page. He has deposed
that he is well conversant with the signatures of
accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj , Ramesh
Chandra and Narayan Diwakar , as he has seen
them writing and signing in the official records
during his posting as Assistant Registrar in the
office of RCS and accused Vinod Kumar
Bhardwaj has even worked with him.
255. He has further deposed that thereafter the file was
put up for signing a letter of appointment of
accused Faiz Mohd, Grade II as Inspecting
Officer. The said note was put up by accused
Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj. He has identified
signatures of accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj at
point A and that of accused Ramesh Chandra
( proceedings already stand abated).
256. He has further deposed that note dated 30.10.2003,
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 121 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
ExPW49/E-2, was put up by accused Vinod
Kumar Bhardwaj and the note bears his (Vinod
Kumar Bhardwaj) signatures at point A beneath
the note. He has deposed that vide note
30.10.2003, ExPW49/E-2, the report was put up
by accused Faiz Mohd for consideration at page
12/N and a note ExPW49/E-3 was put up by
accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj for orders and
signatures of -accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj
appearing at point A beneath the noting dated
30.10.2003 and that of accused Ramesh Chandra
(A-5, proceedings already stand abated), the then
AR at point B beneath the said noting.
257. He has further deposed that the note dated
03.11.2003 ExPW49/E-3, was put up for the
revival of the society in view of the report
submitted and it bear signatures of accused
Narayan Diwakar the then RCS at point C. He has
deposed that the proceedings regarding the
society were proposed to be held on 11.11.2003
and on 11.11.2003, the proceedings of the society
were shown to be held. However, the proceedings
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 122 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
were adjourned for 27.11.2003. He has identified
the signatures of accused Narayan Diwakar at
point C beneath the noting dated 11.11.2003. He
has also identified signatures of accused Ramesh
Chandra ( proceedings already stand abated) at
point B on ExPW49/E-3, and deposed that he
(accused Ramesh Chandra) had put up the note
for verification of membership and said note is
dated 17.11.2003.
258. He has deposed that the note ExPW49/E-4, is
regarding the revival of the society. And the note
was put up by accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj.
He has identified signatures of accused Vinod
Kumar Bhardwaj at point A. He has deposed that
in the note ExPW49/E-4, a request for
withdrawal of liquidation order dated 26.11.1978
is mentioned for the revival of society and also for
approval of the list of members. He has deposed
that the said note was marked to accused Ramesh
Chandra. He has identified the signatures of
accused Ramesh Chandra at point B at page 23/N.
259. He has further deposed that accused Ramesh
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 123 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Chand, the then AR, put up the note dated
19.11.2003 ExPW49/E-4 for withdrawal of
liquidation order, revival and approval of list of
members. And on the note sheets ExPW49/E-5,
he has (PW49 Anjum Masood) has identified
signatures of accused Narayan Diwakar beneath
note dated 27.11.2003 .
260. He has deposed that note dated 02.12.2003 Ex
PW49/E-5, was marked to AR(E). He has
identified the signatures of the then AR accused
Ramesh Chandra appearing at point ‘B’. He has
deposed that at the margin on the note dated
2.12.2003, ExPW49/E-5, one note is appearing in
the handwriting of accused Vinod Kumar
Bhardwaj alongwith his initials and signatures
alongwith date at point A. The said note was
marked to accused Ramesh Chandra. He has
identified signatures of accused Ramesh Chandra
at point B on the said margin.
261. He has further deposed that note dated 03.12.2003
ExPW49/E-5 is in the handwriting of accused
Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj (A-7) and was put up for
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 124 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
preparing a fair letter for onward submission of
the freeze list of the society to AR(Policy) and
then to DDA. PW49 has identified initials of
accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj at point A
alongwith the date 03.12.2003 and
signatures/initials of accused Ramesh Chandra .
262. He has deposed that note dated 28.01.2004 Ex
PW49/E-5 was put up by accused Vinod Kumar
Bhardwaj and bear his initials/signatures at point
A and that of accused Ramesh Chandra at point
B. He has deposed that the note regarding change
of society ExPW49/E-5 was put up by accused
Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj and his initials
/signatures are beneath the note dated 21.02.2004.
The said note was marked to Ramesh Chandra.
He (PW49) has identified signatures of accused
Ramesh Chandra at point B on the said note and
that of the then RCS Narayan Diwakar at point C
regarding the approval of the aforesaid note.
263. He has further deposed that the note dated
19.03.2004 Ex PW 49/E-5, is in the handwriting
of accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj. He (PW49)
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 125 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
has identified signatures and initials of accused
Vinod Kumar at point A beneath the note dated
19.03.2004 and that of accused Ramesh Chandra
at point B. He has deposed that the letter dated
31.12.2003 alongwith proceedings regarding
holding of election by accused Balam Singh
Aswal , the Election Officer appointed to conduct
the election of the society, are ExPW49/E-6. He
has identified the signatures and initials at point B
of accused Ramesh Chandra ( proceedings already
stand abated) on the letter ExPW38/C ( placed at
page 257/C, D-6 Vol. IV ExPW49/C), regarding
forwarding of list of members to the AR (Policy).
264. He has further deposed that he has seen order
dated 20.10.2003.The said letter bears signatures
and initials of Ramesh Chandra ( proceedings
already stand abated)at point B . The said letter is
already ExPW38/A and is regarding appointment
of accused Faiz Mohd (A-4) as inspecting
Officer . He has deposed that letter dated
17.09.2003), bear signatures and initials of
accused Ramesh Chandra ( proceedings already
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 126 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
stand abated), at point B. The said letter is a
request for the revival of the society from accused
Vishwanath Agarwal. All the documents attached
with said letter are ExPW49/C-1.
265. He has further deposed that one order/letter dated
26.12.1978, Mark PW49/Y is there in the said file
having the signatures of R.L Khurana, whereby
one B.P Singh was appointed as liquidator of the
said society. He has deposed that the inspection
report 27.10.2003 ExPW49/F, bear signatures
and initials of accused Ramesh Chandra
( proceedings already stand abated) at point B. He
(PW49) has identified signatures/initials of
accused Faiz Mohd at point E on both the pages
and same are ExPW49/F-1 (collectively).
266. He has deposed that in the said inspection report
it is written in para IX that the society was not
functioning since long and it was liquidated vide
order dated 13.11.1976. He has further deposed
that in file ExPW49/D in the proceedings dated
17.06.1975, there is a mention regarding change of
address from Kamla Nagar to Gandhi Nagar but
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 127 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
the said intimation regarding the change of
address is not apparent in the note sheets.
267. He has further deposed that as per letter dated
21.10.1990, ExPW49/D, there is a mention of
change of address from Gandhi Nagar, Delhi to
Gharoli Dairy Farms and said intimation appears
to have been made at the time of revival of the
society. Because there is no note sheet in the RCS
file after 1978 and no other copies of the said
letter are available in the RCS office. He has
deposed that the revival order dated 02.12.2003,
ExPW38/E bear signatures of accused Narayan
Diwakar (A-6), at point C.
268. He has deposed that one copy of bye laws
ExPW2/C bears signatures /initials of accused
Ramesh Chandra ( proceedings already stand
abated) at point B on all the pages. He has
deposed that letter dated 03.02.2004 ExPW38/D,
bear signatures/initials of accused Ramesh
Chandra at point B. He hass deposed that letter
dated 27.01.2004, regarding the change of name of
the society and for approval of new model of bye
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 128 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
laws of the society ExPW49/D-1, also bear
signatures/initials accused Ramesh Chandra at
point B on the said letter.
269. He has further deposed that the note sheet file
does not reflect any proceedings as shown in the
photocopy of proceedings dated 17.06.1975,
20.10.1990, 05.08.2003, 14.09.2003 and
15.09.2003 placed in file D-4. There is no mention
of other proceedings which are available in other
files Volume I to Volume V in the note sheet file
of RCS. Similarly, regarding change of name and
address is also not reflected in the previous note
sheet file as the note sheet portion after 1978 starts
from 2003.
270. This witness has not been cross examined by any
of the accused person despite the opportunity
being given to them.
271. PW50 is Sh.V.K Bansal, he has deposed that he
remained posted in the office of Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, Delhi and he is conversant
with Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 and
Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 129 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
272. He has further deposed that there is no provision
in respect of reconstruction of the file in DCS Act
and Rules, but, as per practice the file is
reconstructed by collecting the documents from
the department as well as from the society. And in
case of loss of record of society in the office of
RCS, a file can be reconstructed after obtaining
the documents of the society from the society as
well as from the concerned departments with the
approval of RCS..
273. He has deposed that the only provision regarding
the revival of society is u/s 63 (3) of DCS Act and
there is no other provision regarding the revival of
the society and re-approval of the list of members.
He has further deposed that for registration of a
co-operative society with the RCS office, a
promoter member is required to move an
application in this regard in the office of RCS.
274. He has deposed that only Chief Promoter Member
can be authorized to file an application u/s 7 of
DCS Act, 1972 r/w Rule 6 DCS Rules, 1973 for
registration of a society u/s 9 DCS Act, 1972. The
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 130 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
application should accompany the various
documents viz., four copies of Bye Laws, List of
Promoter Members, Financial Statement of the
Bank, Resolution passed by the promoter
members, affidavit from the promoter members,
bank statement of the promoter members, the
scheme of the society and declaration from the
members that their spouse and dependent have no
dwelling property in their names in the NCR and
Delhi etc. and that they are not dealing in the
business of sale-purchase of properties.
275. He has deposed that as far as enrollment of any
member in the society, a resolution to this effect
has to be passed by the society and it should be
conveyed to the office of RCS after its enrollment.
He has further deposed that in case of a
resignation of a member from the society, a
resolution is required to be passed in the
Management Committee of the society and its
copy should be forwarded by the Management of
the society to the office of RCS within a stipulated
period of 7 days and later on it was enhanced to 15
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 131 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
days. The intimation of the resignation of a
member is also required to be given to the
concerned applicant
276. He has further deposed that after receipt of
proposal from the society, the office of Registrar
approves the freeze list of members of the society
and forward the same to the DDA for allotment of
land. He has deposed that once the freeze list is
approved by RCS, its number cannot be increased
or decreased without the approval of the RCS.
277. He has deposed that as per Section 53 of DCS Act,
1972 r/w Rule 84 of DCS Rules, 1973, the audit of
the society is to be conducted every year after
closing accounts within six months. The audit of
the society should be conducted in the office of
the society. He has deposed that audit of the
society is to be conducted by RCS or office of the
RCS from the panel of the auditors maintained in
the office of RCS. The auditors are appointed with
the approval of the RCS.
278. He has deposed that an auditor has to see the
books of accounts and the records maintained by
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 132 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
the society including the statement of account of
the bank where the account of the society has been
maintained. He has deposed that with the approval
of the Registrar, the audit of a society for the
period more than three years can be ordered by the
Assistant Registrar (Audit).
279. He has further deposed that election should be
conducted in the society and the elected members
are retired from their respective posts after every
three years. Schedule to Rules 58 of DCS Rules
provides for conducting the elections of society.
280. He has deposed that the General Body Meeting
should be conducted by the society within six
months after closing the accounts. The agenda
regarding holding of GBM etc. are to be intimated
to the RCS office. He has deposed that a Registrar
Cooperative Societies may get the inspection of
the society done u/s 54 of DCS Act, 1972 from
any official of office of RCS. Assistant Registrar
has no power to order inspection of the Society.
281. He has further deposed that seniority of a society
is maintained as per registration number of the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 133 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
society and as per the amended RCS Rule 6 (l)(d),
the norms of membership in respect of CGHS are
minimum member-60, share capital-Rs 60,000/-,
area of operation-NCT. He has further deposed
that after 1985, the registration of CGHS was not
done as the DDA was not able to provide land
even to the already registered societies. DDA after
receipt of documents from the society and after
processing it in the RCS office used to provide
land after following the procedure.
282. He has further deposed that in the year 2004,
after receipt of 135 CGHS from RCS office,
advertisement was made in the newspaper and was
published on three occasions. The members of
few of the societies filed the affidavits and
verifications etc. He has deposed that generally,
consecutive audits and elections of a defunct
society pending for many years could not be done
and usually the concerned UDC in the office of
RCS is the custodian of a file
283. He has further deposed that as per section 31 of
DCS Act,1972, societies are required to conduct
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 134 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
election of the members of MC of the society at
least once in every three years and other relevant
provision regarding holding election is mentioned
in Rule 58 (3) of DCS Rules, 1972. He has
deposed that as per the Act, election officer
conducts election of the society within 60 days
from his appointment and audit of the society is
mandatory.
284. He has deposed that as per rules, an audit of the
society is to be conducted at least once in a year
and the audit is to be conducted in the office of the
society unless otherwise directed by the RCS. The
auditor has to look into the balance sheet, profit &
loss accounts and other bank details of the society.
285. He has further deposed that in case a society is
not conducting audit, election etc., it can be
treated as dis-functional as per DCS Act and Rules
and proceedings for winding up can be started.
Winding up order of the society can be issued u/s
63(2) of DCS Act, 1972. He has deposed that
after winding up order, a liquidator is appointed
by the Registrar u/s 66 DCS Act and DCS Rule
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 135 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
95, the provision regarding winding up is
contained in Rule 105. The final report is sent by
the liquidator and thereafter on the basis of the
report society is wound up if it is still not
functioning. The registrar may consider the report
of the auditor and order for the cancellation of the
society.
286. He has further deposed that Section 63 (3) of the
DCS Act, 1972 deals with the cancellation of
winding up order of the society. If the application
for revival is received, then the inspecting officer
is appointed firstly to conduct the inspection and
to submit the report. Thereafter, the proceedings
are initiated in the court of RCS and thereupon if a
case is made, then, society is revived.
287. He has deposed that vide two seizure memos dated
31.08.2005, ExPW50/A & ExPW50/B, which
bear his signatures at points A, he had handed over
the documents mentioned therein to CBI. He has
deposed that letters ExPW50/C and both dated
25.03.2004, bears signatures of Yogi Raj at points
A on both letters.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 136 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
288. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Narayan Diwakar, but has not been
cross examined by any of the accused persons
despite the opportunity being given to them.
289. PW52 is Sh Vishwamitra Bhagi, he has deposed
that in the year 2006, he was posted as
Administrative Officer in the office of RCS,
Parliament Street, Delhi and is a witness of taking
over of specimen signatures of persons in this
case.
290. He has deposed that the specimen signatures S-1
to S-14 (D-26) ExPW52/A, were given by
accused Sri Chand in the office of CBI and it
bear his (PW52) signatures/initials as a witness at
points A on all the pages. He has further deposed
that the specimen signatures S-570 to S-596
ExPW52/A-1, were given by accused Vishwanath
Agarwal in the office of CBI and it bear his
(PW52) signatures/initials as a witness at points A
on all the pages.
291. He has deposed that the specimen signatures
S-1998 to S-2739 (D-28) ExPW52/A-2, were
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 137 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
given by accused Mohan Lal in the office of CBI
and it bear his (PW52) signatures/initials as a
witness at points A on all the pages. He has further
deposed that the specimen signatures S-2152 to
S-2166 (D-29) ExPW52/A-3, were given by
accused Faiz Mohd in the office of CBI and it
bear his (PW52) signatures/initials as a witness at
points A on all the pages
292. He has deposed that the specimen signatures S
2185 to S 2191 (D-30) ExPW52/A-4, were given
by accused Balam Singh Aswal in the office of
CBI and it bear his (PW52) signatures/initials as a
witness at points A on all the pages. He has further
deposed that the specimen signatures S-2784 to
S-2850 (D-31) ExPW52/A-5 (colly), were given
by accused P.K Thirwani in the office of CBI and
it bear his (PW52) signatures/initials as a witness
at points A on all the pages.
293. He has further deposed that the specimen
signatures S-2239 to S-2247 (D-33) ExPW52/A-6,
were given by one Ramesh Tolaram Bakhru in
the office of CBI and it bear his (PW52)
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 138 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
signatures/initials as a witness at points A on all
the pages. He has deposed that the specimen
signatures S-2255 to S-2262 (D-35)
ExPW14/D,were given by PW14 Basheshwar Lal
Singhal in the office of CBI and it bear his
(PW52) signatures/initials as a witness at points A
on all the pages.
294. He has further deposed that the specimen
signatures S-2263 to S-2271(D-36) ExPW52/A-7
(colly), were given by Dwarka Nath Sangwan in
the office of CBI and it bear his (PW52)
signatures/initials as a witness at points A on all
the pages. He has deposed that the specimen
signatures S-2272 to S-2280 (D-37) ExPW13/A,
were given by Kapil Dev Dewan (PW13) in the
office of CBI and it bear his (PW52)
signatures/initials as a witness at points A on all
the pages.
295. He has deposed that the specimen signatures
S-2282 to S-2288 (D-38) ExPW52/A-8 (colly),
were given by Satya PrakashVohra, in the office
of CBI and it bear his (PW52) signatures/initials
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 139 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
as a witness at points A on all the pages. He has
further deposed that the specimen signatures
S-2289 to S-2295 (D-39) ExPW15/E, were given
by Devender Kumar Jain (PW15) in the office of
CBI and it bear his (PW52) signatures/initials as a
witness at points A on all the pages.
296. He has deposed that the specimen signatures
S-2296 to S-2300 (D-40) ExPW19/D, were given
by Laxmi Narain Kapoor (PW19) in the office of
CBI and it bear his (PW52) signatures/initials as a
witness at points A on all the pages. He has
deposed that the specimen signatures S-2308 to
S-2314 (D-41) ExPW18/D, were given by Suresh
Chand Gupta (PW18), in the office of CBI and it
bear his (PW52) signatures/initials as a witness at
points A on all the pages.
297. He has deposed that the specimen signatures
S-2315 to S-2319 (D-42) ExPW20/D, were given
by Siraj Hussain (PW20) , in the office of CBI and
it bear his (PW52) signatures/initials as a witness
at points A on all the pages. He has deposed that
the specimen signatures S-2320 to S-2326
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 140 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
(D-43) ExPW52/A-9 (colly), were given by Siri
Ram Khanna, in the office of CBI and it bear his
(PW52) signatures/initials as a witness at points A
on all the pages.
298. He has further deposed that the specimen
signatures S-2327 to S-2331 (D-44) ExPW21/D,
were given by Ramesh Chawla (PW21), in the
office of CBI and it bear his (PW52)
signatures/initials as a witness at points A on all
the pages. He has deposed that the specimen
signatures S-2340 to S-2344 (D-45) ExPW25/E,
were given by Ashok Kumar Kohli (PW25), in the
office of CBI and it bear his (PW52)
signatures/initials as a witness at points A on all
the pages.
299. He has deposed that the specimen signatures
S-2352 to S-2355 (D-46) ExPW52/A-10 (colly),
were given by Saroj Taneja, in the office of CBI
and it bear his (PW52) signatures/initials as a
witness at points A on all the pages. He has
deposed that the specimen signatures S-2366 to
S-2370 (D-47) ExPW52/A-11 (colly), were given
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 141 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
by Jitender Soni voluntarily without any pressure,
in the office of CBI and it bear his (PW52)
signatures/initials as a witness at points A on all
the pages.
300. He has further deposed that the specimen
signatures S-2381 to S-2383 (D-48) ExPW11/D,
were given by Sunil Jain (PW11), in the office of
CBI and it bear his (PW52) signatures/initials as a
witness at points A on all the pages.
301. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal and Sri Chand and
not by rest of the accused person despite the
opportunity being given to them.
302. PW53 is Sh Handu Baa, he has deposed that he was
posted in RCS office as an Assistant Registrar
(Central), New Delhi Zone, since March 2006. And in
the year 2007, he had given the information regarding
some officials of RCS to the CBI. He has deposed that
he gave information after going through the original
office record in the RCS office. He has identified his
signatures at point A on the letter dated 24.04.2007,
ExPW53/A, it contains information regarding R.L
Khanna and B.P Singh.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 142 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
303. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal and Balam Singh
Aswal and not by rest of the accused person
despite the opportunity being given to them.
304. PW55 is Sh Rajender Singh Rawat, he has
deposed that in the year 2007, he was working as
UDC in the office of RCS. He handed over certain
documents pertaining to the said society to CBI.
305. He has further deposed that vide seizure memo
dated 24.04.2007, ExPW55/A, he had handed over
the documents i.e letters, list and bye laws etc, as
mentioned in the seizure memo to the Inspector,
CBI. He has further deposed that the documents
which he handed over are placed in file D-8 and
D-25.
306. He has deposed that the letter dated 03.12.2003
ExPW38/G bear signatures of accused Ramesh
Chandra ( proceedings already stand abated ) at
point B. He (PW55) has identified signatures of
accused as per official record maintained in the
office of RCS. He has further deposed that copy of
order dated 02.12.2003 ExPW49/G bear
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 143 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
signatures of accused Narayan Diwakar , the then
RCS at point C and it was also handed over by
him to the CBI.
307. He has deposed that the list of verification of
membership of said society ExPW49/G-1
collectively, bear signatures of accused Ramesh
Chandra ( proceedings already stand abated), the
then AR, at point B. He has deposed that letter
dated 19.03.2004 ExPW49/G-2, bear signatures of
accused Ramesh Chandra ( proceedings already
stand abated), at point B. Vide this letter,
approval of proposed amendment i.e new name of
the society, was intimated to the society. The
amended copy of the Bye Laws are appearing at
page 261/ C to 250/C ExPW38/J, and it also
bears signatures of accused Ramesh Chandra
(proceedings already stand abated) at points B on
all the pages.
308. This witness has not been cross examined by any
of the accused person, despite the opportunity
being given to them.
309. PW74 is Sh Braham Pal, he has deposed that he
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 144 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
was never appointed as a Liquidator in the present
case, as shown vide order dated 26.12.1978 Mark
PW49/Y.
310. This witness has not been cross examined by any
of the accused person, despite the opportunity
being given to them.
Sanctioning Authority
311. In the present case, accused Balam Singh
Aswal, Faiz Mohd. Ramesh Chandra, Narayan
Diwakar, Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj and Prahlad
Kumar Thirwani, are the public servants. At the
conclusion of the investigation they have also
been charge-sheeted. Since they were the public
servants, hence requisite sanction u/s 19 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was obtained
by the IO only for accused Balam Singh Aswal,
P.K. Thirwani and Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj. The
authorities which had accorded the sanction to
prosecute the above named accused persons, have
been examined as prosecution witnesses, which
are as under:
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 145 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
312. PW 16 is Sh Baleshwar Rai, Secretary ( retired)
Government of India, he has deposed that during
2006, he received an investigation report from the CBI
regarding grant of sanction in respect of accused
Balam Singh Aswal, the then LDC, posted in the
office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, New
Delhi. He has deposed that on receipt of the CBI
report, he has perused the report and the appended
calender of evidence both documentary as well as oral
to form a view to sanction prosecution of accused
Balam Singh Aswal under the relevant provisions of
Prevention of Corruption Act. He has depsoed that
after carefully considering all the facts placed before
him, he accorded the sanction to prosecute -accused
Balam Singh Aswal vide sanction order dated
25.06.2007 ExPW16/A
313. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of the accused Balam Singh Aswal, but not by rest
of the accused persons despite the opportunity
being given to them.
314. PW17 is Sh Ramesh Narayanaswami,who has
deposed that in December 2006-2007, he was
posted as Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 146 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Delhi. He has deposed that he has received an
investigation report from the CBI regarding grant of
sanction in respect of accused Prahlad Kumar.
Thirwani,who was earlier posted as Sr. Auditor in the
office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, New
Delhi. He has deposed that on receipt of the CBI
report, he perused the report and the appended
calender of evidence both documentary as well as oral
to form a view to sanction prosecution against accused
P.K Thirwani vide sanction order dated 22.06.2007
ExPW17/A.
315. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of the accused P.K. Thirwani, but not by rest of
the accused persons despite the opportunity being
given to them.
316. PW71 Neeraj Kumar, has deposed that he was posted
in Delhi Home Guards in the year 2007 as Director
General and was competent to give sanction for
prosecution to anyone posted as UDC in the
organization i.e. Delhi Home Guards.
317. He has deposed that in the present case, the CBI had
approached for grant of sanction to prosecute accused
Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj who was posted as UDC in
Delhi Home Guards. He has deposed that sanction
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 147 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
order dt. 13.07.2007 ExPW71/A, bear his signatures at
points A and his seal at points B on each page of the
sanction order. He has deposed that he went through
the case file and all the material put before him for
considering the grant of sanction.
318. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
the accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, but not by rest of
the accused persons despite the opportunity being
given to them.
Witness from DDA
319. 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.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 148 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
But in the present case, it is not the case of the
prosecution that land was ever allotted to the
society by the DDA.
320. 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:
321. PW10 is Sh. K.G Kashyap, who has deposed that
as Dy. Director (GH) he was to look after
allotment of land of Group Housing Societies on
the basis of list of approved members forwarded to
DDA by the office of RCS. He has deposed that
the letter dated 12.05.2006 (D-11(II)) ExPW10/A
was issued under his signatures to Inspector
L.Hanshing vide which he had provided the letter
dated 25.03.2004, received from AR(Policy) of
RCS office including the name of Shri Narayan
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 149 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
CGHS.
322. This witness was not cross examined by any of
the accused persons despite opportunity being
given to them.
323. PW40 is Sh Anil Kumar Sharma, he has deposed
that in the year 2006, he was posted in DDA in the
office of Dy. Director (GH), Vikas Sadan Delhi.
He has deposed that he has visited the CBI office
and had handed over the original list of members
of the said society ExPW40/B and list of
members of the aforesaid society, vide collection
memo dated 17.05.2006 ExPW40/A, which bear
his signatures at point A.
324. This witness was not cross examined by any of
the accused persons despite opportunity being
given to them.
Expert witness.
325. During the course of investigation certain
specimen and disputed writings/signatures were
sent to GEQD for examination by the CBI to
establish the case of forgery and role of accused
persons who committed the forgery. Prosecution
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 150 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
has examined PW 59 Sh T. Joshi, an expert to
prove the handwriting expert report ExPW59/B
( colly).
326. PW 59 is Sh T. Joshi, Scientist-B CFSL,
Chandigarh. He has deposed that the documents
of this case consisted of questioned writings &
specimen writings were received in his office at
Chandigarh from SP-CBI, EOW-II, New Delhi
vide letter no. 3.23 (E)/2005/EOU-II/DLI/11171
dt. 15.12.2006 ExPW59/A,
S/23(E)/2005/EOU.II/DLI/664 dt. 03.02.2007
ExPW59/A-1 and 3/23
(E)/2005/EOU-II/DLI/1244 dt. 04.03.2007 Ex
PW59/A-2 . The letters alongwith the documents
were received in their office on 19.12.2007,
06.02.2007 and 15.03.2007 respectively.
327. He has further deposed that after careful and
thorough examination, he came to the conclusion
which is expressed in the GEQD opinion report
bearing no. CD592/2006 dated 30.03.2007 (D-62
running into 8 pages ). The reasons for the said
opinion were also given which were also annexed
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 151 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
alongwith the said GEQD report. The GEQD
opinion report alongwith the reasons is
collectively ExPW59/B and bear his signatures at
points A on all the pages.
328. He has further deposed that Sh.I.K Arora, the then
Dy. GEQD had also examined the documents
independently and came to the same conclusion.
He (PW59) has identified signatures of I.K Arora,
the then Dy. GEQD at point B on the opinion
ExPW59/B, being conversant with the same as he
(PW59) has seen him writing and signing during
the official course of duties. He has deposed that
the opinion ExPW59/B, was sent to CBI vide
cover letter dated 13.04.2007 ExPW59/C bearing
signatures of I.K Arora, the then Dy. GEQD at
point B.
329. He has deposed that the specimen document
(D-26) containing the specimen handwriting
sheets of accused Sri Chand from S-1 to S-14
ExPW52/A, bear his office stamp alongwith
opinion number at point X on all the pages. He has
further deposed that the specimen document
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 152 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
(D-27) containing the specimen handwriting
sheets of accused Vishwanath Agarwal from
S-570 to S-596 ExPW52/A-1, bear his office
stamp alongwith opinion number at point X on all
the pages.
330. He has deposed that the specimen document
(D-29) containing the specimen handwriting
sheets of accused Faiz Mohd from S-2152 to
S-2166 ExPW52/A-3, bear his office stamp
alongwith opinion number at point X on all the
pages. He has deposed that the specimen
document (D-30) containing the specimen
handwriting sheets of accused Balam Singh
Aswal from S-2185 to S-2191 ExPW52/A-4, bear
his office stamp alongwith opinion number at
point X on all the pages.
331. He has deposed that the specimen document
(D-31) containing the specimen handwriting
sheets of accused P.K Thirwani from S-2784 to
S-2850 ExPW52/A-5, bear his office stamp
alongwith opinion number at point X on all the
pages. He has deposed that the specimen
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 153 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
document (D-32) containing the specimen
handwriting sheets of Raj Kanwar Jain (PW2)
from S-2233 to S-2238 ExPW2/F, bear his office
stamp alongwith opinion number at point X on all
the pages.
332. He has deposed that the specimen document
(D-33) containing the specimen handwriting
sheets of Ramesh Tola Ram from S-2239 to
S-2247 ExPW52/A-6, bear his office stamp
alongwith opinion number at point X on all the
pages. He has further deposed that the specimen
document (D-34) containing the specimen
handwriting sheets of Bhag Chand K. Banwari
(PW61) from S-2248 to S-2254 ExPW59/D colly,
bear his office stamp alongwith opinion number at
point X on all the pages.
333. He has further deposed that the specimen
document (D-35) containing the specimen
handwriting sheets of Basheshar Lal Singhal
(PW14) from S-2255 to S-2262 ExPW14/D, bear
his office stamp alongwith opinion number at
point X on all the pages. He has deposed that the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 154 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
specimen document (D-36) containing the
specimen handwriting sheets of Dwarka Nath
Salwan from S-2263 to S-2271 ExPW52/A-7, bear
his office stamp alongwith opinion number at
point X on all the pages.
334. He has deposed that the specimen document
(D-37) containing the specimen handwriting
sheets of Kapil Dev Diwan (PW13) from
S-2272 to S-2281 ExPW13/E, bear his office
stamp alongwith opinion number at point X on all
the pages. He has further deposed that the
specimen document (D-38) containing the
specimen handwriting sheets of Satya Prakash
Vohra from S-2282 to S-2288 ExPW52/A-8,
bear his office stamp alongwith opinion number
at point X on all the pages.
335. He has further deposed that the specimen
document (D-39) containing the specimen
handwriting sheets of Devender Kumar Jain
(PW15) from S-2289 to S-2295 ExPW15/E, bear
his office stamp alongwith opinion number at
point X on all the pages. He has deposed that the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 155 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
specimen document (D-40) containing the
specimen handwriting sheets of Laxmi Narain
Kapoor (PW19) from S-2296 to S-2307 Ex
PW19/D, bear his office stamp alongwith opinion
number at point X on all the pages.
336. He has deposed that the specimen document
(D-41) containing the specimen handwriting
sheets of Suresh Chand Gupta (PW18) from
S-2308 to S-2314 ExPW18/D, bear his office
stamp alongwith opinion number at point X on all
the pages. He has further deposed that the
specimen document (D-42) containing the
specimen handwriting sheets of Siraj Hussain
(PW20) from S-2315 to S-2319 ExPW20/E, bear
his office stamp alongwith opinion number at
point X on all the pages.
337. He has deposed that the specimen document
(D-43) containing the specimen handwriting
sheets of Ram Khanna from S-2320 to S-2326
ExPW52/A-9, bears his office stamp alongwith
opinion number at point X on all the pages.
338. He has deposed that the documents D-44, D-45,
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 156 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
D-46, D-47, D-48, D-49, D-50, D-51, D-52 and
D-53 containing the specimen handwritings of
Ramesh Chawla (PW21), Ashok Kumar Kohli
(PW25), Saroj Taneja (PW58), Jitender Soni @
Rakesh Soni (PW60), Sunil Jain (PW11) ,
Yudhisthir Raj Mehta (PW22), Mahesh Kumar
Verma (PW12), Krishan Kumar, Raj Kumar
Mittal and Pushpa Devi from S-2327 to S-2889
respectively, ExPW21/D, ExPW25/E,
ExPW52/A-10, ExPW52/A-11, ExPW11/D,
ExPW22/D, ExPW12/D, ExPW32/A, ExPW32/B
and ExPW31/A, contains his office stamp
alongwith opinion number at point X on all the
pages.
339. He has further deposed that the specimen
documents D-54,D-55, D-56, D-57, D-58, D-59,
D-60 and D-61 containing the specimen
handwritings of Uma Devi (PW30) from S-2893
to S-2895 ExPW59/D-1, Kavita (PW76) from
S-2896 to S-2898, ExPW59/D-2, Mukesh
Agarwal S-2900 to S-2903 ExPW32/C, Teja Devi
from S-2907 to S-2909 ExPW59/D-3, Sangeeta
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 157 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Devi (PW63) from S-2910 to S-2917
ExPW58/D-4 (colly), Dayanand Gupta (PW75)
from S-2922 to S-2923 ExPW32/D, Saroj from
(PW64) S-2924 to S-2926 ExPW59/D-5 (colly),
Babu Lal (PW65) from S-2927 to S-2932
ExPW32/E, contains his office stamp alongwith
opinion number at point X on all the pages.
340. He has further deposed that file D-6 ExPW49/C,
contains the admitted signatures from A-1 to A-39
and admitted signatures A-2 are ExPW2/A , A-4
ExPW14/A, A-5 ExPW13/A, A-8 ExPW15/A,
A-10 ExPW20/A, A-11 ExPW18/A, A-12
ExPW19/A, A-13 ExPW21/A, A-16 A-17
ExPW2/B , A-20 A-21 ExPW14/B, A-22 A-23
ExPW13/B, A-28 A-29 ExPW15/B, A-32 A-33
ExPW20/B, A34 A-35 ExPW18/B, A-36 A-37
ExPW19/B, and A-38 A-39 are ExPW21/B .
Rest of the applications from A-1 to A-30-A31
are ExPW59/D-6 to ExPW59/D-15 respectively.
341. He has deposed that the writings/signatures Q-1
to Q-1133 (D-2) ExPW49/B bear CFSL stamp
alongwith the CFSL opinion number alongwith
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 158 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
with the said questioned marking. The documents
from page 397 to 387 are ExPW34/C, ExPW2/E,
ExPW58/D, ExPW57/D. Documents from 386 to
223 are photocopy of application forms containing
Q mark from Q-21 to Q-185 and are collectively
ExPW59/D-16, except applications at page 366
(ExPW61/D); page 282 ExPW23/A; page 277
ExPW60/A; page 276 ExPW25/A; page 273
ExPW26/A; page 271 ExPW27/A; page 270
ExPW34/A; page 269 ExPW28/A; page 268
ExPW58/A; page 267 ExW12/A; page 262
ExPW11/A; page 261 ExPW51/A; page 257
ExPW29/A; page 256 ExPW30/A; page 245
ExPW57/A; page 231 ExPW33/A .
342. He has further deposed that the photocopy of
receipts containing Q marks from Q-186 to Q-468
are appearing from page 218 to 164 containing
CFSL, stamp at points X on all the pages. The
said receipts are collectively ExPW59/D-17
except the receipts at page 200 ExPW15/J; page
181 ExPW60/B; page 180 ExPW26/B; page 179
ExPW27/B; page 178 ExPW58/B page 176
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 159 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
ExPW11/B & ExPW51/B; page 175 ExPW58/B;
page 171 ExPW57/B; page 166 ExPW33/B.
343. He has deposed that that affidavits containing Q
marks from Q 469 to Q 1133 are appearing from
page 165 to 1 containing CFSL stamp at points X
on all the pages. The affidavits are collectively
ExPW59/D-18 except the affidavits at page 162
ExPW2/D; page 157 ExPW24/C; page 145
ExPW61/C; page 137 ExPW14/C; page 132
ExPw13/C, page 110 ExPW15/C, page 99
ExPW20/C; page 97 ExPW18/C; page 95
ExPW19/C; page 70 ExPW22/C; page 64
ExPW21/C; page 59 ExPW23/C; page 54
ExPW60/C; page 51 ExPW25/C; page 50
ExPW26/C; page 46 PW27/C; page 47
ExPW34/B; page 46 ExPW28/B,; page 45
ExPW58/C; page 44 ExPW12/C; page 39
ExPW11/C; page 36 ExPW51/C; page 35
ExPW29/C; page 34 ExPW30/B, page 23
ExPW57/C and page 9 ExPW33/C.
344. He has deposed that the questioned writings and
the signatures marked Q1134 t o Q 2030 and Q
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 160 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
1591 A in D-3 (Audit report file) ExPW1/PX-E
(colly); Q 2031 to Q 2811 and Q 2314 A
inspection report file (D-4 Vol.3) ExPW49/F
(colly); Q2812 to Q3392 (D-5 Vol. 1 file of Delhi
water supply) ExPW49/D; Q3393 to Q3437 (D-10
approve list of 165 members of society)
ExPW40/B (colly); Q3438 to Q3449 (D-6 vol. 4
file of Delhi water supply) ExPW39/C(colly); Q
3450 to Q3529 (D-7 Vol.5) ExPW49/F (colly),
contain stamp of GEQD and the marking is
written on each stamp.
345. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Sri Chand, Balam
Singh,Narayan Diwakar and Mohan Lal, but not
by rest of the accused persons despite the
opportunity being given to them.
Other Witnesses
346. 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
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 161 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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 Postman who have reported about the
envelope being sent to different persons. Those
persons, so summoned, by the CBI have been
examined as prosecution witnesses which are as
under:-
347. PW 3 is Sh Raja Ram, who has deposed that in
the year 2006, he was posted at Uttam Nagar Post
office, as Postman and remained there till 2010
and was looking after beat no15, Om Vihar area
which falls under the jurisdiction of Uttam Nagar.
He has deposed that the envelope ExPW3/A
addressed to Smt. Shakuntala Devi w/o Sh. Murari
Lal r/o D-26, Om Vihar Phase-V, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi, was marked to him for delivery, but
the same could not be delivered due to non
availability of person as no person by such name
was residing there. He has made an endorsement
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 162 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
” No such person” to this effect on the back of the
envelope encircled in red at point X on 26.04.2006
and it bear his signatures at point X-1.
348. This witness has been cross examined on
behalf of accused Vishwanath, but not by rest of
the accused person, despite the opportunity being
given to them.
349. PW4 is Sh Harkesh , he has deposed that in the
year 2006, he was posted at Najafgarh Post Office
as Postman and remained there till February 2013.
He was looking after the whole area of village
paprawat. He has further deposed that the
envelope Ex PW4/A addressed to Sh. Sunil
Kumar, S/O Sh. Chander Pal r/o Village Paprawat,
Najafgarh, New Delhi, was marked to him for
delivery. But could not be delivered because of
non mentioning of house number and pole
number. He has deposed that he made an
endorsement to this effect on the back of the
envelope encircled in red at point X on 28.11.2006
and it bear his signatures at point X-1. The
envelope was returned to the CBI undelivered.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 163 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
350. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath, but not by rest of the
accused person, despite the opportunity being
given to them.
351. PW5 is Kuldeep Singh, who has deposed that in
the year 2006, he was posted at Khera Kalan Post
Office as Postman and was looking after the area
of Khera Khurd. He has deposed that the envelope
ExPW5/A addressed to Sh. Hawa Singh s/o Sh.
Rajbir Singh r/o 328, Khera Khurd, Delhi was
marked to him for delivery. But, same could not
be delivered due to non availability of person as
no person by such name was residing there. He
made an endorsement ‘No such person’ to this
effect on the back of the envelope encircled in red
at point X on ‘27.04’ and it bear his signatures at
point X-1.
352. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath, but not by rest of the
accused person, despite the opportunity being
given to them.
353. PW 6 is Sh Phool Kumar, he has deposed that in
the year 2006, he was posted at Malika Ganj Post
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 164 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Office as Postman and was looking after the area
of Subzi Mandi, Prem Nagar, Shakti Nagar Delhi
which was falling under beat no.10. He has
deposed that the envelope Ex.PW6/A addressed
to Sh. Chakra Dhar s/o Sh. Chandershekhar r/o
7661, Subzi Mandi, Delhi 07 was marked to him
for delivery, but, same could not be delivered due
to non availability of person as no person by such
name was residing there. He has deposed that he
made an endorsement that ‘No such person’ to
this effect on the back of the envelope encircled in
red at point X on 26.04.2006 and it bear his
signatures at point X-1. He has further deposed
that he has also visited the said address on
22.04.2006, 24.04.2006 & 25.04.2006,
endorsement is at point X-2. The envelope was
returned to CBI undelivered.
354. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath, but not by rest of the
accused person, despite the opportunity being
given to them.
355. PW7 is Sh Hira Lal, he has deposed that in the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 165 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
year 2006, he was posted at Malka Ganj Post
Office as Postman and was looking after the area
of Mohkim Pura, Subzi Mandi, Soura Kothi Delhi.
Which was falling under Beat No.24. He has
further deposed that the envelope, Ex PW7/A
addressed to Sh. Kishan Singh, S/O Sh. Avtar
Singh Nanda, R/O 517 Subzi Mandi Delhi 07, was
marked to him for delivery, but, same could not be
delivered due to non availability of person, as no
person by such name was residing there. He has
deposed that he made an endorsement ‘No such
person is residing there as the address founds to be
a mandir’ on the back of the envelope encircled in
red at point X on 22.04.2006 and it bear his
signatures at point X-1. The envelope was
returned to CBI undelivered .
356. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath, Shri Chand, Balam Singh
and Mohan Lal but not by rest of the accused
person, despite the opportunity being given to
them.
357. PW8 is Sh Kubhushan, he has deposed that in
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 166 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
the year 2006, he was posted at Malka Ganj Post
Office, Delhi as Postman and was looking after
the area of Kishan Ganj Railway Quarters which
was falling under Beat No. 30. He has deposed
that the envelope Ex PW8/A addressed to Sh.
Tarlochan Singh Kapoor s/o Sh. Avtar Singh
Kapoor, R/O 230/9 Kishan Ganj, Delhi -07, was
marked to him for delivery. But, same could not
be delivered as no such address had existed in the
said area. He has made an endorsement ‘Not for
Delhi-07, Try Delhi -06’ to this effect on the back
of the envelope encircled in red at point X on
22.04.2006 and it bear his signatures at point X-1.
He has deposed that the postman of Delhi-06, also
made an endorsement on 24.04.2006 ‘ Not for
Delhi-06’. The envelope was returned to CBI.
358. He has further deposed that one another envelope
ExPW8/B, addressed to Malik Chand s/o Sh.
Krishan Kumar r/o 227 Kishan Ganj, New Delhi
was marked to him for delivery. But, same could
not be delivered as no such address had existed in
the said area. He has deposed that that he made an
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 167 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
endorsement ‘incomplete address’ to this effect on
the back of the envelope encircled in red at point
X on 26.04.2006 and it bear his signatures at
point X-1. The envelope was returned to CBI
undelivered.
359. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Vishwanath, Shri Chand, Balam Singh,
Narayan Diwakar and Mohan Lal but not by rest
of the accused person, despite the opportunity
being given to them.
360. PW9 is Sh Jai Prakash, he has deposed that during
the year 2006, he was posted at Palam Post Office
as Postman and was looking after the area of Raj
Nagar Part -I which was falling under Beat No.10.
He has deposed that the envelope Ex PW9/A
addressed to Sh. Krishan Mohan s/o Chiranji Lal
r/o RZ 686/X/22, Main Road, Palam, New Delhi
was marked to him for delivery. He has deposed
that he went there on 26.04.2006. The said
envelope could not be delivered as no person by
such name was residing there. He has depose that
he made an endorsement ‘ No such person’ to this
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 168 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
effect on the back of the envelope encircled in red
at point X. It bear his signatures at point X-1.
361. He has deposed that envelope marked ExPW9/B,
addressed to Sh. M.P Singh s/o Sh. S.D Singh r/o
RZ-76/B Raj Nagar-I, Gali No.5, Palam, New
Delhi, was marked to him for delivery and he went
at the given address on 22.04.2006. He has
deposed that the said envelope could not be
delivered as no person by such name was residing
there. He made an endorsement ‘No such person’
to this effect on the back of the envelope encircled
in red at point X and it bear his signatures at point
X-1. The envelope was returned to CBI
undelivered
362. He has deposed that the envelope, ExPW9/C
addressed to Sh. Ganga Ram S/O Mangal Ram,
r/o WZ-506-B Main Road, Palam , New Delhi,
was marked to him for delivery and he went there
on 21.04.2006. The said envelope could not be
delivered as the person had left without an
address. He has deposed that he made an
endorsement ‘Left without address’ to this effect
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 169 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
on the back of the envelope encircled in red at
point X and it bear his signatures at point X-1.
The envelope was returned to the CBI
undelivered
363. He has deposed that the envelope Ex PW9/D
addressed to Sh. Pankaj Kumar s/o Sh. Yogesh
Kumar, R/O RZ 686/X/H-21, Main Road, Raj
Nagar, Palam, New Delhi, was marked to him for
delivery and he went there on 22.06.2006. The
said envelope could not be delivered as no person
by such name was residing there. He has deposed
that he made an endorsement’ No such person’ to
this effect on the back of the envelope encircled in
red at point X and it bear his signatures at point
X-1.The envelope was returned to the CBI
undelivered
364. He has deposed that the envelope PW9/E
addressed to Sh Harish Chander s/o Sh. Ram
Chander r/o RZ 616 B m Man Road, Raj Nagar-1,
Palam Colony, New Delhi was marked to him for
delivery and he went there on 20.06.2006. He has
deposed that the said envelope could not be
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 170 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
delivered as no person by such name was residing
there. He has deposed that he made an
endorsement ‘No such person’ to this effect on
the back of the envelope encircled in red at point
X and it bear his signatures at point X-1. The
envelope was returned to CBI undelivered
365. He has deposed that the envelope ExPW9/F
addressed to Indira Agarwal D/O Sh Vijay
Agarwal R/O RZ-686/X/21, Main road, Palam,
New Delhi, was marked to Sh. Ashwani Kumar
for delivery, who went at the given address on
14.02.2006 and 15.02.2006. He has deposed that
the said envelope could not be delivered as no
person by the name of Indira Aggawal was
residing there. He has deposed that Ashwani
Kumar made an endorsement to this effect on the
back of the envelope encircled in red at point X
bear signatures of Ashwani Sharma at point X-1.
The envelope was returned to CBI undelivered. He
has identified signatures of Ashwani Sharma at
point X-1 on ExPW9/F.
366. This witness has not been cross examined on
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 171 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
behalf of any of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
367. PW31 is Sh Pradeep Kumar, he has deposed that
that in the year 2007, he was residing at RZF-826
A, Raj Nagar, Delhi. He has witnessed the taking
of specimen handwritings/signatures from S-2887
to S-2892 ExPW31/A of Pushpa Devi and it bear
his signatures at points A on all the three pages.
368. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Narayan Diwakar, Vishwanath
Agarwal, Mohan Lal and Balam Singh Aswal and
not by any other accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
369. PW32 is Sh S.K Punhani, he has deposed that in
the year 2007, he was posted as stenographer in
the Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Delhi.
He was called by the CBI and in the office of CBI,
specimen handwriting/signatures of persons were
taken in his presence.
370. He has further deposed that one Sh Yudhisthir Raj
Mehta has given his specimen signatures from
S-2851 to S-2862 dated 29.01.2007 ExPW22/D
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 172 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
and ExPW12/D respectively in his presence,
which bear his (PW32) signatures at points A on
all the pages. He has deposed that one Sh Krishan
Kumar has given his specimen signatures from
S-2863 to S-2866 dated 19.01.2007 ExPW32/A
(colly) which bears his (PW32) signatures at
points A on all the sheets.
371. He has further deposed that one Raj Kumar Mittal
has given his specimen signatures from S-2881
to S-2886 dated 21.02.2007 in his presence
(running into four sheets D-52) ExPW32/B( colly)
in his presence which bear his (PW32) signatures
at points A on all the pages
372. He has deposed that Sh Mukesh Agarwal has
given his specimen signatures from S-2900 to
S-2903 dated 21.02.2007 Ex PW32/C (colly), in
his presence which bear his (PW32) signatures at
points A on all the pages.
373. He has deposed that one Sh Dayanand Gupta has
voluntarily given his specimen signatures from
S-2922 to S-2923 dated 14.02.2007 ExPW32/D
(colly), in his presence which bear his (PW32)
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 173 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
signatures at points A on all the pages
374. He has further deposed that Sh Babu Lal has
given his specimen signatures from S-2927 to
S-2932 dated 14.02.2007 Ex PW32/E (colly)
which bear his (PW32) signatures at points A on
all the pages.
375. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused persons despite the
opportunity being given to them.
376. PW35 is Sh Ram Niwas Rastogi, he has deposed
that in the year 2005, he was posted as Sub Post
Master in Gandhi Nagar Post Office, Delhi and
remained posted there till 31.05.2009. He has
deposed that one letter dated 07.02.2007,
ExPW35/A was received in the post office Gandhi
Nagar from the CBI.
377. He has deposed that vide this letter information
was sought regarding the existence of address
499/D, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 31 from 1975 to
1990. He has deposed that he had given the
information regarding the aforesaid address vide
letter ExPW35/B, which bear his signatures at
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 174 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
point A. It was written that the address given in
the letter is incomplete without location.
378. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Narayan Diwakar, Vishwanath
Agarwal, Mohan Lal and Balam Singh Aswal and
not by any other accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
379. PW36 is Sh Rajinder Bhasin, he has deposed that
he had purchased one house i.e PP 3, Maurya
Enclave, Pitam Pura, New Delhi somewhere in the
year 2003. He had purchased the said house from
Bhupender Kumar Agarwal and sold the house in
the year 2007-2008. He has deposed that he had
never rented out the said house to any person
including Ravi Kumar. No person, by the name of
Ravi Kumar is his relative/friend. He had never
authorized Ravi Kumar to use his address PP-33,
Maurya Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi.
380. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Narayan Diwakar, Vishwanath
Agarwal, Mohan Lal and Balam Singh Aswal and
not by any other accused person, despite the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 175 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
opportunity being given to them.
381. PW37 is Sh Bhupender Kumar, he has deposed
that he is residing at A-601, Kedar Apartments,
Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-85. And prior to that he
was residing at PP-33, Maurya Enclave, Pitam
Pura, New Delhi -34. The said plot was allotted to
him by the DDA prior to 1980. He had never
rented out the said house to any persons including
Ravi Kumar at any point of time.
382. He has deposed that Ravi Kumar is neither his
relative nor his friend. He had never authorized
Ravi Kumar to use his address PP -33, Maurya
Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi. He had sold the
house PP-33, Maurya Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi
to Rajinder Bhasin .
383. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Narayan Diwakar, Vishwanath
Agarwal, Mohan Lal and Balam Singh Aswal and
not by any other accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
384. PW38 is Sh Anil Kumar Gupta, he has deposed
that he has been residing at B-1299, Gharoli Diary
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 176 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Farms, Delhi since 8-9 years (prior to 2014) and
had purchased the said house from one Smt. Saroj.
Since then, he has been residing at the aforesaid
address
385. He has further deposed that no society with the
name of Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal
Undertaking CGHS Ltd./ Shree Narayan CGHS
was working when he purchased the said house
and he was not a member in the said society. He
has further deposed that he had never received any
letter/communication concerning the said society
or from the RCS office or from DDA
386. He has deposed that no person in the name of P.K
Thirwani, had ever visited B-1299, Gherauli Dairy
Farms, Delhi for the purpose of conducting audit
of the said society or any other society. He has
deposed that no person by the name of Faiz Mohd,
ever visited B-1299 Gherauli Diary Farms, Delhi
to conduct inspection of the society. No meetings
of the society was ever held there and there was
never any office of the said society.
387. He has deposed that his address is written at points
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 177 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
‘X’ in three letters i.e first dated 20.10.2003 Ex
PW38/A regarding appointment of accused Faiz
Mohd, second dated 03.11.2003 ExPW38/B,
addressed to President/Secretary of the said
society and third bearing no. F47/107/EAST/GH
ExPW38/C , but he had never received any of the
aforesaid letters at his address.
388. He has further deposed that his address B-1299,
Gharoli Dairy Farms, Delhi has been mentioned at
points X in the letters/order, first dated
03.02.2004 ExPW38/D, addressed to
President/Secretary of the said society, second is
order dated 02.12.2003 ExPW38/E and third is
letter dated 19.03.2004 ExPW38/F, but he had
never received any such letters.
389. He has further deposed that in another letter dated
03.12.2003 ExPW38/G, his address B-1299,
Gharoli Dairy Farms, Delhi, is mentioned at point
X. He has deposed that no meetings were held at
his address as shown in the proceedings dated
28.12.2003 ExPW38/H, special general body
meeting dated 18.01.2004, ExPW38/H-1, MC
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 178 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
meeting dated 05.08.2003 ExPW38/H-2, general
body meeting dated 14.09.2003 ExPW38/H-3,
MC meeting dated 05.08.2003 ExPW38/H-4,
general body meeting dated 14.09.2003, Ex
PW38/H-5 and MC meeting dated 05.08.2003
ExPW38/H-6.
390. He has deposed that in the bye laws ExPW38/J,
his address is mentioned and in the list of
promoter members date mentioned is 18.01.2004.
But no society by the name of Delhi Water Supply
and Sewage Disposal Undertaking CGHS
Ltd/Shree Narayan CGHS was running at his
address i.e B 1299, Gharoli Dairy Farms, Delhi
391. He has deposed that he had purchased the house
B-1299, Gharoli Dairy Farms, Delhi from the wife
of accused Sri Chand through a middleman.
392. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Sri Chand and P.K. Thirwani and not
by any other accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
393. PW39 is Jagat Singh, he has deposed that he has
been residing at B-1291/92, Gharoli Dairy Farms,
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 179 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Delhi and the said house was purchased in 1980s.
Since then he has been running a dairy on the said
house and is residing there. There was no office
of any society including Shree Narayan CGHS
existing at his house .
394. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused P.K. Thirwani and not by any other accused
person, despite the opportunity being given to
them.
395. PW41 is Sh Jagjit Singh , he has deposed that he
has been working as a postman since 1984 and
posted in Sri Niwas Puri Post Office, New Delhi.
He has been distributing dak since long and
address 54, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New
Delhi was non-existent. He has deposed that an
envelope ExPW41/A addressed to Ashok Kumar
Pandey S/O Ram Shankar R/O 54, Ishwar Nagar,
Mathura Road, New Delhi, was received in his
post office and 54, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road,
New Delhi is a non existing address.
396. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused person, despite the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 180 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
opportunity being given to them.
397. PW42 is Sh Nahar Singh, he has deposed that he
has been working as Postman in Malkaganj Post
Office since 1998. He has deposed that the
envelope (54), ExPW42/A addressed to Vipin
Mittal S/O S. Mittal R/O 2, Malkaganj, New Delhi
was marked to one postman namely R.K Jain for
delivery. The endorsement dated 24.4.2006, on the
back of said envelope “Left…” bear signatures of
Postman R.K Jain at point A. The endorsement is
encircled in red at point X. The envelope was
returned undelivered to the sender.
398. He has deposed that the envelope ExPW42/B
addressed to Radha Krishan S/O Sh Surender
Bhushan R/O P-920, Malkaganj, New Delhi, was
marked to postman R.K Jain for delivery. The
endorsement dated 24.04.2006 on the back of the
envelope” No Such P-920 in Malkaganj” encircled
in red at point X bear signatures of Postman R.K
Jain at point A. The envelope was returned
undelivered to the sender. He has identified
signatures of Postman R.K Jain as he (this
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 181 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
witness ) had seen him writing and signing in the
official course of duties as he was his senior. He
has deposed that as per his personal knowledge,
address P-920 Malka Gang does not exist.
399. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Narayan Diwakar, Vishwanath
Agarwal Mohan Lal and Balam Singh Aswal and
not by any other accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
400. PW43 is Sh Dharey Ram, he has deposed that he was
working as a postman in JNU Post office, New Delhi.
He has deposed that the envelope ExPW43/A
addressed to Sh. R.Ravi Krishanan S/O N.M
Rajagopalan R/O 33, Prateek Nagar, Munirka, New
Delhi was received in his post office. He went to the
said address for delivery and made inquiries from the
persons residing at 33, Prateek Market, Munirka
Delhi. He has deposed that he went to deliver the said
envelope thrice and the person who was residing at
the said address informed that no person by the name
of R. Ravi Krishanan resided in the said house.
401. He has deposed that the endorsement dated
21.04.2006, on the backside of said envelope ” Prapt
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 182 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Karta baar baar janey par nahi mila” bear his
signatures at point A. The endorsement is encircled in
red at point X. The envelope was sent back to the
sender.
402. He has further deposed that endorsement Mark A “Is
Naam Ka A-183 Mein Koi Nahi hai atah wapsi bheja
jaye” on the back side of the envelope Mark 43/X,
addressed to Sh Ravinder Singh s/o Mulakh Raj
(Mekha Raj) r/o A-183 Friends Enclave, Munirka,
New Delhi, and the address A-183, Friends Enclave
does not fall in Munirka area or Munirka Post office.
403. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
of accused Narayan Diwakar, Vishwanath
Agarwal Mohan Lal and Balam Singh Aswal and
not by any other accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
404. PW44 is Sh Rishi Pal Sehrawat, he has deposed
that he has been working as a postman since the
year 1996 in Janak Puri Post Office. He has
deposed that envelope PW44/A addressed to Sh.
Ravinder Singh S/O B.S Rana R/O C-4/160-A,
Janak Puri, New Delhi was received in his office.
He has deposed that he went to the said address
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 183 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
for delivery of the envelope and made inquiries
from the persons residing at the aforesaid address.
They informed him that no person by the name of
Ravinder Singh ever resided at the aforesaid
address. He has deposed that the endorsement
dated 24.04.2006, on the back of said envelope
‘No such person’ bear his signatures at point A.
The envelope was sent back to the sender.
405. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
406. PW45 is Sh Shyam Lal, he has deposed that he
was working as a postman in Palam Post Office
and an envelope ExPW45/A addressed to Sh.
Shamshad Ali S/O Nasruddin Ali, R/O 444,
Mangol Puri, New Delhi was received in his post
office. The address mentioned was incomplete as
block number was not mentioned and area Mangol
Puri was also wrongly mentioned.
407. He has deposed that however, he visited the
Mangla Puri area which was falling under Palam
Post Office and upon inquiry it was found that
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 184 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
there was no such address. He has deposed that the
endorsement dated 26.04.2006 on the back of said
envelope ” Bina Block Ka Pata Adhura Hai Atah
Wapsi” bear his signatures at point A and
endorsement is encircled in red at point X. The
envelope is and was sent back to the sender. He
has deposed that address RZ 2267 A, Gali
NO.6A, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi is a
non-existing address.
408. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
409. PW46 is Sh Ram Swaroop, he has deposed that in
the year 2006, he was posted as Postman in Lodhi
Road, HPO. He has depsoed that the envelope
ExPW46/A addressed to Ghansham Goel S/O B.L
Goel R/O 3185, Shiv Gali, Punjabi Bazar, Kotla
Mubarakpur, New Delhi was marked to him for
delivery. He has deposed that he went to the said
address for delivery and upon inquiry it was also
found that there is no such address. He has made
an endorsement dated 22.04.2006 on the back of
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 185 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
said envelope ‘No such number 3185, Punjabi
Bazar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi’ which bear
his signatures at point A and endorsement is
encircled in red. The envelope was returned
undelivered to the sender.
410. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
411. PW47 is Ashwani Kumar, he has deposed that in
the year 2006, he was posted as Postman in Palam
Gaon Post Office. He has deposed that the
envelope is ExPW47/A addressed to Ram Dayal
s/o Sadhu Ram r/o B-159, Mangla Puri, New
Delhi, was marked to him for delivery. He went to
the said address for delivery and upon inquiry it
was found that no such person resided at the given
address. He has made an endorsement on the back
of said envelope ” No such person”. The
endorsement is encircled in red at point X , which
bears his signature at point A. The envelope was
returned undelivered to the sender.
412. He has deposed that envelope ExPW47/B
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 186 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
addressed to Dwarka Prasad Sharma S/O Sh.
Gauri Shankar Sharma r/o L/WA-A-6, Palam
Dabri Road, Opp. Govt. Hospital, New Delhi was
marked to him for delivery. He went to the said
address for delivery and upon inquiry also it was
that no such person resided at the given address.
He has made an endorsement on the back side of
the envelope ” No such person”. The endorsement
is encircled in red at point X, which bears his
signature at point A.The envelope was returned
undelivered to the sender
413. He has further deposed that the envelope Ex
PW47/C addressed to Madan Lal s/o Sohan Lal
r/o 424 Mangla Puri, Phase II, Palam , New Delhi
was marked to him for delivery. There is no such
address existing in Mangla Puri area. However, he
went to the Mangal Puri area and upon inquiry
also it was found there is no such address existing.
He has made an endorsement on the back side of
the said envelope ” No Such number” and it bear
his signatures at point A. The envelope was
returned undelivered to the sender.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 187 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
414. He has deposed that envelope ExPW9/F
addressed to Indra Agarwal D/O Vijay Agarwal
r/o RZ 686/2/21, Main Road, Palam Colony Delhi
was marked to him for delivery. He went to the
said address for delivery and upon inquiry also it
was found that no such person resided at the
given address. He has made an endorsement on
the back of said envelope ” yeh Nimnalikhit Patey
Par Nahin Rehti, Lihaja Wapsi ” which bear his
signatures at point A.
415. This witness has not been cross examined on
behalf of any of the accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
416. PW48 is Sh Braham Prakash, he has deposed that
in the year 2006, he was posted as Postman in
Sarojni Nagar Post Office. He has deposed that
address 35, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi exist in
Sarojini Nagar area, however, at that time no
person with the name of Inder Kumar Jain s/o
Karam Chand Jain was residing in the said house,
as he has been distributing dak in the said house.
417. This witness has been cross examined on behalf
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 188 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
of accused Narayan Diwakar, Vishwanath
Agarwal Mohan Lal and Balam Singh Aswal and
not by any other accused person, despite the
opportunity being given to them.
418. PW54 is Ms. Rashmi Gulati, she has deposed that
she is an advocate by profession and had
represented group housing societies as an advocate
in the RCS office. She has deposed that the
Vakalatnama ( D-6 running page 256/C) bear her
initials/signatures at point A. She has deposed that
she represented the Delhi Water Supply CGHS in
the office of RCS and had appeared before RCS
on 27.11.2003, wherein her presence has been
marked in the note sheet dated 27.11.2003
ExPW54/A.
419. This witness has been cross examined by Ld PP
for CBI, but has not been cross examined by any
other accused person, despite the opportunity
being given to them.
420. PW56 is Sh Dhan Singh, He has deposed that that
in the year 2006, he was posted as Postman in
Lajpat Nagar Post Office. He has deposed that
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 189 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
C-8/50 , Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi is a non-
existent area as he has been distributing dak in the
said area.
421. He has deposed that envelope PW56/A addressed
to M.L Dhasmana S/O Sh Girish Chander
Dhasmana R/O C8/50, Lajpat Nagar, IV, New
Delhi was marked to Jagbir Singh for delivery
who went there and made the remark appearing at
the back side of the envelope. The said envelope
could not be delivered as there was no such
address. He has deposed that Jagbir Singh made
an endorsement ” No such number in C-8/50..’ to
this effect on the back side of envelope encircled
in red at point X and bear signatures of Jagbir
Singh at point A. He has deposed that it was
returned to the CBI undelivered.. He has identified
signatures of Jagbir Singh as he had seen him
writing and signing during the official course of
duties.
422. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam Singh
Aswal, Mohan Lal and Narayan Diwakar, but not
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 190 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
by rest of the accused person despite the
opportunity being given to them.
423. PW67 is Sh Pawan Kumar Kashyap, he has
deposed that that Uma Devi (PW30) is his
mother-in-law. Specimen signatures of Uma Devi
from S-2893 to S-2895 ExPW59/D-1 were taken
by CBI in his presence. It bear his signatures at
points A on all the pages.
424. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, but not by any
other accused persons despite the opportunity
being given to them.
425. PW68 is Sh Ram Bir Singh, he has deposed that
on 13.02.2007, Smt. Kavita has given her
specimen signatures from S-2896 to S-2898
ExPW59/D-2, being taken by CBI at her
residence in his presence. It bear his signatures at
points A on all the pages. He knew Kavita, as his
shop was opposite her house.
426. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal and by Ld Senior
PP for CBI, but not by any other accused persons
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 191 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
despite the opportunity being given to them.
427. PW77 is Sh Naresh Agarwal, he has deposed that
he was running Timber and Plywood business
namely Shiv Plywood and Timber Store, L/WA-6,
Palam Dabri Road, Mahavir Enclave, Palam, New
Delhi.The aforesaid business was with partnership
with accused Vishwanath Agarwal. He has further
deposed that the aforesaid premises has been
demolished in 2006 by DDA. One person namely
Ashok Kumar used to reside in a room constructed
on the back side of the aforesaid premises.
428. This witness has been cross examined by Ld
Senior PP for CBI, but not by any of the accused
person despite the opportunity being given to
them.
Witnesses from CBI
429. In the present case, the FIR was
registered pursuant to the order of Hon’ble High
Court dated 02.08.2005. Initially, a preliminary
enquiry was conducted by the CBI officer and at
the conclusion of the preliminary enquiry, a
regular case was registered. During the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 192 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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:
430. PW69 is Sh Sham Lal Garg, he has deposed that in
the year 2005, he was posted as Inspector, CBI, EOW-
II, Khan Market, New Delh. He has deposed that he
had received certain files related to various CGHS
vide production-cum-receipt memo dated 12.08.2005
(D-8) ExPW49/A, from Sh. Anjum Masood, Assistant
Registrar (East), Office of RCS, Parliament Street,
New Delhi. He has deposed that the same were
received during the course of PE
4(E)/2005/EOW-II/DLI. He has further deposed that
as per ExPW49/A, there are some files related to Shri
Narayan CGHS Ltd and ExPW49/A bear his
signatures at point B.
431. He has further deposed that L Hangsingh was the
IO in the present case and he identify his signature
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 193 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
on the FIR dated 29.11.2005, bearing RC 23
(E)/2005/EOW-II Delhi. He has further deposed
that FIR dated 29.11.2005 bears the signature of
then S.P Sh. D.K. Chowdhary CBI, EOW-II, New
Delhi at points A. He identified the signature of
Sh. D.K. Chowdhary on the FIR exhibited as Ex.
PW69/A.
432. He has further deposed that he also identified the
signature of IO, L Hangsingh on the handing
over/taking over dated 16.12.2005 Ex. PW78/A
and on the collection memo dated 17.05.2006, Ex
PW-40/A. He has also identified signature of Sh.
C.S Prakash Narayanan at point B on both seizure
memos dated 31.08.2005 Ex. PW-50/A and Ex.
PW50/B.
433. He has further deposed that he identified the
signature of IO, L Hangsingh on the seizure
memo dated 24.04.2007 Ex. PW55/A; on the
seizure memo dated 10.03.2006, Ex. PW69/B; on
the seizure memo dated 23.03.2006, Ex.
PW15/M; on the seizure memo dated 23.03.2006,
Ex. PW69/C; on the seizure memo dated
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 194 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
24.03.2006, Ex. PW69/D;on the seizure memo
dated 24.03.2006, Ex. PW69/E and on the seizure
memo dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW1/A.
434. He has also identified the signatures of
Superintendent of Police, Sh. D.K. Chowdhary on
the letter no. 3/23 (E 2005/EOW-II, Delhi) dated
15.12.2006, Ex. PW59/A; on the letter dated
03.02.2007, sent to GEQD, Chandigarh Ex.
PW59/A-1 and on the letter dated 14.03.2007,
sent to GEQD, Chandigarh Ex. PW59/A-2.
435. He has identified the signature of IO, L Hangsing
at points L on the specimen signature of Sh.
Mohan Lal, S/o Lt. Sh. Ajmeri Lal Ex. PW52/A-2;
on the specimen signature of accused Shri Chand
S/o Lt. Sh. Hari Singh Ex. PW52/A; on the
specimen signature of Shri Chand S/o Lt. Sh. Hari
Singh Ex. PW52/A(again);on the specimen
signature of accused Vishwanath Agarwal Ex.
PW52/A-1; on the specimen signature/ hand
writing pertaining to accused Prahlad Kumar
Thirwani Ex. PW52/A-5; on the specimen
signature / hand writing pertaining to Raj Kanwar
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 195 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Jain Ex. PW2/F; on the specimen signature / hand
writing pertaining to Ramesh Tolaram Bakhru Ex.
PW52/A-6; on the specimen signature/ hand
writing pertaining to Bhag Chand K Banwari Ex.
PW59/D; on the specimen signature/ hand writing
pertaining to Basheshwar Lal Singhal Ex.
PW14/D; on the specimen signature/ hand writing
pertaining to Dwarika Nath Salwan Ex.
PW52/A-7; on the specimen signature/ hand
writing pertaining to Kapil Dev Diwan and Satya
Parkash Vohra Ex. PW13/E (colly) (D-37) and
Ex. PW52/A-8( D-38) respectively.
436. He has identified the signature of IO on the
specimen signature/ hand writing pertaining to
Devender Kumar Jain Ex. PW15/E; on the
specimen signature/ hand writing pertaining to
Laxmi Narayan Kapoor Ex. PW19/D; on the
specimen signature/ hand writing pertaining to
Suresh Chand Gupta Ex. PW18/D.( Colly); on the
specimen signature/ hand writing pertaining to
Siraj Hussain placed Ex. PW20/D.( Colly); on the
specimen signature/ hand writing pertaining to
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 196 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Shri Ram Khana Ex. PW52/A-9; on the specimen
signature/ hand writing pertaining to Ramesh
Chawla Ex. PW21/D,(Colly); on the specimen
signature/ hand writing pertaining to Ashok
Kumar Kohli Ex. PW25/E; on the specimen
signature/ hand writing pertaining to Saroj Taneja
Ex. PW52/A-10; on the specimen signature/ hand
writing pertaining to Jitender Soni Ex.
PW52/A-11; on the specimen signature/ hand
writing pertaining to Sunil Jain Ex. PW11/D.
437. He has identified the signature of IO on the
specimen signature/ hand writing pertaining to
Youdhishtar Raj Mehra Ex. PW22/D (Colly);on
the specimen signature/ hand writing pertaining to
Mahesh Kumar Verma Ex. PW12/D; on the
specimen signature/ hand writing pertaining to
Krishan Kumar Ex. PW32/A; on the specimen
signature/ hand writing pertaining to Raj Kumar
Mittal Ex. PW32/B( colly); on the specimen
signature/ hand writing pertaining to Smt. Pushpa
Devi Ex. PW31/A( colly); on the specimen
signature/ hand writing pertaining to Uma Devi
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 197 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Ex. PW59/D-1;on the specimen signature/ hand
writing pertaining to Smt. Kavita Ex. PW59/D-2
(colly); on the specimen signature/ hand writing
pertaining to Mukesh Agarwal Ex. PW32/C
(colly); on the specimen signature/ hand writing
pertaining to Tija Devi Ex. PW59/D-3 (colly); on
the specimen signature/ hand writing pertaining to
Sangita Devi Ex. PW59/D-4(colly); on the
specimen signature/ hand writing pertaining to Daya
Nand Gupta Ex. PW32/D(colly); on the specimen
signature/ hand writing pertaining to Smt. Saroj Ex.
PW59/D-5 (colly); on the specimen signature/ hand
writing pertaining to Babu Lal placed Ex. PW32/E
(colly).
438. He has also identified the signature of IO, L
Hangsing on the seizure memo dated 13.01.2007
Ex. PW24/D; on the file containing undelivered
speed post envelope and letters (notice to witness
u/s 160 Cr.P.C) (running into 29 pages) sent by L.
Hangsingh Inspector of Police, CBI, EOW-II,
New Delhi Ex. PW69/F (colly ) and on the charge
sheet Ex PW69/G.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 198 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
439. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Sri Chand, Balam
Singh Aswal, Narayan Diwakar, Prahlad Kumar
Thirwani and Mohan Lal, but not by rest of the
accused person despite the opportunity being
given to them.
440. PW78 is Sh P.Rajendiren, he has deposed that in
December, 2005 he was attached with EOW-II
CBI, New Delhi. He has deposed that vide
handing over/taking over seizure memo dated
16.12.2005 ExPW78/A documents in respect of
the society were handed over by him to Sh. L.
Hangshing, Inspector of Police and it bear his
(PW78) signatures and also that of L. Hangshing.
441. This witness has not been cross examined by any
of the accused person despite the opportunity
being given to them.
442. 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. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 199 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
443. After completion of prosecution evidence. The
statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC were
recorded on 22.05.2024, by the Court.
444. During the statement, recorded u/s 313 Cr P.C,
accused Vishwanath Agarwal, has given answers
to most of the question. ” I do not know ”
However he answers differently to few questions.
In response to the question that his specimen
signatures S-570 to S-596 ExPW52/A-1, were taken
in the presence of PW 52 Vishwamitra Bhagi. He has
stated that ” It is incorrect, which is evident from the
fact that the attesting witness was not able to identify
me. He (PW52) was also a stock witness of CBI.”
445. When the accused Vishwanath Agarwal was
asked as to why this case is against him, he replied
that ” It is a false case against me.”. Accused
Vishwanath Agarwal opted to lead evidence in his
defence, but he has not examined any witness in
his defence.
446. Similarly, the answers given by accused Balam
Singh Aswal, during the statement recorded u/s
313 Cr PC, to most of the questions put to him,
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 200 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
were “I do not know ”
447. A question has been put to the accused as, “That
the letter dated 31.12.2003 alongwith proceedings
regarding holding of election by you, as Election
Officer, you were appointed to conduct the election of
the society, vide ExPW49/E-6. To which he has
stated that ” PW 49 had never worked with me, nor he
identifies me. He had merely stated by looking a the
documents. ”
448. When the accused Balam Singh Aswal was asked
as to why this case is against him, he replied that
“This is a false case against me.”
449. Accused Balam Singh Aswal opted to lead
evidence in his defence but he has not examined
any witness in his defence.
450. In reply to the question whether he wants to say
anything else , he replied:
“I was falsely implicated in the
present case. No prosecution witness
had deposed anything as against me.
I am innocent ”
451. The answers given by accused Faiz Mohd, during
the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr PC, to most of
the questions put to him, were “I have no
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 201 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
knowledge ”
452. A question has been put to the accused that you have
not ever visited B-1299 Gherauli Diary Farms, Delhi
to conduct inspection of the society. No meetings of
the society were ever held there and there was never
any office of the aforesaid society. To which he has
stated that ” It is a matter of record. ”
453. When the accused Faiz Mohd was asked as to why
this case is against him, he replied that ” It is a
false case.”
454. Accused Faiz Mohd opted not to lead evidence in
his defence.
455. In reply to the question whether he wants to say
anything else , he replied:
“It is a false case. There is no evidence of
criminality against me. There is no violation of
DCS Act/ Rules. There is no recovery from me.
There is no evidence of demand. There is no loss to
any one from my alleged act. There is no sanction
to prosecute me for IPC offences U/S 197 Cr P C.
No land was allotted to the Society by DDA. No
loss has accrued to anyone. ”
456. The answers given by accused Narayan Diwakar ,
during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, were
” I do not know ” except answers given differently
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 202 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
to a few questions.
457. When the accused Narayan Diwakar was asked as
to why this case is against him , he replied that ” It
is a false case against me. Accused Narayan
Diwakar opted to lead evidence in his defence.
He has examined DW 1 Sh Saroj Chandra Pradhan
in his defence.
458. In reply to the question whether he wants to say
anything else , he replied: “I was falsely implicated in
the present case. No prosecution witness had deposed
anything as against me. In addition to that I would further
like to say that in the present case the Liquidation
proceedings were never finalized. By the operation of law
(Rule 105 DCS Rules) the winding-up proceedings stood
automatically terminated by after three years (maximum
period). As per Rule 105 of the Delhi Cooperative Rules
1973 there is a provision for the deemed termination of the
winding-up proceedings (maximum 3 years after the
passing of the winding-up order) after which the Registrar
is bound to cancel the winding-up orders by passing an
order to this effect in view of the Judgment of the Division
Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (VIKAS CGHS v.
RCS etc.). I complied with the said orders of the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court.
I was appointed as the Registrar Cooperative Societies
(RCS) Delhi under S.3 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies
Act, 1972. At the time of the passing of the order(s) of
cancelling the winding-up I was aware of the judgment
delivered by the Double Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi Court
in the Civil Writ Petition No. 1767 / 1986 case entitled
“VIKAS COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
LTD. V. RCS “(decided on 21st Nov. 1986).
Secondly it is submitted that cancelling the winding-up
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 203 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
order of the society had nothing to do with the availability
or the verification of the records. The only aspect that was
to be taken into account was the provision of Rule 105 of
the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rule, 1973. Therefore the
act(s) performed by me were done in absolute good faith
taking all the necessary steps as provided under the law.
The copy of the judgment in “VIKAS CGHS v. RCS” is
enclosed here-with. There is no circumstance appearing
against me. Therefore I may kindly be acquitted.
It is also pertinent to mention that the CBI has neither
obtained sanction to prosecute under s.197 Cr.P.C. nor
under S.19 of the PC Act. The said two sanctions operate
in distinct mechanism and were mandatory even for a
retired public servant. There are several judgments by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point of sanction to
prosecute u/s 197 Cr.P.C. where the cognizance was held
bad due to absence of sanction to prosecute under S.197
Cr.P.C. In the recent judgments on the identical facts (as in
the present case) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in
favour of the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies (in
separate cases of Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar and Sh. Krihna
Kumar) in the CGHS cases wherein the sanction to
prosecute under S.197 Cr.P.C. was held to be mandatory
and charges framed against the aid persons were quashed.
The copy of the latest judgment relating to Sh. Krishna
Kumar is annexed herewith. (KRISHNA KUMAR v. CBI
– Crl. M.C. 3481/2018 decided on 21.08.2024)
Furthermore, as per the newly amended law i.e. Prevention
of Corruption Act, (amended till 2018) applicable even to
the present case (pending trial) the sanction under S.19 of
the PC Act is now mandatory even for the retired public
servants. Needless to mention that the provision of S.13(1)
(d) of the old PC Act, 1988 has now been repealed. The
present case is devoid of merits and also suffers the
discrepancy due to the later amendments of 2018 which
are applicable to the present pending case.
Furthermore, it will be relevant to add that Dr. Kamini Lau
the Ld. Spl. Judge : CBI had referred by way of reference
under S.395 Cr.P.C. raising the question of scope &
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 204 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
applicability vis-à-vis S.19 of the P.C. Act in respect of
retired servants in the pending cases where the sanction
under S.19 of the PC Act has not been taken in respect of
the retired public servants. Thus the reference of the matter
relating to the applicability of the newly amended PC Act
(2018 amendment) is still pending before the Division
Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter
“M.Soundararajan v. State” Crl.A.(MD) No.488 of 2018
has observed: “14. By amending paragraph 8 in Part A of
the Schedule to the Prevention of Money laundering Act,
2002 certain offences under the prevention of corruption
Act,1988 are included to the PMLA,2002. Since, offence
analogous is already in statute prior to the amendment,
Chapter IV A and section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 alone will fall away
from protection given under Article 20 (1) of the
Constitution and therefore will have application to the
pending cases either under investigation or pending trial
after investigation.”
Charges of conspiracy levelled under section 120(B) IPC
are not sustainable against me. During my tenure as RCS,
Delhi from 2001 to 2004 the entire RCS office was fully
computerised by launching its own website on which about
10 lakh data was uploaded to cover to various information
pertaining to about 5000 Cooperative Societies including
the group housing societies with details of management
committee of all societies, particulars of individual
members, its election and audit position were given for the
information to all concerned and the effected citizens of
Delhi. A wide publication was also given this website
through local newspapers and electronic media. There was
facility for any type of enquiry complaint from the effected
/ interested persons of the public in order to speedy
redressal of their complaints and grievances. The RCS
office was given the distinction of completing the gigantic
task of computerization in a fixed time schedule. For this
achievement, a letter of appreciation was given by the
Chief Secretary of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It is
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 205 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
therefore emphasized that in the face of such a
transparency in the working of the department there cannot
be any scope for ant conspiracy of any kind either with any
official of the department or the persons outside. It is
established factor that transparency and conspiracy cannot
go together. I may be acquitted of all the charges
framed and the allegations made in the present case.”
459. The answers given by accused Vinod Kumar
Bhardwaj, during the statement recorded u/s 313
Cr PC, to most of the questions put to him were
either ” I do not know ” or ” it is a matter of
record” .
460. To answer the questions regarding the note dated
30.10.2003, ExPW49/E-2, (page 12/N D-7 Vol. V),
put by him and the note bears his signatures at point
A beneath the note. He replied that it is a matter of
record.
461. When the accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj was
asked as to why this case is against him. He has
replied that ” This is a false against me.”
462. Accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj opted to lead
evidence in his defence but he has not examined
any defence witness.
463. In reply to the question whether he wants to say
anything else , he replied:
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 206 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
464. ” This is a false case without any evidence of
criminality. There is no violation of DCS Act and
Rules/any Govt. order by me in this statement of
Accused , by me No prosecution witness has spoken
against me No recovery has been made by CBI from
me nothing was found from my house search by CBI.
There is no evidence regarding. No sanction u/s 197
Cr.P.C. has been taken by CBI to prosecute me a public
servant removeable by Govt. for IPC offences. The
sanction under PC Act taken by CBI is also invalid as
the same has not been taken from the competent
authority Even the present sanction lacks application of
mind. There is no evidence regarding sending of
documents/statement by the CBI for obtaining sanction
from the competent authority.
There is no loss to any one by my alleged Act. There is
victim in this case. There is no complaint against me.
There is no evidence of demand of pecuniary gain to
me in this case.
As regards revival of the society, the same was done by
court of RCS on the basis of recommendation of the
then Assistant Registrar, Sh. Ramesh Chandra, who
had attended the court of RCS at the time of proceeding
of revival of the society before the Registrar
cooperative societies.
I was simply a clerk appointed under the DCS Rules to
assist the Registrar and other senior officers in the office of
Registrar cooperative societies. I had dealt the file in a
routine manner and in good faith as per DCS Act & Rules
and as per instructions of Assistants Registrar (East).
Nobody form the Registrar Cooperative Societies office
has spoken adversely against me regarding my alleged role
in this case.
As regards sending of list of members to Delhi
development authority by Registrar Cooperative Societies
office it is submitted that it is the responsibility of the
society to ensure the correctness of such list. The list was
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 207 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
sent by the then Assistant Registrar Sh. Ramesh Chandra
to Assistant Registrar (Policy) for onward transmission to
Delhi Development Authority as such I as a clerk had no
role in sending of such list to Delhi Development
Authority.
No land has been given in possession by DDA to the
society. Hence no loss occurred to anyone. There is no
evidence regarding any attempt to commit any alleged
offence as no money has been paid to the DDA for
obtaining land by the Society.
As there is no evidence against me Hon’ble Court may
kindly consider acquittal in the case as per law.”
465. The answers given by accused P.K. Thirwani,
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. I had
no knowledge. I had conducted the Audit after the
revival of the society in good faith as per the
documents / records produced by the society.”
466. When the accused P.K. Thirwani was asked as to
why this case is against him , he replied that ” This
is a false case. ” Accused P.K Thirwani opted to
lead evidence in his defence. But he has not
examined any witness in his defence.
467. In reply to the question whether he wants to say
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 208 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
anything else , he replied:
“I had been working as a 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 cooperative etc. The audit of the
said society was assigned to me by the then AR
(Audit) after he obtained the approval of RCS for
the period from 1971-72 to 2002-03, I conducted
the audit of the society in good faith on the basis of
the records produced by the society. I as an auditor
was responsible for conducting 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 concerned zone to take necessary steps
for getting necessary compliance from the society
or to get the objections raised in the audit report
removed, before sending the list to Policy Bran ch
of the office of RCS for onward transmission to
DDA . In the present case also I had raised
objections in my Audit Report pertaining to SHRI
NARAYAN CGHS. Had I been in conspiracy, I
would never had done so. It is a false case based on
wrong interpretation of laws/evidence 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
Governments. 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
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 209 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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 the revival of the society
if any. My Audit report had no bearing on the
revival order (which was done earlier to it) nor on
the forwarding of the list of members to DDA by
the Policy Branch. In this case no land was allotted
to the society and therefore no loss has occurred to
the Government or any person. There is no
evidence against me for having cheated any
person. I had done audit based on the documents
provided by the society. I had no knowledge of the
same being allegedly forged one. It is the
responsibility of the society to furnish correct
information and the documents. I acted in a bona-
fide manner. I had not committed anything wrong.
There is no incriminating material against me. No
prosecution witness had deposed anything against
me. Sanction u/section 19 of PC Act was obtained
in a mechanical manner and the same cannot be
relied upon. In addition to this there is no sanction
u/section 197 of CRPC against me and as such the
prosecution is illegal. I am innocent and had been
wrongly implicated in the present case.”
468. The answers given by accused Mohan Lal ,
during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr PC, were
to most of the questions put to him as either ” I do
not know” or ” The witness has not stated
anything as against me” However he has answers
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 210 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
differently to few questions.
469. To answer the questions regarding specimen
signatures S-1998 to S-2739 (D-28) ExPW52/A-2,
were given by you voluntarily without any pressure, in
the office of CBI and it bear PW52 Sh Vishwamitra
Bhagi signatures/initials as a witness at points A on
all the pages. He replied that it is incorrect. PW52 had
never identified me to be the person who gave Ex
PW52/A-2.
470. When the accused Mohan Lal was asked as to
why this case is against him. He has replied that
” This is a false against me.”
471. Accused Mohan Lal opted not to lead defence
witness.
472. In reply to the question whether he wants to say
anything else , he replied: I have been falsely
implicated in this case. I am innocent.
Defence on behalf of accused Narayan Diwakar.
473. Accused Narayan Diwakar has produced DW1 Sh
Saroj Chandra Pradhan in his defence evidence.
474. DW 1 Sh Saroj Chandra Pradhan, through this
witness the accused Narayan Diwakar wants to
prove on record that he has worked to streamline
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 211 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
the functioning of Co operative Group Housing
Society and to maintain the record.
475. This witness has been cross examined by Ld
Senior PP for CBI.
476. 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
submissions being made by the Ld Counsel for
accused person as well as well as Ld Senior PP for
CBI. I have also perused the record.
477. Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that the sanction
U/S 19 of P.C Act in the present case has been
accorded by the 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.
478. It is argued that the sanction order against the
public servant has been accorded by the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 212 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
sanctioning by applying its minds being based
upon the material before the sanctioning authority.
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 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 persons are proved
beyond reasonable doubt against them.
479. 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)89CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 213 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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.
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.CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 214 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Vs Nalini decided on 11th May 1999.
xix) Renu Gosh Vs CBI decided on 2111
SCC
OnLine Del 5501
480. 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.
481. Considered. Perused.
482. There are some facts which have not been
disputed by Ld Counsel for accused persons and
they have not argued. It is not in dispute that the
said society was registered with the RCS, Delhi
vide Regn. No. 107(GH) with 105 promoter
members, having its registered office at E-27,
Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The said society was put
under liquidation vide order dated 26.12.1978.
483. It is not argued on the part of accused person that
the said society was defunct since 1978 and the
fact that the said society got revived on
02.12.2003 on the basis of making forgery in
record of the said society. None of the Ld Counsel
appearing on behalf of accused facing trial have
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 215 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
argued on this fact.
484. Even otherwise, the testimony of witnesses those
who are either promoter members or has been
shown as member or being shown as resigned
from the society are relevant and has been brought
on record proves the fact that there was forgery
being made in the proceedings of the said society
which has been used for revival of the said
society.
485. The testimony of PW11 Sunil Jain, PW 12
Mahesh Kumar Verma, PW23 Om Prakash, PW25
Ashok Kumar Kohli, PW26 Naresh Kumar, PW27
Santosh Sethi, PW28 Dr Satya Pal Singh, PW29
Rewat Ram Pokharia, PW30 Smt Uma Devi,
PW34 Rishikesh Dang, PW51 Raj Kumar, PW57
Ms Sarla Rana, PW58 Ms Saroj Taneja, PW60
Jitender Soni, PW 62 Sunil Kumar, PW 63
Sangeeta Devi, PW64 Smt Saroj, PW 65 Sh Babu
Lal, PW66 Makhan Lal Sharma, PW70 Smt
Pushpa Devi, PW72 Krishan Kumar, PW73
Hanuman Singh and PW76 Smt Kavita, proves
that they never become the member of the said
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 216 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
society and their signatures have been forged and
used for cheating.
486. The testimony of promoter members such as PW
13 Kapil Dev Diwan, PW14 Basheshwar Lal
Singhal, PW 15 Devender Kumar Jain, PW18
Suresh Chand, PW19 Laxmi Narain Kapoor, PW
20 Siraj Hussain, PW21 Ramesh Chawla, PW22
Yudhistar Raj Mehta, PW61 Bhagchand K.
Banwari. They have denied their signatures on the
copy of bye laws of the society Ex PW2/C; on the
their affidavist dated 22.09.2003 and minutes of
meeting dated 14.01.1972 Ex PW2/E also proves
that they have never resigned from the said
society.
487. But the question arises as to who have done the
forgery documents in the record of the said society
and used the same for getting revived of the said
society. It has to be seen by this Court whether
these were the accused persons facing trial have
committed the forgery and used the same or not.
Settled proposition of law while considering the
opinion of handwriting expert.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 217 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
488. 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.
Because the prosecution is vehemently relying
upon the evidence of handwriting expert.
489. 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.
490. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ramesh
Chandra Agarwal 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
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 218 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
his competency for forming a reliable opinion.
The validity of the process by which the
conclusion is reached by the expert is also
relevant.
491. 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
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”.
492. 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
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 219 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
against the petitioner merely on the report of the
GEQD without corroboration.”
493. 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
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
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 220 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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.”
494. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled State of
Maharashtra Vs Damu S/O Gopinath Shinde &
Others (2000) 6 SCC 269 has observed that ”
without examining the expert as a witness in court,
no reliance can be placed”.
495. I would also like to mention here certain basic
principle which are 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.
496. In order to bring home the guilt against the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 221 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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
persons.
497. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of
Maharashtra Vs Sukhdeo AIR 1992 SC 2100:
(1992) 3 SCC 700 has observed that “Before a
Court can act on the opinion evidence of a
handwriting expert, two things must be proved
beyond any manner of doubt, namely, (1) the
genuineness of the specimen/admitted handwriting
of the concerned accused; (2) and the handwriting
expert is a competent, reliable and dependable
witness whose evidence inspires confidence.
498. 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
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 222 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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 and obtaining
of their specimen signatures/hand writing for
obtaining opinion of Handwriting Expert.
Settled proposition of law while considering
sanctions for prosecution against the public
servants.
499. 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
Superior Courts on the issues how the sanctioning
authority has to considered the material placed
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 223 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
before it, before according sanction against the
public servant as well as its admissibility if same
is not accorded as per law.
500. 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 of
the Central Government, of that
Government;
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 224 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
(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.”
501. 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
servant against harassment and malicious
prosecution.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 225 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
502. 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.”
503. 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
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 226 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
prosecution as inexpedient.”
504. 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 to 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.”
505. In the case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, 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
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 227 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 228 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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
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
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 229 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 230 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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.”
506. 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.
507. 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.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 231 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Finding qua accused Vishwanath Agarwal
508. Ld Counsel for CBI has argued that accused
Vishwanth Agarwal has moved an application
dated 17.09.2003 ( Ex PW49/C-1) to A.R ( East)
requesting for withdrawal of liquidation order
passed U/S 63 of DCS Act. It is submitted that
accused Vishwanth Agarwal has also enclosed the
Xerox copies of the proceedings of general body
meeting dated 17.6.1975 Ex PW49/X alongwith
letter dated 18.6.1975 written by Sri Chand, list of
165 members EXPW EXPW14/E, copies of
application forms of 165 member, copies of
application forms of 165 member, receipt as well
as original affidavits of 165 members and share
money receipts which are forged one. As the
witness PW11, 12, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33,
34, 51, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 72,
73, 75, 76, 77 have denied the execution of
documents filed by accused Vishwanath Agarwal.
509. It is submitted that PW 51 has identified accused
Viswanath Agarwal in the Court. In that
circumstances, accused Vishwanath Agarwal
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 232 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
cannot take a plea that he is not Vishwanath
Agarwal being tried as accused. It is further
argued that accused Viswanath Agarwal had
forged a photocopy of letter dated 21.10.90 and
photocopy of proceedings dated 17.06.75.
510. Ld Counsel for CBI has further argued that GEQD
has given positive opinion upon the documents
that it was accused Viswanath Agarwal who has
done forgery in the document in connivance with
Sri Chand and other accused persons to get
revived the society.
511. It is submitted by Ld Sr PP for CBI that address of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal and his parentage
has been confirmed. It is submitted that
prosecution has able to prove the case against
accused Viswanath Agarwal.
512. So far as the fact that the said society was revived
on the basis of forged document are concerned. I
have given my observation in the proceedings
paras. It is also proved on record that it was
accused Viswanath Agarwal who has moved an
application for revival of the said society. It is also
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 233 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
proved on record by the evidence being led by the
prosecution that accused Viswanath Agarwal
facing trial is the person who is known by the
name of Vishwanath Agarwal. The fact which has
to be ascertained is whether the accused
Viswanath Agarwal who is facing trial is the same
person who has forged the documents and used the
same and filed the documents for revival of the
said society. To prove this, the prosecution has
relied upon the report of GEQD as well as
testimonies of other witness who have been
examined.
513. The Ld. Senior PP for CBI has relied upon the
statement of PW 51 by submitting that PW51 has
identified the accused in the Court which proves
the fact that he is the same person who has forged
the document being used for revival of the society.
514. I have carefully gone through the testimony of this
witness. The witness has deposed that he know
Vishwanath Agarwal who lives in Palam Colony
and he knows him as he is Jija of his neighbour
Mukesh Kumar. He has further deposed that
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 234 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Viswanath Agarwal was known to him, he
( Vishwanath Agarwal) might have included his
name in the society. But in his cross examination
he has deposed that he had no personal knowledge
about the present case.The document of present
case were never prepared or signed before him. He
has further deposed that he is unable to say who
has prepared and signed the document and he has
never raised any dispute regarding his
membership. The testimony of this witness only
proves the fact that accused facing the trial is
Vishwanath Agarwal but it does not prove the fact
that it was the same Vishwanath Agarwal who has
prepared the document or forged the documents.
Hence, the testimony of this witness is not helpful
to the prosecution because merely identify the
accused Vishwanath Agarwal does not construed
that he has identified him that he had made
forgery.
515. The another witness who is relied upon by the
prosecution in the chargesheet is PW 54 Rashmi
Gulati. Rashmi Gulati is an Advocate who has
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 235 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
represented the said society before the Registrar of
Co operative Society at the time of revival of the
said society. Though she has deposed in her
examination in chief that she had appeared on
behalf of said society before Registrar of Co
operative Societies and admitted that she has
appeared on behalf of Vishwanath Agarwal. But in
her cross examination she has categorically denied
that accused Vishwanath Agarwal present in the
Court is the same person who has authorized her
as Secretary to appear before Registrar of Co-
operative Society. Though she has been
confronted with her statement U/S 161 Cr P.C,
and she has admitted in her cross examination
being conducted by CBI that her statement was
recorded U/S 161 Cr PC. But she has denied the
fact of signatures on the vakaltnama by
Vishwanath Agarwal were put by the same person
who is present in the Court. Though this witness
has been confronted by Ld Senior PP for CBI
from point A to A and B to B from statement
recorded Ex PW54/B. The statement find
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 236 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
mentioned that she was engaged by accused
Vishwanath Agarwal and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was
paid to her as fees. But this confrontation will not
helpful for the prosecution because the witness
has categorically deposed in her examination-in-
chief the Vishwanath Agarwal facing the trial is
not the same person who had engaged her. So by
admitting that her statement U/S 161 Cr P.C was
recorded does not prove the fact that it was
accused Vishwanath Agarwal who has authorized
her and put his signatures in her presence on
Vakaltnama.
516. The witness PW 65 Babu Lal has not identified
accused Vishwanath Agarwal in the Court.
Though witness has been confronted with his
statement Ex PW65/PX by Ld Senior PP for CBI
where he has stated that he was made member by
Vishwanath Agarwal. But this confrontation is not
sufficient to connect the accused facing trial that it
was the same Vishwanath Agarwal who has made
him as member. In the statement Ex PW65/PX
does not disclose when he come to know this fact
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 237 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
as no date is mentioned of making him as a
member. Moreover witness has not identified in
the Court that it is the same Vishwanath Agarwal
in that circumstances, the testimony of PW65 is
not helpful to the prosecution. The statement of
this witness PW65/PX was not recorded by the IO
by showing accused Vishwanath Agarwal. So this
confrontation is not helpful to the prosecution.
517. The prosecution has also examined PW66 Makhan
Lal Sharma to substantiate that accused
Vishwanath Agarwal facing the trial is the same
person who has got his signatures on the document
mark PW66/A and Ex PW66/B. But In his cross
examination this witness has categorically
deposed that Vishwanath Agarwal present in the
Court is not the same person who has got his
signatures.
518. One another witness namely Dayanand Gupta
( PW 75) who can identified the accused
Vishwanath Agarwal. But he has deposed in his
cross examination that he had not seen
Vishwanath Agarwal since the last 20 years.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 238 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Accused Vishwanath Agarwal has not been got
identified by the prosecution through this witness
Dayanand Gupta.
519. The ocular evidence which can be considered as
direct evidence and could have establish the
identify of accused Vishwanath Agarwal to the
extent that it was the same Vishwanath Agarwal
who has got their signatures on the documente or
was indulged in the forgery of the documents, has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Not
even beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution has
totally failed to established the identity of the
accused that it was the same Vishwanath Agarwal
who has forged the documents.
520. So far as the evidence of GEQD is concerned it
has to be seen whether the genuine specimen and
admitted handwriting of accused is proved being
obtained for handwriting expert’s opinion.
521. Here in the present case the question which has to
be considered whether the specimen handwriting
of accused Vishwanath are proved by the
prosecution that it were obtained fairly.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 239 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
522. PW52 Vishwamitra Bhagai has deposed that
accused Vishwanath Agarwal has given his
specimen signatures / handwriting from S-570 to
S-596, ExPW52/A-1 in the CBI office and which
bears his signatures at point A. But his cross
examination is much important which has to be
considered. He has deposed in his cross
examination that he was attesting witness of
specimen signatures /handwriting in many CBI
cases. He do not know the name of such cases and
such societies. He has further deposed that he was
an employee of RCS, Delhi but was deputed as
coordinator with CBI for societies scam cases, for
about two years. He has further deposed in his
cross examination that he cannot identified the
persons whose specimen handwriting he has
attested. He further deposed that he cannot
identified the person whose specimen handwriting
he has attested in the present case, as attesting
witness. He has further deposed that since there
were bundle of documents which he has to sign as
attesting witness hence he avoid to write date
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 240 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
beneath his signatures.
523. On perusal of evidence of this witness the first
fact is proved that he had not identified the
accused Vishwanath Agarwal whether he
(accused) was the same person whose specimen
handwriting were obtained in his presence. The
fact cannot be ruled out that he remained under the
influence of CBI officials as he has worked with
them for about two years. His deposition that he
does not used to write date beneath his signatures
also creates doubts. And it may be possible that
his signatures may be taken on the specimen
signatures/handwriting sheets on different dates.
The I.O in the present case has not been examined.
The exhibiting the documents, which are executed
by the IO, by examining PW 69 Inspector Shyam
Lal, does not prove the factual facts qua obtaining
specimen handwriting of accused Vishwanath
Agarwal. Because the facts were in the knowledge
of IO only.
524. Admittedly no documents were seized from
Vishwanath Agarwal. Moreover the original
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 241 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
record of said society has not been recovered by
the investigating agency and there is no
explanation in the charge sheet why the original
record of the said society has not been traced out.
The signatures of accused Vishwanath Agarwal on
the charge as well as on the statement recorded
U/S 313 Cr P C are different signatures from the
questioned/disputed signatures on documents.
Moreover, no admitted contemporary signatures
has been placed on record. So in that
circumstances, Court itself is not in a position to
compare the questioned/disputed signatures with
the admitted signatures of accused Vishwanath
Agarwal on charge and statement U/S 313 Cr
P.C. So submission of Ld Senior PP for CBI that
this Court in itself can compare the signatures of
accused Vishwanath Agarwal with disputed
signatures are not acceptable. The another
submissions that judicial notice of the fact can be
taken that accused Vishwanath Agarwal has been
convicted previously by this Court. This
submission is not tenable because each criminal
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 242 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
case bears its own facts and previous convicted is
relevant if any person is convicted subsequently.
525. So in view of the above discussion, the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt against accused Vishwanath
Agarwal.
Finding qua accused Balam Singh Aswal
526. The allegations against accused Balam Singh
Aswal are that he has filed his report Ex
PW49/E-6 dated 31.12.2003 qua conducting of
election of the said society which were allegedly
conducted on 27.12.2003 vide Ex PW15/G and
same were false.
527. It is submitted by Ld Senior PP for CBI that these
proceedings being conducted on 27.12.2003 has
been denied being attended by Smt Sangeeta Devi.
PW 15 Devendra Kumar Jain has also denied his
signatures at point X on document Ex Pw15/G.
PW 24 Sh Apish Malhotra has also denied
signatures of his father at point X on document Ex
PW 15/G. It is further submitted that PW63
Sangeeta Devi has also denied her signatures on
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 243 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
the document Ex PW15/F at point A. Ld Senior
PP for CBI submits all these witnesses are
sufficient to hold guilt of accused Balam Singh
Aswal that he had filed a false proceedings.
528. It is further submitted by Ld Senior PP that GEQD
report is also supporting the to the testimony of
these witnesses.
529. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has
denied the argument as has been tendered by Ld
Senior PP for CBI and submits that report Ex
PW15/G has not been proved on record being
photocopy. It is further submitted that none of the
witness on record, being examined by prosecution,
has identified the accused. It is submitted that
opinion of GEQD on the photocopy is not safe to
be acted upon.
530. Having considered the rival contention of Ld
Senior PP for CBI and Ld Counsel for CBI . The
document Ex PW49/E-6 has been proved on
record by PW 49 who has identified signature of
accused Balam Singh Aswal on that document.
531. Now question arises whether the proceedings Ex
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 244 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
PW15/G has been proved on record or not. Firstly
document Ex PW15/F is a photocopy. The
investigating agency is totally silent about the
original of this document and no reason has been
assigned in the charge sheet. The fact has also not
been brought in the notice of this Court qua
reasons of non-availability of this document. So
far as opinion of GEQD expert is concerned. The
GEQD opinion has been given on the photocopy.
The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in
Abhay Jain Vs State of M.P and Ars MCRC
No.431 of 2014 has observed that ” It is not in
dispute that in the present case both the experts
have taken photographs of disputed
signatures/thumb impression from the photocopy
of the Will. Photocopy of document itself is
neither primary nor secondary evidence. It is not
advisable for experts to take photograph of
photocopies and base their opinion on such
photocopies. Expert should always base his
opinion on original documents. When an expert
forms his opinion on the basis of photocopies, feel
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 245 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
that the expert has committed mistake and such
report cannot be relied upon in absence of any
corroborative evidence, which is not available at
all in this case.
The expert should form opinion on the basis of
study of original document. The reason being that
the pressure points are analyzed by the hand
writing expert for which original are required. In
the absence of original documents, the analysis of
a questioned document is limited to the features
that survive the copying process. This is like to
identify a person behind a cloudy window; the
basics are there, but details are missing. What we
call the “three-dimensionality of the original
document is lost. Not to mention that if the copy is
a copy of a copy, the details become increasingly
difficult to verify”.
532. Moreover, for the sake of argument if we admitted
the fact that signature of witnesses or members on
document Ex PW15/G, are forged one then it has
to be seen whether the person who were present
and participated in the meeting were identifiable
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 246 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
by accused Balam Singh Aswal being not
genuine /correct persons. And accordingly he
allowed the manipulation in the proceedings
deliberately. If a person present and signed on
document Ex PW15/G disclosing their particular
name and signed accordingly. Then there was no
occasion for accused Balam Singh Aswal to verify
their identity because none of the record/
document was having photograph of any person. I
give an example that Advocate used to appear in a
case before the Court and the Court is not
supposed to check their identity card. If an
advocate put attendance of another person. In that
situation it was not an occasion for the presiding
officer to check the I card of Advocate. So the
culpability of the accused on the basis of
document Ex PW15/G cannot be fastened.
Moreover, particularly where there is no evidence
on record which suggest to this Court that accused
was knowing the culprits in any manner or having
any contact with them. There is no evidence on
record at all that he has got any monetary benefit
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 247 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
or he has deceive any person to sign on the
document.
533. It is also argued by Ld Counsel for the accused
that the sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act against
accused was not a valid sanction being accorded
without application of mind by the sanctioning
authority.
534. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has
argued that the prosecution has successfully
proved the sanction order against the accused
Balam Singh Aswal by leading cogent evidence
and PW16 has proved the sanction against
accused.
535. In order to prove sanction for prosecution against
Balam Singh Aswal the prosecution has examined
PW 16 Sh Baleshwar Rai. He has deposed that on
receipt of the CBI report, he perused the report
and the appended calender of evidence both
documentary as well as oral to form a view to
sanction prosecution of accused. He accorded
sanction vide Ex PW16/A for prosecution of
Balam Singh Aswal.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 248 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
536. However, the cross examination of PW 16, is to
be considered whether the sanction has been
accorded by the sanctioning authority on perusal
of material before it and applying his mind
accordingly. The relevant portion of his cross
examination is as follows:
” I do not remember what documents
were attached along with the letter of
request for grant of sanction.
My office must have kept the details of
the documents sent along with the letter
of request. However, I am not
personally aware about the same. No
separate legal advice was sought for
before granting sanction.”
537. On perusal, the witness is unable to disclose
clearly the material which he has perused before
granting sanction for prosecution against accused
Balam Singh Aswal. Even otherwise he has
deposed in this examination in chief that he has
perused the calandar of evidence both
documentary as well as oral to form a view to
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 249 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
sanction prosecution of the accused. The calandar
of evidence is just the summary of evidence, not
the complete evidence. So the testimony of PW 16
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 PW16
the prosecution has failed to prove the sanction
order against accused Balam Singh Aswal being
accorded by applying its mind by the sanctioning
authority. Because complete evidence was not
with the sanctioning authority. The prosecution
has failed the charges against accused Balam
Singh Aswal beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding qua accused Faiz Mohd.
538. The allegation against accused Faiz Mohd are that
he is involved in the conspiracy with other co-
accused person. He was appointed as inspection
officer vide letter dated 20.10.2003 ( Ex
PW3B/A) being issued by Ramesh Chandra,
Assistant Registrar with the direction to file the
report within 10 days. In pursuance of the letter Ex
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 250 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
PW38/A accused Faiz Mohd has filed the
inspection report Ex PW49/F-1, and as per
allegation is a false record as he has not visited the
office of the said society at B-1299, Garoli Diary
Farms, Delhi.
539. The prosecution has examined PW 38 Anil Kumar
Gupta to substantiate the fact that accused Faiz
Mohd has not visited B-1299, Garoli Diary
Farms, Delhi to conduct the inspection of the
society. The witness has deposed that he shifted to
the premises bearing No. B-1299, Garoli Diary
Farms, Delhi. 8-9 year back from the date of his
deposition dated 16.07.2014 before Court. It
means that PW 38 Anil Kumar Gupta has shifted
in the property bearing No. B-1299, Garoli Diary
Farms, Delhi either in the year 2005 or in the year
2006. The witness has also deposed that they have
constructed the property after purchase and it took
1 ½ years. If we presumed that witness has shifted
in the property in the year 2005 or 2006. And as
per his deposition, they have taken 1½ years
construction time after purchase, then the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 251 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
purchase of the property will be either in the year
2004-2005. And this Court is presuming so as no
documentary evidence of purchase of property
bearing No. B-1299, Garoli Diary Farms, Delhi is
on record. But in his cross examination he has
deposed that he has shifted in the year 2004. The
deposition as made in the examination in chief is
contrary to the deposition made in the cross
examination. It shows that the witness was not
residing in the said property in the year
26.10.2003. So doubt has been created in the
deposition of PW 38 qua his residence at that
property in the year 2003. His evidence can not be
relied upon to the extent that he was residing in
the property bearing No. B-1299, Garoli Diary
Farms, Delhi in the year, 2003.
540. The statement of PW 39 is not helpful to the
prosecution, as this witness is hostile and perusal
of his deposition he has stated that his statement
was not recorded by the CBI and his purported
statement (Ex PW39/X ) has not been read over to
him while the same was put to him in his cross
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 252 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
examination by Ld Senior PP for CBI.
541. Moreover, PW 38 has admitted in his cross
examination that property bearing B-1299, Garoli
Diary Farms, Delhi was purchased from the wife
of accused Sri Chand. Sri Chand is one of the
accused in the present case. It is proved on record
that Sri Chand’s wife was the owner of property
bearing No. B-1299, Garoli Diary Farms, Delhi
prior to purchase of the same by the mother of
Anil Kumar Gupta. It may be possible that
accused Sri Chand in conspiracy with other co-
accused persons may have given the address of the
society as B-1299, Garoli Diary Farms, Delhi or
actual residing there.
542. PW 49 Anjum Masood has proved the document
Ex PW49/F-1 on record. Accused Faiz Mohd has
stated in the document itself the office address of
the society B-1299 Gharoli Dairy Farms Delhi.
Though he has stated in his examination being
conducted U/S 313 Cr P C that I have no
knowledge about Ex PW49/F-1. But document Ex
PW49/F-1 will prevail on his statement. The
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 253 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
question arises whether the Ex PW49/F-1 is a false
report. On perusal of Ex PW49/F1 it reveals that
accused Faiz Mohd has categorically stated in
paragraph IX of the report that the Society is not
functioning since long, it is a fact. The society was
failed to get its list of members approved, it is also
a fact. The society was failed to get its account
audited since 14.02.1972. The society was failed
to get its election of Managing Committee
members timely and the society was failed to
achieve its aim. These are the facts which
prosecution itself pursuing as correct. The report
qua these facts being filed by accused Faiz Mohd
may be considered as correct. The fact whether the
documents being shown to him were genuine or
forged. And accused was empower to give any
observation on these facts are also to be
considered. Certaining he was not having any
power to declare th document as false or genuine.
Because, these facts have to be considered by
other official and has latter been considered by
accused Ramesh Chandra ( proceedings stand
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 254 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
abated). On these facts no criminality can be
fastened against accused Faiz Mohd. Because
there is no allegation that he has obtained
monetary benefit from any of the accused persons.
There is no allegations that he has forged any
document or permitted any person to forged
signatures in his presence.
543. So in view of the above discussion, the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt against accused Faiz Mohd.
Finding qua accused Narayan Diwakar.
544. The allegations against accused Narayan Diwakar
are that while he was working as Registrar of
Co-operative Societies revived and approved the
freeze list of 165 members of the said society on
the basis of false and forged document.
545. Ld Counsel for Narayan Diwakar has vehemently
argued that, firstly there is no sanction U/S 197 Cr
P.C against accused Narayan Diwakar and
consequent upon that the accused cannot be
prosecuted for the offence Under section 120 B
r/w 420/468/471 IPC. And this issue can be raised
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 255 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
at any stage.
546. On the other hand, it is argued by the Ld Senior
PP for CBI that since the act done by accused
Narayan Diwakar 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 Narayan
Diwakar U/S 197 of Cr.P.C.
547. After considering the arguments of Ld Counsel for
Narayan Diwakar and Ld Senior PP for CBI. As
accused Narayan Diwakar 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 is not res integra in dispute that issue
of sanction can be raised atd any stage it goes in
the root of prosecution of a public servant. It has
to be considered whether sanction U/S 197 Cr. P.C
is required or not for prosecuting accused.
548. On perusal, it is admitted position of the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 256 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
prosecution that there is no sanction being
obtained U/S 197 of Cr.P.C to prosecute accused
Narayan Diwakar and same is also not there on
record.
549. 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.
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 LokayuktasCBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 257 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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 in
force in a State, clause (b) will apply as
if for the expression “State
Government” occurring therein, the
expression “Central Government” were
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 258 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 259 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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 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
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 260 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 261 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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.”
550. 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
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 262 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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.
551. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Rakesh
Bhatnagar Vs 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
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 263 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 264 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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.”
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,
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 265 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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,CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 266 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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, if
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
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 267 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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.”
552. On perusal of above referred judgments of
Hon’ble Superior Courts, it is clear that to commit
an offence punishable under law can never be a
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 268 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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.
553. Here in the present case, the allegations against
accused Narayan Diwakar are that he had revived
the said society on the basis of forged documents
and was part of conspiracy. 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.
554. Admittedly accused Narayan Diwakar was an
I.A.S and his appointing authority was either
Central Government or State Government,
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 269 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
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.
555. So far as the allegations of conspiracy against
accused Narayan Diwakar 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. There is
no evidence on record that he had demanded any
money from any person for revival of the society.
556. Even otherwise, the winding up of the society can
be considered by the Registrar of the Societies in
pursuance of power U/S 63 (3) of DCS Act 1972.
Sub clause 3 of Section 63 read as under:
” (3) The Registrar may cancel an order
for the winding up of a co-operative
society, at any time, in any case where,
in his opinion, the society should continue
to exist”.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 270 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
557. On perusal of this provision the Registrar has
power to cancel the winding up order of Co-
operative society, if in his opinion the society
should continue to exit. PW50 has deposed that
section 63 of DCS Act 1972 is the only provision
dealing with the revival of the society. The word
” in his opinion” has relevance here. It has not
been argued what material he had to peruse to
make his opinion for revival of the said society.
To my mind he can make his opinion on the basis
of documents produced before him and proceeding
conducted by him while set aside the winding up
order.
558. Here in the present case, he has revived the
society vide order dated 27.11.2003 Ex
PW49/E-5. The document Ex PW49/E-5 speaks
in itself what fact were considered by him while
passing revival order. The RCS Rules have not
prescribed that he cannot passed such revival
order and it has also not been brought before this
Court that he cannot pass such order while relying
upon the documents and material produced before
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 271 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
him, as discussed in the revival order Ex
PW49/E-5. The said order was not set aside or
challenged till date. None of the member, either
promoter or otherwise, had challenged the revival
order. The evidence brought on record is not
sufficient to hold him guilt of conspiracy and
misuse of official position as a public servant
punishable Under P.C Act. So the prosecution has
failed to prove charges against accused Narayan
Diwakar for offences charged with.
Finding qua accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj.
559. The role of the accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj
allegedly starts from noting Ex PW49/E-1. That
noting has been proved by PW 49 Anjum Masood,
who has deposed that said noting has been
attributed to accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj. On
perusal of the noting, it reveals that Sh Vishwa
Nath, Secretary of the Delhi Water Supply &
Sewage Disposal Undertaking Section Officers
CGHS has moved an application for revival of the
society. The noting find mention the contents of
the letter being filed by Sh Vishwa Nath. After
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 272 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
mentioning the contents of the application of
Vishwa Nath, accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj
has written in the noting the facts regarding the
liquidation of the society. The second last
paragraph of noting find mentioned that Managing
Committee of the society is still managing the
affairs of the society as per the provisions of DCS
Act and made the noting that if it is agreed, Shri
Faiz Mohamad Grade-II Inspector may appoint as
an inspecting officer U/S 54 of DCS Act. This
noting is made by accused Vinod Kumar
Bhardwaj on the basis of record being produced
by Vishwa Nath. The noting was approved by
Assistant Registrar.
560. On perusal of this noting Ex PW49/E-1 it reveals
that the noting has been made by accused Vinod
Kumar Bhardwaj on the basis of request being
made by Vishwa Nath. Thereafrer Assistant
Registrar Ramesh Chandra has made a noting for
appointment of Inspecting officer which has been
approved by R.C.S Delhi on 16.10.2003.
Thereafter Faiz Mohd, Inspector has filed the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 273 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
report which has been approved by AR (East).
Thereafter, accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj made
a noting Ex PW49/E-3 and reproduced the report
of the inspecting officer and also reported that the
report of the inspection officer, for consideration,
if approved, the file may be sent to worth
Registrar Co-operative Societies for taking
necessary action in the matter. The same has been
approved by Assistant Registrar. Accused Vinod
Kumar Bhardwaj has reported in Ex PW49/E that
in compliance with the direction of worth RCS,
the Secretary of the society has produced /submit
the original records and document pertaining to
the membership, Audit and election etc. for
verification and the same was counter checked,
verified and found in order.
561. The accused has reported all these reporting in the
official capacity as official at bottom level. On
perusal of these notings, it reveals that he has
reported on the basis of the record being
documents produced by Vishwa Nath and report
of Inspecting officer. He has categorically
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 274 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
mentioned these facts in the report. Accused
Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj has also made clear in the
noting Ex Pw49/E-4 regarding the facts of change
of address of the society. He has noted that
Secretary of the society has submitted vide its
letter dated 18.06.1975 and 21.10.1990 that
address of the society was changed and letter in
this regard was sent to Sh P.C. Jain, Assistant
Registrar ( H) vide letter dated 18.06.77. The
accused has nowhere reported that RCS file
found mentioned about the letter dated
18.06.1977. The verification is based upon the
document which were produced by the Secretary
of the said society and not from RCS file file. The
facts reveal that he could not have occasion to
verify these from the RCS record Ex PW49/E,
which is only maintained till 26.12.1978. His
malafide can be attributed if he has reported in the
report Ex PW49/E-4 that proceedings qua letter
dated 18.06.1977 being sent to H.C Joshi is also
found mentioned in the record of RCS. On perusal
of Ex PW49/E-4, it reveals that the noting ( by
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 275 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
accused) has been made on the basis of record
being produced by the Secretary of the said
society.
562. Even otherwise for prosecution of accused Vinod
Kumar Bhardwaj, the sanction U/s 19 of P.C Act
is required to be proved on record being accorded
by applying mind by the sanctioning authority.
563. Ld Counsel for Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj 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 to be proved on record but the same was not
a valid sanction as being accorded without
application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
564. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has
argued that the prosecution has successfully
proved the sanction order against the accused
Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj by leading cogent
evidence.
565. In order to prove sanction for prosecution against
Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj the prosecution has
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 276 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
examined PW 71 Sh Neeraj Kumar. He has
deposed that CBI had approached for grant of
sanction against accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj
and after going through all the material, he
accorded sanction vide Ex PW71/A for
prosecution of Vinod Kumar Bharwaj.
566. However, the cross examination of PW 71, is to be
considered whether the sanction has been
accorded by the sanctioning authority on perusal
of material before it after applying his mind or not.
The relevant portion of his cross examination is as
follows:
” However, it is correct that I have not
specifically mentioned the specific
sections or rules of the said Act and
Rules. The sanction was granted on the
basis of request received from CBI and
the documents received from them. I do
not recall whether I had received a draft
order with the request. Vol. The
sanction order Ex. PW71/A was
prepared, to the best of my memory, in
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 277 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
my office. It is incorrect to suggest that I
had signed the draft order without
application of mind and without seeing
the documents that I had received along
with the request. I do not remember
today the details of the documents that I
had received. I do not recall whether I
had seen the notings made by A7 Vinod
Kumar Bhardwaj at the time of
considering the grant of sanction due to
lapse of 15 years. At this stage, the
witness has been shown D-7 i.e. the
notings file. After seeing the same also
witness deposed that I do not recall
whether I had seen the same at the time
of considering the grant of sanction. I
cannot say whether this file was not put
before me as I do not recall, as stated by
me due to lapse of so many years. It is
correct that I have not specified in great
detail the documents that I had perused
though I have stated which documents ICBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 278 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
had seen.”
567. On perusal, the witness is unable to disclose
clearly the material which he has perused before
granting sanction for prosecution against accused
Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj. Even on showing of
alleged noting attributed to accused he could not
recollected that he had seen those notings. It
suggests that he had not perused the evidence
before according sanction for prosecution against
accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj. So the
testimony of PW 71 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 PW71 the prosecution has failed to prove the
sanction order against accused Vinod Kumar
Bhardewaj being accorded by applying its mind
by the sanctioning authority.
568. Moreover, there is no evidence at all on record
that he has deceive any person to part with any
property for his monetary gain. There is no
evidence on record whether he has made any
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 279 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
forgery in any of the document or permitted any
person to do forgery in any document in his
presence. There is no evidence on record at all
that any point of time he was in-connivance with
the co-accused except making of note on the file.
569. So in view of the above discussion, the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt against accused Vinod Kumar
Bhardwaj.
Finding qua accused P.K. Thirwani
570. Ld Sr PP for CBI has submitted that accused P.K.
Thirwani has not visited the office of the society
at B-1299, Diary Farms, Delhi and filed a false
report as society was not functioning at that
address. He had conducted the audit for the year
1971-1972 to 2002-2003, at one time. It is further
submitted that accused P.K. Thirwani has also
signed on brief summary of the document D-3 on
questioned signatures No. 1145, 1146 and 1147
( Ex PW1/PX) and accordingly made forgery in
the record. The forgery has been proved by
GEQD.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 280 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
571. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for accused has
argued that accused has been falsely implicated in
the present case there. There is no evidence
against accused P.K. Thirwani which proves his
guilt and culpability in commission of offence
against accused P.K. Thirwani or any conspiracy
in committing the offence.
572. Considered the submission being made by Ld
Counsel for the accused and Ld. Senior PP for
CBI. Rule 84 clause 5 of The Delhi Co-operative
Societies Rule, 1973 prescribes ” Unless the
Registrar directs otherwise, the audit of a co-
operative society shall be conducted in the
registered office of the society.” So as per
provision he has to visit the office of the society
for conducting audit. The fact whether he has
visited the office of the society or not. The
prosecution is relying upon testimony of PW 38.
573. PW 38 Anil Kumar Gupta has deposed that
accused P.K. Thiwani has not visited B-1299,
Garoli Diary Farms, Delhi to conduct the audit of
the society. But I have already discussed about
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 281 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
the varsity of the testimony while giving finding
qua accused Faiz Mohd. His testimony is not
helpful to the prosecution being not free from
doubt being he was residing in the year 2003 at the
property bearing No. B-1299, Diary Farms, Delhi
Another witness relied upon by prosecution is PW
39 Sh Jagat Singh has turned hostile. His
testimony is not helpful to the prosecution.
574. Even otherwise, if accused P.K. Thirwani has not
visited the office of the society and filed report
ExPW1/PX being prepared by him, which he has
stated that he has prepared the report on the basis
of documents and record provided by the society.
Can it be considered that he was involved in the
conspiracy with the co-accused persons. Ld
Counsel for CBI has not brought in the notice of
the Court any rule which suggest that non visiting
at the office of the society will nullified the audit
report. Section 84 (7) of Delhi Co-operative
Societies Rules,1973 provides the office bearers
shall provide all assistance to the Auditor while
auditing the accounts of the society. The purpose
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 282 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
of visiting the office of the society for conducting
audit by the Auditor may be that all the record will
be available with the Auditor which he require for
the audit of the society. Admittedly, the society
was revived on 02.12.2003 and Audit report was
filed on 09.12.2003. It has no consequence on the
revival of the society as it was already revived.
Revival of the society has not been challenged till
date.
575. Ld Sr. PP for CBI has unable to brought to the
notice of this Court whether accused P.K.
Thirwani has obtained any monetary gain from the
revival of the society. There is no evidence at all
on record that he was in touch with any other
accused person prior to conducting of audit of the
society. Even otherwise prosecution has unable to
brought on record any evidence which suggest that
the report was incorrect except the forgery being
made by the persons who have provided the record
to the RCS . There is no evidence on record that
the office bearers have signed in presence of
accused P.K. Thirwani on the audit report or
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 283 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
accused P.K.Thirwani has permitted them to put
their signatures in his presence. So evidence on
record is not sufficient to hold him indulged in
conspiracy.
576. So far as relying upon the GEQD report Ex
PW59/B is concerned. The GEQD has opined that
question signatures No. 1145, 1146 and 1147 are
being put by accused P.K. Thiwarni on Ex
PW1/PX at D-3 is concerned. The Specimen
signatures S-2784 to S-2850 (D-31) ExPW52/A-5
(colly), of accused P.K Thirwani were obtained
in the office of CBI in the presence of PW 52
Vishwamitra Baghi. His testimony qua obtaining
signatures of accused P.K. Thirwani is not free
from doubt. I have discussed the manner in which
he has attested the obtaining of specimen
signatures/handwriting of accused P.K. Thirwani
while discussing the his evidence and giving
finding in the preceding paras ( Finding qua
accused Vishwanath Agarwal) . So the opinion of
GEQD cannot be relied upon safely. So the
evidence adduced by the prosecution against
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 284 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
accused P.K. Thirwani is not sufficient to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offence
charged with.
577. Moreover, Section 19 of the P.C Act, 1988
prescribes that no court shall take cognizance of
an offence punishable under Prevention of
Corruption Act without proper sanction for
prosecution. 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 accused for
the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act
also not triable.
578. Ld Counsel for P.K. Thirwani has vehemently
argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the
proper sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act 1988 being
accorded by application of mind by the
sanctioning authority.
579. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has
argued that the prosecution has successfully
proved the sanction order against the P.K.
Thirwani by leading cogent evidence and
sanctioning authority has given sanction by
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 285 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
applying his mind.
580. In order to prove sanction for prosecution against
P.K. Thirwani the prosecution has examined PW
17 Sh Ramesh Narayanaswami. He has deposed
that on receipt of a report from CBI and after
perusing the report and appended calender of
evidence both documentary as well as oral he form
a view to sanction prosecution of accused under
P.C Act. He accorded sanction vide Ex PW17/A
for prosecution of accused P.K. Thirwani.
581. To judge whether sanction is accorded by
applying proper mind or not. The cross
examination of PW 17, is to 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:
” I do not recall what documents
pertaining to audit that may have been
perused. I do not recall if I had seen the
audit report prepared by P.K. Thirwani
placed in file D-3 already exhibited as
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 286 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Ext.PW1/PX before according the
sanction. I do not recall if I had seen the
FIR of this case, case diaries or the
entire file (D-6) before according the
sanction. I had not recommended any
departmental action against P.K.
Thirwani on the basis of the documents
seen by me while according the
sanction.”……. “I saw my task in
considering sanction as one of
ascertaining first of all whether a prima
facie case was made out and secondly,
in satisfying myself that the accused
were not victims of vexatious
complaints. I recall, at this stage, seeing
a CBI report and the calender of
evidence-both oral and
documentary…… It is correct that the
said letter of CBI and document which
were seen by me are not available on
judicial record.
582. It is primary duty of the prosecution to prove the
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 287 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
fact that entire incriminating evidence/material
was sent to the sanctioning authority so that
sanctioning authority may make its mind whether
sanction has to be accorded or not.
583. 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. The witness in his cross
examination has categorically admitted that he is
not recalled whether he has seen the material
/evidence before according sanction. Even he has
deposed that the material perused by him was
calander of oral and documentary evidence. I
deem it is not a complete evidence being sent to
the sanctioning authority by the investigating
agency. The testimony of PW 17 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 PW17 the prosecution has
failed to prove the sanction order against accused
P.K. Thirwani being accorded by applying its
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 288 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
mind by the sanctioning authority. Because
complete evidence was not with the sanctioning
authority. So the prosecution has failed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused
P.K. Thirwani.
Finding qua accused Mohan Lal
584. Ld Counsel for accused Mohan Lal has argued
that there is no specific order being passed against
accused Mohan Lal while passing order on charge.
It is submitted that the charge is defective against
accused Mohan Lal.
585. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has
submitted that Ld Predecessor of this Court has
passed specific order on charge qua accused
Mohan Lal while observing and considering the
GEQD report. It is submitted by Ld Senior PP for
CBI that accused Mohan Lal has written on the
back side of 165 affidavit of the members of the
said society which was submitted at the time of
revival of the said society. It is submitted that the
charge against accused Mohan Lal is of
conspiracy.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 289 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
586. Having been considered the submission, on
perusal of order on charge and allegations of the
charge sheet. The allegations against accused
Mohan Lal are that he in conspiracy with other co-
accused person has written on the back side of the
affidavits ExPW59/D-18 ( Colly) which are 165 in
number.
587. So in the backdrop of allegation against accused
Mohan Lal. Let us examine whether prosecution
has able to prove the charge against him. The
prosecution has not examined any witness in
whose presence accused Mohan Lal has written on
the back side of affidavits ExPW59/D-18 ( Colly)
which are 165 in number. The prosecution has
solely relied upon the testimony of PW 59,
handwriting expert. It is worth to mention here
that opinion of the handwriting expert, being given
on the handwriting of any particular person is not
a substantial piece of evidence, it is only
corroborative in nature. The reason for this is that
the science of handwriting is not a full proven
science.
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 290 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
588. While considering the evidence of handwriting
expert precaution are required to be taken by the
Court if Court wants to relied upon the report of
handwriting expert, on corroboration. As I have
discussed in previous paragraphs the obtaining of
specimen signatures or handwriting of an accused
must be free from all encumbrances. If obtaining
of specimen signatures/ handwriting of a
person( accused) is suspicious it is not advisable
to rely upon the report of handwriting expert.
589. Here in the present case, the specimen
signatures/handwriting of accused Mohan Lal
contained in S-1998 to S-2739 (D-28)
ExPW52/A-2. These specimen handwriting were
obtained by the IO in the presence of PW 52
Vishwamitra Bhagi. PW 52 in his examination-in-
chief has deposed that specimen
signatures/handwriting of accused Mohan Lal are
from S-1998 to S-2739 (D-28) ExPW52/A-2
( colly) and same were obtained in his presence.
But his cross examination is much important
which has to be considered. He has deposed in his
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 291 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
cross examination that he was attesting witness of
specimen signatures /handwriting in many CBI
cases. He do not know the name of such cases and
such societies. He has further deposed that he was
an employee of RCS, Delhi but was deputed as
coordinator with CBI for societies scam cases, for
about two years. He has further deposed in his
cross examination that he cannot identified the
persons whose specimen handwriting he has
attested. He further deposed that he cannot
identified the person whose specimen handwriting
he has attested in the present case, as attesting
witness. He has further deposed that since there
were bundle of documents which he has to sign as
attesting witness hence he avoid to write date
beneath his signatures.
590. On perusal of statement of this witness the first
fact is proved that he had not identified the
accused Mohan Lal whether he (accused) was the
same person whose specimen handwriting were
obtained in his presence. The fact cannot be ruled
out that he remained under the influence of CBI
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 292 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
officials as he has worked with them for about two
years. His deposition that he does not used to write
date beneath his signatures also creates doubt. And
it may be possible that his signatures may be
taken on the specimen signatures/handwriting
sheets on different dates. The I.O in the present
case has not been examined. The exhibiting the
documents, which are executed by the IO, by
examining PW 69 Inspector Shyam Lal, does not
prove the factual facts qua obtaining specimen
handwriting of accused Mohan Lal. So solely
relying upon the expert opinion qua handwriting
on the back side of document Ex PW59/18
( colly), it is not proved that accused Mohan Lal
has written. Particularly the glaring fact is that the
I.O has not examined Kulwant Kaur ie a stamp
vendor, who has sold stamp paper Ex PW69/18
( colly) 165 in number. This witness could have
disclose the fact who had purchased the stamp
papers and could have identify that person.
Obtaining of specimen signatures of accused
Mohan Lal in the presence of PW 52 is not beyond
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 293 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
doubt.
591. So in view of the above discussion, the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt against accused Mohan Lal.
CONCLUSION:
592. Since the evidence as brought on record is not
sufficient beyond reasonable doubt to hold
accused persons namely Vishwanath Agarwal,
Balam Singh Aswal, Faiz Mohd, Narayan
Diwakar, Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, P.K. Thirwani,
and Mohan Lal as guilty of offences charge with.
The prosecution has also failed to prove on record
the sanction against accused P.K. Thirwani, Balam
Singh Aswal and Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj. To
prosecute these three accused persons the sanction
is foundation stone. So in view of the above
discussion, accused persons namely Vishwanath
Agarwal, Balam Singh Aswal, Faiz Mohd,
Narayan Diwakar, Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, P.K.
Thirwani, and Mohan Lal are acquitted. Bail
bonds of accused Vishwanath Agarwal, Balam
Singh Aswal, Faiz Mohd, Narayan Diwakar,
CBI Vs. Vishwanath Agarwal & Ors.
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 294 of 295
CBI No. 243/19
Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, P.K. Thirwani, and
Mohan Lal stand cancelled and their sureties also
stands discharged.
593. Let digitally signed copy of the judgment be
uploaded on the Court’s official website,
accordingly.
594. File be consigned to Record Room after due
Digitally signed
by JAGDISH
JAGDISH KUMAR
compliance. KUMAR Date:
2025.06.03
15:29:56 +0530(Jagdish Kumar )
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) 16
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New DelhiAnnounced in the Open Court
today : 03.06.2025
( Shri Narayana CGHS) (Page 295 of 295
CBI No. 243/19